By What Right?

Wednesday, January 23, AD 2013

The ongoing health care debate, specifically the mandate by Health and Human Services that Catholic employers provide insurance coverage that includes artificial contraception, has spurned a renewed discussion of basic human rights.  On the one hand, the Catholic Church claims that the fundamental right to religious freedom is being violated by the current administrative order.  On the other hand, the government claims that people have the right to basic affordable health care, and that an employer who refuses to provide services that fit the definition is in violation of this right.  The Church then rejects the idea that contraception is part of “basic human health care.”  The administration disagrees.  And the conversation hits a stale mate.  The whole debacle fails precisely insofar as it ignores the discussion of rights in general.  The discussion, rather than being stranded in a limbo of competing “rights,” should begin by revisiting the very question of rights themselves.  What is needed is a complete rethinking of this question, and in some way, a return to a past that was not marred by the modern rights language that has led to this whole debate.

Perhaps the most adamant proponent of the position that rights have no real place in medieval or ancient philosophy is the French jurist Michel Villey.  While Brian Tierney1 has called his work “idiosyncratic,” there is no doubt that Villey has made great contributions to our understanding of legal history.

“The modern idea of subjective rights, Villey asserts, is rooted in the nominalist philosophy of the fourteenth century, and it first saw the light of day in the work of William of Ockham.  Ockham inaugurated a ‘semantic revolution’ when he transformed the traditional idea of objective natural right into a new theory of subjective natural rights.  His work marked a ‘Copernican moment’ in the history of the science of law” (Tierney, page 14).

Villey begins his presentation by examining the Latin word ius, which roughly translated can mean “right.”  However, in the classical world, ius was never a power possessed by an individual, as in the right to own personal property.  Rather, to the classical mind, ius was a thing, a legal thing in fact.  It was the proper end to the virtue of justice.  It was that reality towards which a jurist strives.  Villey’s somewhat well-known example comes from the writings of Gaius.  The ancient legal writer speaks of a ius altius tollendi, or “the right of building higher.”  This is in reference to the right of raising a house and blocking the lights of a neighbor’s house.  At first glance, it seems that Gaius is in “Locke” step with the modern understanding: a man has the right to add to his house if he so desires.  This might be true but for the subsequent ius non extollendi.  What could it mean to have a right not to build a house higher lest a neighbor’s house be blocked?  Rather than seeing a right as something inhering in a subject (in this case a homeowner), Gaius is simply pointing out the obvious: in some cases what is fair and just (“objectively right”) is for a homeowner to add a story to his house, while in other cases what is fair and just is the opposite.  It is the role of the judge to exercise the virtue of justice in specific cases.  The object of his decision is ius, “the right.”

Ius, as the root of the word justice, is first that which is rendered as the object of justice, or the just due given to an individual, rather than a power enjoyed by a particular subject.  This is why Ulpian, when speaking of suum ius cuique tribuere (“to render each his right”), gives the example a parricide who had the “right” to be sewn up in a sack of vipers and thrown into the Tiber.  This is hardly the kind of right envisioned by modern human rights commissions.  As Ralph McInery2 puts it, “It is difficult to imagine a Human Rights Commission coming to Lizzie Borden’s aid to insure that she be given her rightful sackful of snakes and a dip in the river.”

Aristotle understands the term ius (dikaion in Greek) in two ways.  The first is as the object of a virtue, an act proper to the human person.  The other is as an “objectively right state of affairs” (Tierney, page 22).  Neither of these are equivalent to the modern concept of inalienable rights possessed by an individual subject.  Much of this stems form the fact that Aristotle sees the universe as ordered towards a particular harmony.  It is the virtue of justice that brings about this harmony.  Human society, too, is intended to be ordered towards this harmony, and it is the moral virtue of justicethat allows humanity to accomplish this.  For Aristotle, then, and we will see the same thing in Aquinas, ius is defined primarily as a thing in terms of relationship rather than a personal power held by an individual.

“The just, what’s fair, the dikaion or iustum is a thing, a relation or proportion, out there, to be objectively determined by the judge so that the contentions of the parties to a suit are adjusted” (McInery).

It should be noted here, as pointed out by Tierney, that Villey criticized many of the early Christian Church Fathers, who he saw as distorting the classical sense of ius into something of a divine command, effectively equivocating it with lex (law).  In Villey’s opinion, it was Aquinas who rescued the concept.  “[Villey] thought that one of the great achievements of the Dominican master was to restore for a time the objective, classical meaning of ius, a meaning that would be lost again by Ockham and the nominalists” (Tierney, page 23).

Villey is not alone in his critique of subjective rights.  Alasdair MacIntyre3 too has expressed reservations about their existence.  MacIntyre’s argument is different though.  He claims that the existence of a right apart from human relationships conceives of a human person existing prior to such relationships.  But for MacIntyre, such an individual does not exist.  All human persons exist within a particular social narrative.  In other words, the human person does not exist apart from social relationships.  Even in traditional natural law theory, we are talking about man in relationship, specifically in relationship to God.  This is why the virtue of justice (what is “right”) is a virtue of relationship, not a particular power possessed by an individual.

“Lacking any such social form, the making of claim to a right would be like presenting a check for payment in a social order that lacked the institution of money” (MacIntyre, 65).

Aquinas continues the work of Aristotle, though as expected, he frames everything within a Christian perspective. Like Aristotle, ius is a thing for Aquinas, not a power possessed by an individual subject.  Aquinas sees it as either quod iustum est (what is just) or ipsam rem iustam (the just thing itself).  Even in his derivative meanings of ius we find nothing of a subjective definition.

While there is always the danger of pulling a particular question from Aquinas out of context from the holistic structure of the Summa, we feel fairly safe in examining Question 57 from the Secunda Secundae as representative of Aquinas’ presentation on ius.

The first article addresses whether or not “right” is the object of justice.  From the start it is clear that Aquinas’ answer is the affirmative.  In one of his replies, he outlines the three uses of the term.  “The word ius was first of all used to denote the just thing itself, but afterwards it was transferred to designate the art whereby it is known what it just, and further to denote the place where justice is administered [a court of law].”

As a side note, the last definition provides some insight into how Thomas might envision a “court of law.”  In continuity with his ancient forerunners, it seems to me that the place where justice is administered and the manner in which it is administered would look very different from the modern court (at least at the highest levels) of law focussed around rights and their violations.  “The task of the jurist is to establish just relationships among persons and between persons and property – not to affirm absolute rights, but to determine what is objectively right” (Tierney, page 21).

Nowhere is a “right” presented as something possessed by an individual subject.  In fact, while ius is framed in terms of relationship (justice, after all is a virtue of relationship), his presentation focuses more on the moral agent and how to act rather than a claim made by the agent.  In other words, Aquinas’ conception of right looks more like an imperative placed on the moral agent, i.e., “it is right to not take the property of another,” rather than some sort of entitlement claimed by a subject, i.e.,  “I have the right to possess personal property.”  As with anything framed in terms of virtue, the presentation propels man towards good action rather than allowing him to rest on the laurels of some preexisting entitlement.  This is all to say, ius is known primarily as belonging to a relationship among parties and as the object of an obligation imposed by natural law.  From the perspective of the moral agent, it is not something I claim for myself.  It is instead something that directs my actions toward the virtue of justice.  Further, as a virtue, ius must be learned and developed in habit. In this way ius is not self-evident as is claimed by post-enlightenment “self-evident truths.”

While Aquinas doesn’t draw out this distinction, which serves to indicate that the modern sense of the term right is unknown to him, his examples throughout the question make his position clear.  For instance, a husband’s ability to beget children to his wife is an example of what is naturally “right.”

For Villey, however, it is not enough to point out the lack of connection between the modern theory of rights and ancient/medieval philosophy.  He also argues against the very existence of rights in the modern sense.  Villey describes three fundamental problems with the modern formulation.  It is Utopian, arbitrary, and sterile.  We turn to Tierney once again:

“It is Utopian because the supposed absolute rights are fictions; they usually do not exist in actual law or in real life.  Rights theories are arbitrary because the rights claimed are ultimately based on subjective whim; they lead on to a debased understanding of justice as ‘nothing but a label you attach to your own subjective preferences.’  And modern rights theories are sterile because they cannot form the basis of a coherent jurisprudence.  The rights that people assert conflict with one another” (Tierney, page 21).

We begin with the notion that modern rights are Utopian.  In this claim, Villey questions the very existence of rights seen as a subjective powers held by individuals.  Consider as a first example the claim of a right to religious freedom.  Worship, as understood by Aquinas, is a virtue of justice.  It is rendering unto God what it due to God.  Thus, worshiping God as God wants to be worshiped is the “right” thing to do.  But man emphatically does not have the “right” to worship how he sees fit anymore than man has the “right” to worship a God other than the one true God.  In other words, as with any moral situation, man does not have the “right” to act wrongly, to act contrary to objective truth.  Freedom of religion, posited as an inalienable right, implies that man, according to his nature, has the either the right to worship God, or not to worship God, or to worship a god that is something other than the one, true God.  The problem is that only the first of the three is an exercise of justice.  Since ius (right) is the object of justice, only the first of the three is, classically understood, “right.”  Lest I be misunderstood, we might agree that the best way to organize society is to prevent government intrusion into religious decisions.  We might agree that the more prudent course of action is to separate the exercise of religion from the State.  We might even agree that the best course of action is to allow man to discover and adhere to the truth of being unimpeded by human authority.  Thus, we could support a legal right to religious freedom.  We could even agree that prudence dictates a teaching motivation by proposition rather than imposition.  It is something altogether different to claim an inalienable right to religious freedom, which somehow suggests that man is entitled to believe whatever he wills, even if those beliefs are models of untruth.  In fact, seen in light of Aquinas and the ancients, man does not have the “right” to worship how he sees fit.  He only has the right to worship as God sees fit.  Anything less is a violation of the virtue of justice.

Even that most fundamental right championed by our Constitution’s Preamble, the right to life, is worth examining.  Does man have an inalienable right to life?  If so, is God in violation of this right when he takes a man’s life?  Seen through the lens of virtue, we can emphatically claim that it is a grave violation of justice for one man to take an innocent human being’s life.  Yet from the perspective of the divine, God has given us our life gratis, and when he decides that our time on earth is done, it is well within the bounds of justice for him to end that life.  In fact, given that the wages of sin are death, the entire Paschal mystery is an act of mercy and grace that transcends the virtue of justice.

Second, Villey claims that the modern presentation of rights is arbitrary.  It will inevitably lead to moral relativism, and the right to religious freedom is case in point.  If man has an inalienable right to religious freedom, then by what measure do we evaluate religious truth?  If the right is inalienable, then the exercise of the right to pursue something objectively true is indistinguishable from the exercise of the right to pursue something objectively false.  Further, there is no mechanism by which we can decide whether or not a particular claim actually is a right.  Some authors, McInery included, have tried to ground the concept of rights in the natural law tradition.  Granted, if we are to adopt a rights-language, then it must be grounded in the nature of the human person.  However, the nature of the human person includes being a creature, which brings us back to the first point: as creature, we do not possess any power by way of entitlement, but rather by an act of grace.

Third, Villey notes that modern rights are essentially sterile, that they cannot form the basis of a coherent jurisprudence.  When rights are seen as objective, inviolable powers possessed by individual subjects will inevitably lead to competing rights.  This makes sense if “I have the right to x” is indistinguishable from “I desire x.”  What I want will inevitably come into conflict with what someone else wants.  The most recent example of this is the one with which I opened: the conflict between the right to religious freedom and the right to affordable health care.  Yet we could brainstorm countless hypotheticals in which two rights come into conflict.  In the perennial paradox of the father who steals bread to feed his family, the right to own personal property conflicts with the right to life.  The right to bear arms conflicts with the right to a safe environment.  In the classic case of the crowded theater, the right to free speech conflicts with the right to safety.  Even the most fundamental rights can come into question.  The abortion debate is essentially a debate about the right to life conflicting with the rights that women have over their own bodies.  In fact, there are even cases where a right can come into conflict with itself.  Take for instance the right of a parent to educate their kids in the way that they see fit.  If Parent A’s ideal educational environment is in the home, but Parent B’s ideal environment includes being in a classroom with all the neighborhood kids, including Parent A’s kids, we have a conflict.  There are only two ways to resolve these conflicts.  The first is to prioritize the rights, which is essentially what most modern systems of jurisprudence do.  Yet this contradicts the very definition of rights as inalienable.  The second is to question whether one or both of the claimed rights are in fact rights in the first place, but then we have come full circle to the first issue. Rights discussion will necessarily come to an abrupt halt when such conflict arises, and the conversation is rendered sterile.

We should pause here to recognize that the Church has, in modern times, adopted the language of rights in some of its teachings.  “As a devout Catholic, Villey could not have missed the way in which such documents of Vatican II as Gaudium et Spes and so many other magisterial documents employ without hesitancy the language of human rights” (McInery).  While I would never want to presume to question the prudence of the Church in her official statements, I will simply point out two things.  First, the manner in which the Church uses the term “right” is founded on the Thomistic notion of natural law.  Utterly absent from its discussion are any hints of moral relativism.  Second, the infallible truths of our faith in no way rely on the language of natural rights, and can all be framed in terms of natural law.  In other words, rights language is in no way necessary for the Church.  Quite the contrary: she functioned perfectly well for 1500 years with it.  This would be the fourth adjective that I would add to Villey’s critique of modern rights language.  It is quite unnecessary for a functioning system of jurisprudence.  History has produced thousands of years of political organization without the need of subjective rights.  It is helpful to repeat that the modern notion of rights was utterly absent from political philosophy until Ockham’s innovations.

In fact, the Church herself, while recently more sympathetic to the notion of rights language, has also issued extreme caution.  Pope Pius VI called attention to this very problem when decrying the madness of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man.  He said, “This absolute freedom is established as a right of man in society.  It not only guarantees him the right to no be disturbed because of his religious opinions, but it also gives him license to think, speak, write, and even print with impunity everything which the most unbridled imagination can suggest about religion.  It is a monstrous right which seems nonetheless to the Assembly to result from the innate quality and freedom of all men … a chimerical right … contrary to the right of the supreme Creator.”

Without rights, then, what does the moral conversation look like?  That is, if we don’t cling to something like religious freedom, how shall we frame our response to the HHS mandate?  More specifically, if we dispense with the language of natural inalienable rights, will the conversation deteriorate into relativism?  Not only is the answer emphatically negative, but what’s more, it is the undefined and ambiguous language of subjective rights that has us in this mess of relativism to begin with.  The language itself has no defense against relativism.  If one person claims a right, another person will claim a different right, and the process will inevitably spin out of control.

However, it seems to me that Aquinas and his forerunners have given us a viable framework: natural law.  To be clear, natural law is something distinct from natural rights.  Aquinas actually begins with the concept of eternal law (lex aeternae).  This law is of God’s making and is coeternal with His own nature.  It is promulgated from time immemorial by the act of creation by which creatures are endowed with a spontaneous inclination to move towards their own perfection and the cohesive perfection of the universe.  For humans, who can either accept or reject this law, the eternal law is received from within.  When humans act in a manner consistent with God’s eternal law, they are not inventing laws of their own, but rather discovering this law and appropriating it for themselves.  This, for Thomas, is the natural law (lex naturalis).  It is our participation in the divine law held in the mind of God.

Of course, for Aquinas natural law is much broader than ius.  Natural law commands the practice of all the virtues, whereas ius concerns only the virtue of justice.  It begins with a couple self-evident principles.  First, anything good must be pursued and anything evil must be avoided.  From this first and most basic principle we derive others such as, “bodily health, knowledge, and friendship are good to be pursued, and their opposites are evils to be avoided.”

In addition to the natural law, we have positive human laws to help in the organization of society.  However, any human law must be in conformity with the natural law.  If it is held to be in violation of it, that law must be struck down or otherwise disobeyed as an unjust law.  If it is not in violation of it, then the virtue of prudence serves as the mechanism for determining whether or not a particular law advances the organization of society and its purpose: to maximize the possibility of all men being able to advance in virtue.  This distinction, by the way, is precisely the distinction made by the Catholic Church on the “non-negotiable” issues (abortion, marriage, etc.) and matters of prudential judgement (how best to reduce poverty, etc.)  The former collection contains violations of the natural law.

The HHS conversation must begin here.  To what degree does the regulation implement or negate the natural law?  It is not my intent to answer this question in this article, but instead to properly frame it as we go forward.

The point of this article, rather, is to reframe these questions in terms that are more familiar to our philosophical patrimony.  To the degree that we claim for ourselves inalienable rights, we become a people of entitlement.  Instead, we are called to recognize that everything we have, everything we are, we receive by the grace of God.  We don’t deserve any of it.  Virtue-based ethics and natural law theory is a much more robust framework to promote this understanding.



1.  Brian Tierney, The Idea of Natural Rights: Studies on Natural Rights, Natural Law, and Church Law, 1150-1625 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997).

2.  Ralph McInery, “Natural Law and Human Rights,” American Journal of Jurisprudence vol. 36 (1991).

3.  Alisdair MacIntre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981).

Continue reading...

13 Responses to By What Right?

  • Excellent post. I think it is can be useful to use rights language. If it is unjust for my neighbor to take my property, I can be said to possess a right to private property. Rights are a way to describe obligations derived from justice but we need to remember the natural law framework.

  • Patrick,

    First off, thank you for reading, and thank you kindly for the compliment. This is a topic I have been thinking about for a while and struggling to articulate. For whatever failings are in the main post, let me try to do better by responding to your comment. Whenever I bring these ideas up it is only a short while before someone offers the very point you made: is not the notion of subjective rights convertible with justice? Or as you illustrated by example, if it is unjust for a man to steal the property of another, is that not the same as saying the first man has a right to private property. I think this is actually not true, and I will offer two arguments to support that thesis.

    But before I do, let’s make a careful distinction between a legal right and a subjective inalienable right. The first is grounded in the virtue of prudence. We codify a legal right because it is a convenient way to express the exercise of justice in certain general categories. In this case, it is generally unjust for a man to take the property of another, and so we write a “right” into the law in order to express this. We can discuss whether or not this legal language is the best way to go about codifying matters of justice, but (1) that is not the intent of this post, and (2) I take no intrinsic issue with the notion of a legal right. A subjective inalienable right is a enlightenment concept that says that man has, by his nature, certain powers, certain entitlements as a subject. This is the concept I am arguing against. And so let us now turn to your example of the “right” to personal property and my two arguments.

    1. Everything that is in this world, including us, is given to us for our use out of an act of sheer grace, pure gift from God. We most certainly do not have the right to personal property when seen in our relationship with God. If we did, the God would be an unjust God for any act in which personal property is destroyed or lost.

    2. We can conceive of cases in which we are compelled morally to surrender personal property to another. If another man is wandering without a coat in freezing weather certain of death, and we happen to be carrying two coats, we would be compelled morally to surrender one of those coats to the freezing man to save his life. To not do so would be unjust. And yet if we had an inalienable right to our property, this moral judgment is a bit harder to make. In other words, morally speaking, we most certainly do not have the “right” to that second coat in this contrived situation. This one counter example is enough to dismiss the right as “inalienable.”

    Of course, I am by no means suggesting that we pass laws to mandate that one give up his coat. The passing of positive human laws can at best hope to not violate the divine law, but other than that they are acts of prudence in which we try to codify general categories of justice. There is a strong argument that societies thrive when people are allowed to act freely, and that to force “goodness” on people (as in some of these good samaritan laws) results necessarily in less goodness and more bitterness. So we return to my original point – I can support a legal right to private property as it seems to preserve the most goodness in the world. But this is something altogether different than admitting of a subjective inalienable right, and I hold to my original thesis: these things simply do not exist and the use of modern rights language leads to relativism and moral sterility.

    Thanks again!

    – Jake

  • There are many ways of doing justice and loving our neighbor, i think. We should engage in creative ways of fullfilling God’s kingdom mandates. The issue I have with a natural law framework is that natural law is not always easily definable, and cultural acceptance of natural law waxes and wanes with the philosophic drift. I think God’s revelation in his Word should inform us as we decide how to go about living life as Christians in the world and in his kingdom.

  • Jon,

    I partially agree. We should be rooted in God’s Word in our defense of moral principles. However, the Christian faith from the very start was deliberate in its acceptance of natural philosophy, understanding that faith and reason are never in contradiction. Thus, philosophical structures are not only helpful for our understanding of reality, but, and this is the critical thing, they are objectively either true or false. In other words, while popular acceptance of the natural law waxes and wanes, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t true. Moreover, if is it true, then we are called to spread it.

    Further, if history has shown anything it is that philosophical thought matters quite a bit. Therefore, if the acceptance of natural law is at a low point, this is all the more reason to reconstruct it for the world.

    I would argue, however, that in order to do this we need a return to the concept of “nature” to begin with. In other words, we need to regain a proper metaphysics that has been long abandoned by modern and post modern philosophy.

    Make sense?

  • Most definately and I’m curious as to how it might be reconstructed in today’s intellectual context. When I think of natural law I think of something that grew up over time. The ancient world did not possess natural law in the sense that we udnerstand it in the West. I think it’s a product of Christian thought as people have wrestled with epistemology and important practical decisions. How might one introduce natural law to a culture that is post-Christian? Or reconstruct it, to use your words?

  • Sorry, I think you mentioned something of what I’m looking for. But how would we resurrect the idea of ‘nature’ and a sound epistemology where people can touch base and agree on universal understanding? How do we get there?

  • Jake,
    Thank you for your comprehensive response. Perhaps right to stewardship of property would be a better way to describe it. That would imply just use of property, and I think that is what most people mean when they refer to private property rights. However, I understand that to simply refer to “rights” is often ambiguous at best and misleading at worst. Like almost all Westerners, I was brought up with the language of rights, and though I do not disagree with your argument, I still feel attached to the use of the word.

    As an aside, I would ask how we are to differentiate between the human dignity derived from our creation in the image and the likeness of God, and the enlightenment idea of self-sufficient, individual rights. Your thoughts?

  • It was a fundamental principle of the Enlightenment that the nature of the human person can be adequately described without mention of social relationships. A person’s relations with others, even if important, are not essential and describe nothing that is, strictly speaking, necessary to one’s being what one is. This principle underlies all their talk about the “state of nature” and the “social contract” and “natural rights.”

    Later writers, like Bentham, coupled this to an extreme nominalism: the idea of “relation” is but a “fictitious entity,” though necessary for ‘convenience of discourse.’ And, more specifically, he remarks that “the community is a fictitious body,” and it is but “the sum of the interests of the several members who compose it.”

  • Jon,

    Regarding the resurrection of a sound epistemology, I think it begins with a sound metaphysics. There is a marvelous book called “The Unity of the Philosophical Experience” by Gilson that highlights how the history of metaphysics (or lack thereof) has shaped philosophical thinking. When metaphysics is abandoned, epistemology suffers or goes astray. We need to return to something akin to Aristotle’s four causes. Of the four, the scientism of our day has reduced them to but one: the material. The arguments for the four causes are relatively simply, but have ironically become foreign in modern discourse.

    It is an uphill battle to be sure, but an important one nonetheless.

    My two cents.

  • Patrick,

    I, too, have trouble completely abandoning the modern language of rights. When I am in conversation (for instance on abortion or marriage), I find myself wholeheartedly embracing the language. In this since, I am something of a hypocrite. Well, actually what it discloses is just how engrained enlightenment thought is in each of us. (I think the same can be said, actually, for Cartesian thought … as much as I reject it, it is hard to get away from it at times. One has to be conscious of these sorts of things.) Our country was, after all, founded on enlightenment principles.

    With regards to the distinction between the individual dignity we have by virtue of the image and likeness of God in which we were created and the enlightenment presentation of the individual, the difference is, in part, the very reference to God. It is because of our relationship with another (God) that we have a dignity, so every violation of that dignity is really a violation of a relationship with God, and as such falls under the auspices of justice. Modern rights language attributes a subjective power to the individual by virtue of his nature, and is construed as an entitlement rather than a fulfillment of the virtue of justice.

    To restate a point in the original post, when we think in terms of justice, we are compelled to act in a certain way – we take responsibility for our actions – and the world is a better place because of it. When we think in terms of inalienable rights, we think in terms of how OTHERS should act. In the example of private property it is the difference between an individual saying, “It is wrong for me to steal from you,” and the flip side, “It is wrong for you to steal from me.” I have been thinking about this for some time, and the more I ponder it, the more I realize that the difference between those two statements makes all the difference in the world: it is the difference between action and inaction.

  • Michael PS:

    Yes. Yes. Yes. You are spot on, and I would think that the Christian understanding of a relational (Trinitarian) God would cause us to immediately reject this enlightenment principle. We are made in the image and likeness of God as individuals, yes, but so too are we made in the image and likeness in our call to relationship. God IS reality, and God IS relationship. Ergo, relationship is something that is very real. (Classic Trinitarian theology even understands the relationship, the love, between the Father and the Son to BE the Holy Spirit.)

    – Jake

  • Pingback: John Paul II's 1995 Message to Women Who Have Had Abortions | Big Pulpit
  • Only by what God has decreed is right.

Sarah Palin on Roe and Obama

Wednesday, January 23, AD 2013



Forty years ago today the Supreme Court rendered its Roe v. Wade decision. Those who believe in the sanctity of human life and long to see America embrace a culture in which innocent life is honored and protected continue to look for a day when humanity is again deemed valuable, where we cherish even those who would be born in “less than ideal circumstances.” Children are our most precious resource and remain the greatest symbol of hope God has given us. This is just one reason why the annual March for Life has been such a powerful aspect of the pro-life movement. This year’s event is Friday, January 25th, and once again a multitude of Americans will gather in Washington, D.C. to show their support for precious little ones.

Our Founding Fathers declared: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” However, since 1973, millions of children have been denied the basic right upon which all the others hinge: the right to life.

Lately, President Obama has taken to boldly highlighting children in his speeches. Using kids as the backdrop for his gun control speech, the President claimed his commitment to young ones. “If there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try,” he said. He then outlined why gutting our Second Amendment is the means by which he believes we accomplish this. Every law-abiding citizen’s heart is broken when children are the target of men hell-bent on committing acts of evil, and we agree that the safety and protection of innocent life is paramount.

Continue reading...

18 Responses to Sarah Palin on Roe and Obama

  • Thank you for this. Very well articulated. I have been saying this myself for a long time now. Obama would be willing to abort and kill his own grandchild if his daughter had an unintended pregnancy. It is a vicious point of view on the value of human life. An unborn child is every bit as fully human as any child killed in the school massacre. Think of what our society would be like if we welcomed all human life with joy, rallied around to support the mothers of all children, and put down our selfish inclinations to do just what is convenient for our own purposes. There is a terrible, malicious selfishness at the heart of American materialism. Obama’s agenda only encourages it. He is a source of depression and sense of futility for the whole nation.

  • Well said, Sarah Palin! For individuals with Down syndrome, their families, and friends, who are going to be at the March for Life in DC on Friday, please join us for our KIDS (Keep Infants with Down Syndrome) gathering prior to the march, and walk with us in the March for Life, in solidarity with the individuals with Down syndrome, born and unborn. Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, herself also a mother of a child with Down syndrome, will speak to our group at 11:00.
    (if you decide to join us, my contact information is on the KIDS blog)

  • Good posting. My one nitpick – and it’s a nitpick – is that we shouldn’t refer to the pro-abortion agenda as “liberal”. We should allow the self-identified liberal to reclaim his rightful role in the pro-life movement. It’s kind of the point of the whole posting.

  • I sincerely hope Sarah Palin’s career in politics is not over. She needs to stay in the political arena and keep being a voice for life.

  • Sarah has not made a “career” in politics, she has stepped forward as a freedom loving American citizen to make things better for our country when corrupt politicians were only making things better for themselves. She was so effective at righting wrong in government, even taking on high level people in her own party, that she became a threat to the opposing party and to some within her party. Those politicos turned the elite media on her to destroy her and have succeeded to this point. Not even a single Catholic clergyman ever spoke up in her defense, not even when it was announced she was carrying a Downs syndrome child. Until the good people in this country rise up and demand from the First Amendment Rights protected media, the truth and honest objectivity, we will continue to be deceived by what has become Pravda in the U.S. If we will do that, good people like Sarah Palin will have a real chance to be elected to high office. I, for one, don’t trust or believe the liberal, now leftest media. But I do trust and believe Sarah Palin.

  • when I see a post with Sarah Palin in the headline I read it right away. To me she stands for hope. She is a sign of contradiction to the sick and sad culture around us.
    This quote from our first commenter says it well : There is a terrible, malicious selfishness at the heart of American materialism. Obama’s agenda only encourages it. He is a source of depression and sense of futility for the whole nation.

  • The current administration has no moral compass. Anarchy and chaos will surely plague us for the next four years.

  • I realize that Ms. Palin has dramatic views and fairly extreem opinions and truth doesn’t seem to matter. When she can refer to him as President Obama I might see a a reason to listen to her vitroil.
    Serioulsy folks, she really is history and illiterate to boot.

  • I love this woman! What she’s been subjected to by mental midgets has been horrendous, yet she still remains so strong and a thorn in Obama’s side. May God bless and protect her and her family.

  • “I realize that Ms. Palin has dramatic views and fairly extreem opinions and truth doesn’t seem to matter.”

    What a substanceless comment! A glittering jewel of an example of a troll grunt that manages only to convey a dislike of Sarah Palin and spares not a second to address the substance of her post which is that Obama’s pro-abortion advocacy makes all of his protestations of concern for children ring as hollow as his promise in 2008 to reduce the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Obama uses kids as political weapons. In the womb they are useful to stir up his followers who view the right to slay their offspring as a precious right or rite. Outside the womb they are useful as political props. Palin was completely on target in her critique.

  • Blee – are you a Mass attending Catholic?

  • Perhaps Blee can enlighten us on what extreme opinions Governor Palin has or when she has strayed from the truth. We’ll be awaiting your response.

  • Blee, Palin refers to President Obama as “President Obama” once in the piece, and 8 times as “the President”. She doesn’t refer to him as “Obama” once.

  • I realize that Ms. Palin has dramatic views and fairly extreem opinions and truth doesn’t seem to matter. When she can refer to him as President Obama I might see a a reason to listen to her vitroil.
    Serioulsy folks, she really is history and illiterate to boot.

    Your literate self might learn to spell common-and-garden words like ‘extreme’ and ‘vitriol’.

  • I so miss getting that sharp Palin point of view on Fox. Who knows where we would be if the puppet media hadn’t tore her down so quickly. Sometimes I get so disheartened by the way Satin so easily steals the show. But I remind myself that it is like we are seeing the gnarly, raveled and torn backside of a beautiful tapestry that won’t be completed until the end of time. We already know that Our Lady’s immaculate (yet sorrowful) heart will triumph! Sigh.

  • Sarah Palin: “There is destiny for every child in the world and it is good…” the unalienable right to the pursuit of Happiness. The pursuit of Happiness for our- selves and our constitutional posterity is the pursuit of our destiny. God, the Father, alone, knows where our pursuit of our destiny will bring us, therefore, let us not hesitate or delay to do the will of God.
    Sarah Palin has my vote. I was, indeed, very disappointed in that I could not vote for Palin.

Nothing Says Romance Like Genocide!

Wednesday, January 23, AD 2013

14 Responses to Nothing Says Romance Like Genocide!

  • The man in the commercial is completely demonic and satanic. This is clear to anyone who has the barest thread of conscience.

  • It’s like a screwtape commercial.

  • His laugh is Satanic, the concept and its just plain sickening. Gross. The sleazy music and what is sipping…reminds me of a SNL skit.
    To Hell they will gladly run. Heaven will be to foreign. They will choose Hell.

  • are they continuing to run this ad or are they withdrawing it after hearing how so many people react ?

  • My wife showed me this yesterday, and it is really creepy. What is sad is that the marketing people at Planned Parenthood have been so corrupted by what they do that they can’t recognize how creepy it is. They think it would be effective marketing. Quite frankly, I hope they don’t pull it. They should show it as widely and as often as they can! It’s effective for the pro-life movement!

  • How disgusting!
    Who is that idiot, anyway? Is he an actor?
    Stomach churning!

  • Does anyone else find it sickening that he keeps calling the anniversary of legalized abortion “baby”?

    It’s almost like he’s saying “you look great for being a dismembered corpse for 40 years”… “creepy” and “sickening” really don’t give justice to how disgusting this commercial really is.

  • Here, before you, we see a man devoid of conscience. It is pretty ugly. WHO gave that individual the right to call me “BABE”? He looks and acts like Beelzebub. “Hey dude” get your courtesy in order, even the devil would not allow you to call him “Babe”, much less “HEY”.
    Jesus Christ treated the sovereign personhood of the devil, evil personified, with respect. Besides, BABE was a pig. Even the swine wanted no part of the devil and exorcized themselves by running off the cliff into the sea and drowning. Smart pigs. I will be having pig’s feet for supper tonight, “Hee, Hee, Hee, hum, Hee”. God willing. And, “Buster”, get your hands off my tax dollars.

  • Ok, Did he seriously just say that?

    Things aren’t that bad, Maxwell the pig would rather play fruit ninja than ——–
    Some people hate Maxwell, others love him. But, the trick of the commercial is to attract customers who have perspercacious values which leads to less claims.

    The commercial shown here is a rip off of the Most Interesting Man In The World.
    Let your imagination roam.
    I don’t use women often, but when I do, I have her pay Planned Parenthood.

  • @Anon: Sorry, Anon, I had Maxwell the pig for supper last night.

    “The commercial shown here is a rip off of the Most Interesting Man In The World.”

    The devil is the most cunning of creatures. However, the devil has no soul, and spends eternity in hell.

  • Do you have a transcript for the ad? It’s been taken down.

2 Responses to Abortion Q & A

Trembling for my Country

Tuesday, January 22, AD 2013

Abortions since Roe

Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever.

Thomas Jefferson, 1785

I have always agreed with this sentiment of President Abraham Lincoln:

“Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

If the Civil War was the punishment visited upon the nation for slavery, what plague will visit us for celebrating the “right” to abortion?

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Trembling for my Country

  • In 1974, the legendary folk/pop duo Seals and Crofts released this song, probably the first pro-life song ever recorded. It was a gutsy move given they were at the zenith of their career at teh time and were hit with calls for boycotts of their concerts and by pro-abort groups as well as pressuring radio stations not to play the song.


    Humanity has forgotten the real meaning of life.
    They are the victims of their invention of endless strife.
    Created in God’s image, Adam lived in paradise.
    Creating Eve, his wife, soon precipitated demise.

    They failed God’s only test and introduced the world to sin.
    Driven out in shame – would heaven ever open again?
    God knew man would sin, and the Son would reopen heaven.
    The Son would become man through the Holy Spirit leaven.

    The only meaning in life is to save your immortal soul.
    Your guardian angel will help you live a soul-saving role.
    Life in this world where both good and evil abound is a test.
    Reward for a life obedient to God’s will is best.

    The Declaration of Independence has lost its soul.
    It was overruled by the Supreme Court child-killing role.
    Marriage between a man and woman is God’s moral law.
    The Supreme Court is now being asked to call that a flaw.

    The God our Founding Fathers trusted is not now in vogue.
    He is being superseded by a socialist rogue.
    If our nation can’t regain the moral meaning of life,
    I can assure that it will bring us never ending strife.

    Bob Rowland

  • Amen, Donald! Hosea chapter 8:

    1 Set the trumpet to your lips, for * a vulture is over the house of the LORD, because they have broken my covenant, and transgressed my law. 2 To me they cry, My God, we Israel know thee. 3 Israel has spurned the good; the enemy shall pursue him. 4 They made kings, but not through me. They set up princes, but without my knowledge. With their silver and gold they made idols for their own destruction. 5 I have * spurned your calf, O Samaria. My anger burns against them. How long will it be till they are pure 6 in Israel? * A workman made it; it is not God. The calf of Samaria shall be broken to pieces. * 7 For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind. The standing grain has no heads, it shall yield no meal; if it were to yield, aliens would devour it. 8 Israel is swallowed up; already they are among the nations as a useless vessel. 9 For they have gone up to Assyria, a wild ass wandering alone; Ephraim has hired lovers. 10 Though they hire allies among the nations, I will soon gather them up. And they shall cease * for a little while from anointing * king and princes. 11 Because Ephraim has multiplied altars for sinning, they have become to him altars for sinning. 12 Were I to write for him my laws by ten thousands, they would be regarded as a strange thing. 13 They love sacrifice; * they sacrifice flesh and eat it; but the LORD has no delight in them. Now he will remember their iniquity, and punish their sins; they shall return to Egypt. 14* For Israel has forgotten his Maker, and built palaces; and Judah has multiplied fortified cities; but I will send a fire upon his cities, and it shall devour his strongholds.

  • The Civil War for slavery. Atheism for abortion.

  • Chastisement is underway.
    Religious Freedoms mocked.
    National security breached. ( members of Islamic brotherhood entrenched in administration. )
    2nd. Amendment threatened.
    The days when men of good character are told to stop reciting Scripture publicly or face the punishment of violating “hate crimes” is already upon us.
    We are there.
    Our silence has been deafening.
    Our apathy has been deadly.
    Our walk to the woodshed has begun.

  • The present is the full flowering of the Great Apostacy which started with the Reformation (De-formation) and has grown apace over the past centuries. Many of the “protesters” have lost the plot, supporting the various abominations in our western society.
    End times are on us – but how long they will last, “Only the Father knows”.
    Buckle up for the momentum gathering of the Persecution.

Who Laughed During the Roe v Wade Arguments?

Tuesday, January 22, AD 2013

Sarah_Weddington.jpgIt is a little known fact that there was laughter in the United States Supreme Court 40 years ago during the Roe v. Wade hearings. Thought to be the youngest person ever to win a Supreme Court case, then 26 year old Sarah Weddington, the attorney for “Roe”, briefly lost her composure in a choked bout of chuckles before the court. She laughed alone that day, however, and every single citizen in our nation ought to hear what was said, particularly in light of this month’s Alabama Supreme Court ruling that “unborn children are persons with rights that should be protected by law.”

When Justice Harry A. Blackmun asked whether Mrs. Weddington felt there is any “inconsistency” in Court decisions against the “death penalty with respect to convicted murderers and rapists at one end of lifespan, and [her] position in this case at the other end of lifespan,” she replied that it has “never been established that the fetus is a person or that it’s entitled to the Fourteenth Amendment rights or the protection of the constitution.” It was clear to the court, even back then, that the case depended on the “fetus” having “constitutional rights.”

Justice Potter Stewart pressed further, “Well, if it were established that an unborn fetus is a person within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, you would have almost an impossible case here, would you not?” Mrs. Weddington replied, “I would have a very difficult case.” And then she laughed nervously. Justice Stewart, not laughing at all, continued that this is akin to ruling that if a “mother thought that it bothered her health having the child around, she could have it killed.” Mrs. Weddington said, “That’s correct,” and declined any further response.

Our laws still, chillingly, reflect this inconsistency. On the one hand, we have the almost decade long 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act which federally recognizes a “child in utero” as a legal “victim” if he or she is injured or killed by crimes of violence, and laws such as the one decided in Alabama this month that recognize “unborn children are persons with rights that should be protected by law.” On the other hand, we have abortion for all nine months of pregnancy and impunity for the ones that kill those children, children who are not even guaranteed the protections given to convicted murderers and rapists in some states. It was not funny 40 years ago, and it is still no laughing matter. These are children being killed. Aren’t children people too?

Have you ever listened to the Roe vs. Wade arguments?

Click the play button, it will start at ~20:00 minutes into Mrs. Weddington’s arguments (the attorney for Roe). The clip is only ~4 minutes, but be sure to listen from 23:30 – 24:30. The whole recording is found here. It is a piece of history, a tragic one. This is how it was argued that a mother has a right to kill her own child 40 years ago. 

Continue reading...

23 Responses to Who Laughed During the Roe v Wade Arguments?

  • The case was a complete fabrication from start to finish. I have heard from the lips of Norma McCorvey herself, Jane Roe in the case, that she fabricated the allegation that she had been raped, she gave birth to the child that is the supposed subject matter of the litigation, and that Sarah Weddington was out to overturn the abortion laws and make a name for herself and had absolutely no concern for her client, McCorvey being merely a means to Weddington’s end of legalizing abortion. McCorvey has since embraced the Faith and is a firm pro-lifer.

  • Sarah Weddington will not chuckle or smile when she finds out what happens to someone responsible for the deliberately killing of over 59 million children. She is in a class of definitve contempt all by herself

  • The Mother is considered the victim in abortion, because the Mother is destroyed. Only the woman is left. The woman would have to turn states’ evidence against herself. In any case, the woman would be granted immunity from prosecution for states’ evidence. That our Creator creates motherhood out of womanhood out of wifehood, fatherhood out of manhood out of husbandhood, ought to have indicated that our Creator endows unalienable rights to life to the newly conceived, morally and legally innocent human being, the standard of Justice for our nation, the compelling interest of the state in preserving the virgin.
    There are two victims of rape, the woman and the child. The child may not be put to death for the sins of his father. If God wants the child to live, the child will live. The woman has suffered violence. Ought she surrender her motherhood as well?
    Why is the abortionist charged with destroying human life in abortion a lesser charge than homicide?
    The benefit of a doubt and discovery were not implemented. Something so important as the life of a sovereign person in the womb was dealt with by the court with cavalier indifference, almost as though their decision, or non decision brought about reality. What this, in fact, only says is that the court does not endow sovereign personhood. The foetus could not be a sovereign person because no one said that it was a sovereign person except the state of Texas. All were waiting for the Supreme Court to say that the sovereign person in the womb is a person and protected under our constitution as “our posterity” all future generations of sovereign persons. Our Creator endows sovereign personhood.
    Once Roe v. Wade came to court, the infant child in the womb became a ward of the court. The question was asked near the end about the father’s rights to his child and the question was left unanswered. I almost heard: “Who cares” but it was not spoken. The child was abandoned to abortion.
    The infant cannot speak to God or write to God. The infant in the womb is peaceably assembling for God, praising and worshipping his Creator, thinking about God from the very first moment of his existence. Brain waves are measurable at 40 days but only because there are no instruments for better measuring. His heart beats at 18 days. DNA proves he is another person. The only thing he lacks is his mother’s love.
    The human soul of the newly begotten child in the womb was not acknowledged. His human soul was denied because the Supreme Sovereign Being was removed from the public square. The God of Life gives us His Name: “I AM”
    Human existence is the criterion for the objective ordering of human rights.
    The Hippocratic Oath has been removed from medical graduates.
    Hitler adopted our eugenics program for his concentration camps.

  • The oral arguments have some historical value, but it is the opinion, not what is said at oral arguments, that matters. The opinion itself, as well as the subsequent opinions, do not support the claim that “the case depended on the “fetus” having “constitutional rights.” As Weddington acknowledged, that might have made deciding that particular case a little different, but the opinion itself did not turn on whether the unborn child has constitutional rights, is a legal person, or whether the state recognizes the unborn child as a human life. The basis of the decision is that the “privacy” prenumbra gave a right to abortion, even if the unborn child was given some constitutional rights.

  • “The basis of the decision is that the “privacy” prenumbra gave a right to abortion, even if the unborn child was given some constitutional rights.”

    The basis of the opinion is that Harry Blackmun made up a right to abortion out of thin air.

    Justice White hit the nail on the head in his dissent:

    “With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally dissentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

    The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries. Whether or not I might agree with that marshaling of values, I can in no event join the Court’s judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States. In a sensitive area such as this, involving as it does issues over which reasonable men may easily and heatedly differ, I cannot accept the Court’s exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it. This issue, for the most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.”

  • Pingback: A Lutheran Ordinariate Coming? | Big Pulpit
  • Any chance of a constitutional amendment to bring the unborn within the remit of the 14th Amendment?

  • None. Such an amendment would require two-thirds votes in both the Senate and the House and the votes are not there in either chamber. A Constitutional Convention called by two-thirds of the State is equally unlikely.

  • Donald and Fr. Levi-

    Pardon me. None?
    None at this time.
    Friday you will see future House Reps. and future Congressmen walking the National Mall in support of the unborn. This is not hyperbole. Call it prophecy.
    Our future statesmen and women will turn the table on Roe v. Wade.
    We must believe and Pray it.

  • Do they count 2/3 of the states as 33? how many “red states” are there? about 30 I think– maybe not so far off in the future

  • “Friday you will see future House Reps. and future Congressmen walking the National Mall in support of the unborn. This is not hyperbole. Call it prophecy.”

    Oh it will come Philip. I may not live to see it, but my children will!

  • “I cannot accept the Court’s exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it. Justice Byron White.
    The state, government, Constitution, does not create human life. The state, government, Constitution cannot authorize the power to exterminate human life. In capital punishment, the executioner represents the sovereignty of the murderer, the power of attorney to act in the murderer’s behalf, to put an end to the crime and bring the murderer to Justice. The sovereignty of the newly begotten constitutes the Constitution. With no need for correction, the executioner with power of attorney in the infant’s behalf is to protect human life.

  • @ctd: “The basis of the decision is that the “privacy” prenumbra gave a right to abortion, even if the unborn child was given some constitutional rights.”

    The unborn child becomes a citizen at birth. That is why partial birth abortion was invented, to prevent citizenship. The child, not a citizen, ought to have been treated as a sovereign person with immunities, as are foreign dignitaries. Roe v. Wade was a prosecution of the unborn sovereign person, seeking his demise. How does one defend the innocent when the plaintiff portrays herself as victim violated by the innocent’s unalienable right to Life?

  • Not a citizen, the child in utero cannot be prosecuted until after he is born into citizenship.

  • Mary De Voe,

    Your first comment was poetic, poignant, and so sad. Thank you for it. Thank you for what you said about their souls. That is what makes them people.

  • Stacy Trasancos: Thank you for your kind words. The Supreme Sovereign Being, WHO exists and WHO is existence breathed our souls into us. No one exists except at the will of God. Roe v. Wade was set about to deny the existence of God in man, or the living soul of the newly begotten child of God would have been respected, cherish and loved.
    I, too, enjoy your posts.

  • I’m no attorney, but I could have made a better argument than Flowers against abortion. There was plenty of scientific research and evidence in 1973 to inform the court as to when life begins. I didn’t know that Texas legalized abortion in 1854. Thank you for providing this recording. I hope that the Pro-Life activists will use a better representative than one like Mr. Flowers.

  • according to the 14th amendment to the constitution, personhood precedes birth as it says “persons born”. a person is born. that is the law of the usa.

    according to the 14th amendment, citizenship is granted to those persons born in the usa.

    while it may be a subject of intellectual debate as to when a human being becomes a “person”.

    there is no debate as to when a human being begins his or her life. the moment that a human being begins its life is an established and accepted scientific fact.

    personhood is a philosophical construct. a human being is a material reality.

  • It certainly is funny how a woman can have her child killed and yet we send murderers to prison. Is really sad to think that the ones in prison have certain rights but yet an unborn child does not. Is a very sad situation. Might as well just have all those murderers set free.

  • May God Bless you and fortify you for the tribulation we will soon face, Mary De Voe. Your words are beautiful and inspirational.

  • eddie too says:
    “according to the 14th amendment to the constitution, personhood precedes birth as it says “persons born”. a person is born. that is the law of the usa.

    according to the 14th amendment, citizenship is granted to those persons born in the usa.

    while it may be a subject of intellectual debate as to when a human being becomes a “person”.

    there is no debate as to when a human being begins his or her life. the moment that a human being begins its life is an established and accepted scientific fact.

    personhood is a philosophical construct. a human being is a material reality.”

    When the immortal soul leaves the human body, death occurs. When God creates and ensouls the human body at fertilization, when two become one (Genesis) life begins in a whole new individual with scientific DNA, in sovereign personhood and unalienable right to LIFE. How could the Right to Life be not-unalienable as endowed by our Creator, when the Creator is Existence Himself? Or better still, How could the individual human being in existence not have the sovereign personhood of the Sovereign Person of God, his Creator? Human existence is the criterion for the objective ordering of human rights… from Thomas Aquinas.
    Again, If God has created an individual in His image and likeness with free will and intellect, God has endowed the individual with unalienable right to lIfe and sovereign personhood. Personhood comes from God. Citizenship comes from the state, the servant of the people. Rightfully so, “…a person is born” Can you be a living human being and not be a person? A person is immutable. If the person is alive, the person is a person. The human being is a person from conception to eternal life. The human being is composed of body and soul, whereto God has endowed unalienable rights to the person. (Not so with animals) Roe v. Wade redefined the human being, you and me, and our posterity, as at some point, the sovereign person is subject to creation or redefinition by the state. If nothing else, legally, Roe ought to have given the unborn person the benefit of the doubt or asked for discovery and acknowledged the fatherhood of God. The Immaculate Conception, the Blessed Virgin is conceived without sin, sovereign virginity and personhood from conception, and she is our Mother. Who are we but sovereign persons conceived into the sins of our first parents.

    Curtis: “May God Bless you and fortify you for the tribulation we will soon face, Mary De Voe. Your words are beautiful and inspirational.”
    My words are from (the Person of) God. I pray for courage to face the tribulation and the strength to overcome. The rosary.

  • I have to add after reading again the words of Justice Potter Stewart: ”mother thought that it bothered her health having the child around, she could have it killed.” Weddington: “That’s correct.” Sovereign personhood is infused with the human soul at the conception of life and is immutable. What happens as the child grows is his personality.

  • And more:My five children were raised and taught “On Becoming a Person” the Carl Rogers’ heresy that a human being becomes a person rather than being created in sovereignty with an immortal and rational personhood in his created and endowed human soul. This heresy denies that the human being is composed of body and soul, but must grow into personhood rather than having the personhood of his immortal soul breathing forth his personality. This is the heresy that Jesus Christ did not know that He is Divine and the Son of the Living God. This is the heresy that Jesus “grew” into wisdom and grace, virtues that were not His as a sovereign Person. This is the heresy that underpins Roe v. Wade, the denial of the human soul and its sovereign personhood from the beginning of human life. This is the heresy that enabled the atheist to remove the sovereign Person of God from the public square and allowed the demons to prey on us, ourselves and our posterity.

Why the West is Bankrupt

Tuesday, January 22, AD 2013

Welfare Queen

John Hinderaker over at Powerline has a story from The Sun that helps explain why the West is bankrupt:

Ms. Belova could find work if she wanted to, but it isn’t worth her while. She is too well-educated, she thinks, to accept a low-paying job:  

She is careful to work fewer than 16 hours a week so that the benefits keep rolling in. But her wages boost her income to more than £400 a week.   On top of that she gets free childcare, fruit and milk vouchers — and even a clothes allowance for “job interviews”.   Natalija said: “It is a strange system in this country. Basically, the fewer hours I work, the more I can earn on benefits. But that’s the way it is and it is not my fault.”   She fell pregnant by an “on-off boyfriend” after her redundancy. Natalija said casually: “We decided not to stay together.”   She insisted she would be prepared to get a full-time job — but only if the salary tops £25,000. Natalija said: “I am a highly educated woman and I speak six languages. I would never apply for a supermarket checkout job or a cleaner.   “I am over-qualified. These jobs are beneath me. They are for people who don’t have the education I do.”


Continue reading...

24 Responses to Why the West is Bankrupt

  • Sad.
    When the working class is taxed to death what then?
    Where will the over educated dependents go for their hand outs?
    George Orwell was quit a visionary, unfortunately.

  • She is gaming a system she didn’t create. I blame her a little but the biggest blame lies with the voters themselves, and their total misunderstanding of human nature.

  • And if she were not educated, she would point at that as a reason she couldn’t get a good paying job and support herself. Basically, any reason not to work will be accepted. As an insurance adjuster, I’ve seen judges award disability benefits to people contrary to the facts and the law, and in some cases manufacture facts in their legal orders to justify their ruling. I’ve even seen a guy who was videotaped on multiple consecutive days building a barn on his property be awarded permanent total disability benefits because he told the judge he was having a few good days, the pain was horrible afterwards, and his good days were so few and far between that he would be unable to maintain employment. He was then caught diverting the narcotic pain medications we were paying for. While we do win quite a few of those cases, invariably these people then apply for social security disability payments. Of course, these are a very small minority of claimants, but collectively they represent a very large drain on society. Most people want nothing more than to go back to work, but the ones who do not consume enormous medical and legal resources to obtain the golden ticket of disability payments. They don’t have to pay for their attorneys or their physicians under our current system, so why not?

    You are right. This mentality is why we are bankrupt. Not content to siphon off the productivity of the current generation for political gain of politicians the financial gain of their supporters, we are siphoning off the productivity of my children and potential grandchildren for that purpose. In the name of protecting the weak, we have allowed in the malingerers.

    The Church has made the unwise decision of partnering with the state in the charity business not realizing that the state isn’t about charity. It’s about power. And so what should be considered charity has been harnessed in the name of power. And now they wish to make it unrecognizable as charity. In the past, a relative would take care of a family member. We have destroyed the family as an institution across a large swath of society. Then the state steps in and makes people who would otherwise receive family assistance if they had an intact family, and makes them dependent on the state.

  • She “fell pregnant?” Holy expletive!

    The young lady reminds me of a quote from a Russian pilot who defected -along with his Mig 25 – to the west some years ago. While having a shot in a bar while on a cross country trip (IIRC), he was told about the American welfare system. He responded, “All that time they kept telling us we were building Communism, and here the Americans have gone and done it!”

    Quote may not be exact, but it’s pretty darn close.

  • I read the article that the link connects to. I can’t believe this woman is educated at all. She seems to be setting herself up for criticism. It almost seems like a parody. Doesn’t she realize how all this will sound to people who actually make their way through life by working everyday, doing whatever they need to even if they think it is beneath them?

  • She is the wife of a Russian Billionaire Oligarch Leonid Rozhetskin. The point of the piece is to make you hate a section of society. The question is how much tax did she get to avoid for the article?

    if you were real Catholics you’d find the idea of hating the sick, disabled and unintentionally unemployed abhorant.

    Certainly you’re going to find out that Our Lord wont be impressed.

  • That phrase “fell pregnant” threw me too. I just looked around on Google, and apparently it’s common in England and Australia.

  • “She is the wife of a Russian Billionaire Oligarch Leonid Rozhetskin.”

    Missing and presumed dead since 2008. If she has access to any of his assets, the fact that she is sponging off the British taxpayer is truly reprehensible.

    “if you were real Catholics you’d find the idea of hating the sick, disabled and unintentionally unemployed abhorant.”

    What any of that screed has to do with the article or my post is beyond me.

    “Certainly you’re going to find out that Our Lord wont be impressed.”

    Glad that you have a personal pipeline to the Almighty Doc regarding God’s opinion on blog posts.

  • She is the wife of a Russian Billionaire Oligarch Leonid Rozhetskin. The point of the piece is to make you hate a section of society. The question is how much tax did she get to avoid for the article? if you were real Catholics you’d find the idea of hating the sick, disabled and unintentionally unemployed abhorant.
    Certainly you’re going to find out that Our Lord wont be impressed.

    Impugning other people’s motives is abhorrent.

  • Stephen, I have no problem being a troll when I think it’s called for, but I don’t see anything in this article or thread that constitutes hatred for the needy. Maybe conservatives should be required to state it clearly every now and then: that unnecessarily living off the work of others is an injustice to both parties. But I don’t see how you could read any malice into this article.

  • What any of that screed has to do with the article or my post is beyond me.

    We live in a world where unchaining your id is a mark of passionate authenticity.

    It’s actually nothing of the sort, and is annoying as Hell, but there you go.

  • Doesn’t Catholic social teaching mention something about a preferential option for hot redheads?

  • “Doesn’t Catholic social teaching mention something about a preferential option for hot redheads?”

    Hot redheads run in my family Pauli, so I would give a thumbs up for that preferential option!

  • Lathwell, I didn’t see anyone here talking about the sick or disabled except you. To the contrary, we were discussing people who are specifically NOT sick and disabled who are able to sponge off of society. In my work I pay out benefits to people who are sick and disabled, and I do so conscientiously. It is a known fact, however, that when you are offering money to the sick, disabled, and unemployed that the well, the able bodied, and the lazy will also line up to receive that money as well. The problem for society comes when the powers that be have chosen to cast a blind eye on that practice, and even encourage it. Do you propose that we continue to pay healthy people not to work?

  • The world is bankrupt spiritually and morally as well

  • I was thinking of a career change. Thanks, Donald, for pointing me toward this amazing opportunity. Do you think I could divorce Mr. Zummo? Then we could live in sin and he could just be my baby-daddy? I’d get more benefits that way.

  • Paul would have to get a “wife beater” T-shirt Mrs Z, learn to split his infinitives and get some facial tattooing and all that would be too high a price to pay!

  • I get the point of the story — the entitlement mentality and dependence upon government are sucking the life out of the Western industrial nations — but this particular case sounds kinda fishy to me and that photograph practically screams “staged.”

    For one thing, why would someone who was genuinely trying to game the system and get away with it, plaster their name and face all over one of Britain’s best known tabloids unless they were 1) dumb as a box of rocks or 2) merely posing as a welfare cheat at the behest of the newspaper, in order to “illustrate” the story the newspaper wanted to tell? Kind of like the guests on “Jerry Springer” who turned out to be merely actors or actresses pretending to be lesbian ex-Nazis sleeping with their brother’s girlfriends?

    Yes, I realize some people really ARE that dumb (like criminals who boast about their crimes on Facebook and Twitter), but since The Sun is a Rupert Murdoch tabloid with a history of sensationalism, I personally think this story needs some more fact checking before we all jump on the “isn’t it terrible!” bandwagon.

  • I don’t know Elaine. Perhaps it is false. But I have plenty who come into my office who receive a boatload of benefits because they are poor. While making conversation with a number of them after Christmas, they talked about all the gifts they bought. In many cases the total could easily have added up to thousands of dollars per family.

  • She is an aspiring actress Elaine and my guess is that she hoped this story would give her a huge amount of free publicity which it certainly has. The story has caused a huge furor on the Left in Britain where living on the Dole is considered sacrosanct in “progressive” quarters. Attempts to discredit it have been legion including attempts to link Belova with the Belova who was married to the Russian billionaire who went missing in 2008. (From photographs they appear to be completely different people.) Critics have not been able to argue that the story is incorrect as to welfare benefits in formerly Great Britain. The most they have argued is that government rent subsidies are not income which of course sounds ridiculous to anyone who pays rent or a mortgage.

  • Pingback: The Early Church in Jerusalem Followed the Pope | Big Pulpit
  • The Wikipedia article on Leonid Rozhetskin mentions that some years before he (allegedly) disappeared into the United States Federal Witness Protection program, the billionaire had married a model by the name of Natalya Belova.

    The New York agency Next features the portfolio of a Natalya Belova which may be seen at

    Are they two different “Natalya Belova”s? In my opinion, emphatically, yes: it seems to me that the model featured on the Next website would have no trouble lining up a dozen top-industry bookings starting tomorrow. And the gal featured in this article’s illustration (above)? Not so much. She is cheerleader-cute, but not top-flight model material. If she ever decided she wanted to earn her own living, she would do well to stick with translating.

  • “Fall pregnant?” Did she trip over her boyfriend?

Walter Butler

Tuesday, January 22, AD 2013

For there was Walter Butler, the loyalist, who spread fire and horror through the Mohawk Valley in the times of the Revolution.

Stpehen Vincent Benet, The Devil and Daniel Webster

In his short story The Devil and Daniel Webster, Benet has Satan conjure up the damned souls of 12 villains from American history to serve as a jury in the case of Satan v. Jabez Stone. Only seven of these entities are named. This is the third in a series giving brief biographies of these men. Go here to read the biography of Simon Girty and here to read the “biography” of the Reverend John Smeet.  In this post we will examine the life of Major Walter Butler.

Walter Butler was a young man of 23 at the start of the Revolution, the son of John Butler, a wealthy Indian agent and a judge in frontier Tryon Country, soon to be the scene of many desperate frontier battles between Patriots and Loyalists, and their Indian auxiliaries.  John Butler was a firm loyalist as was his son.    Walter Butler served as an Ensign at the battle of Oriskany in 1777 during the Saratoga campaign.  Shortly after Oriskany he was captured behind enemy lines.  Sentenced to death he succeeded in escaping.  When his father formed the Loyalist Butler’s Rangers, Walter served in it as a Captain.

On November 11, 1778 at Cherry Valley, New York, Butler, leading a mixed force of Loyalists and Mohawks and Seneca under Joseph Brant, easily overcame the heavily outnumbered 7th Massachusetts Continentals.  In the aftermath of the battle, 30 settlers were murdered, including women and children.  In his report Butler blamed Brant and his Indians and steadfastly insisted that he spared no effort to rescue settlers from them.  However, Patriots claimed that Brant attempted to save settlers and that it was Butler who instigated the massacre.  My estimate is that neither Brant nor Butler were directly responsible and that it was independent action by the Seneca and the Mowhawk, who had many scores to repay, that resulted in the murders.  Like many historical questions the evidence now is too fragmentary and conflicting  for complete certainty.

Butler was killed in a skirmish on October 30, 1781 and scalped by Oneidas fighting for the Patriots.  Here is a contemporary account of his death by Philip Graff, a member of the Patriot militia in Mowhawk Valley New York:

Continue reading...

Outrage & Disgust: Gun-Grabber Cuomo Pushes for Infanticide

Tuesday, January 22, AD 2013

I have been writing about politics, morality and religion for years now, and I often do so with a certain amount of passion and sometimes anger. I really thought I had seen it all in terms of hypocrisy and sheer moral blindness. I really didn’t think it could get much worse. But here we are.

In case you haven’t yet heard, NY Governor Andrew Cuomo is aggressively pushing for a bill that would legalize late-term abortions in his state. It would allow non-doctors to perform them. It would eliminate parental notification laws – all of this, according to the Democrats for Life, who are as disgusted as I am with this man and his agenda.

And there is is plenty to be disgusted with here. Partial-birth abortions themselves are disgusting, the violent dismemberment of a tiny human being usually for the convenience of someone else. Abortion clinics are often disgusting, staffed by incompetents and criminals, the refuse of the legitimate and respectable medical profession. The rest of Cuomo’s legislation is pretty bad as well, including coercive wealth redistribution and other infringements upon liberty and property in the name of “gender equality”, something the coercive arm of the state has no business getting involved in at all.

But nothing, and I mean nothing, is more disgusting than the sight of this man himself, who just recently pushed through some of the most aggressive anti-gun rights legislation in the entire country, supposedly for the children. Here is what the unconscionable scumbag declared while promoting his gun policies:

“This is a scourge on society,” Cuomo said Monday night, one month after the Newtown, Conn., shooting that took the lives of 20 first graders and six educators. “At what point do you say, ‘No more innocent loss of life.”‘

What I want to know is, at what point does someone slap Andrew Cuomo so hard, so many times, that he never again has the gall to speak of “innocent loss of life” while promoting the mass-murder of infants with dirty metal tools in dirty little rooms? At what point do we, perhaps, strap him to a chair and force him to watch the scissors being jammed into the back of the child’s neck before its brains are vacuumed out? At what point do we go absolutely crazy, unable to bear for another day, another moment, a moral blindness and/or hypocrisy so heavy and so dark that you just want to to completely give up?

I don’t really have much more to say about it. Not much more should be said about it. At this point you either see how completely messed up this is, or you’re hopeless and we can’t communicate. Finally, check out my new personal blog, where I will try to contain all of the foreign policy and civil liberty stuff that TAC readers can’t stand. You know, the Ron Paul echo chamber stuff.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Outrage & Disgust: Gun-Grabber Cuomo Pushes for Infanticide

  • He is a true son of Mario “Personally Opposed” Cuomo. (I can only hope that cannibalism never comes into fashion, because before long cannibals would become a constituency of the Democrats, and they would be promoting it as a constitutional right.} That this man has not yet been excommunicated says all you need to know about the state of the American heirarchy.

  • Quem deus vult perdere, dementat prius

  • This is evidence of the vision Pope Leo XIII had
    and that possibly the century isn’t over yet.
    Evil has taken such a hold on souls. What is downright shameful is that Cuomo isn’t alone in this thought pattern.
    Wait. We’re the problematic Christians. The hate mongers. Well Cuomo fits that shoe perfectly.

  • Papa Cuomo was a man with “issues” (as the reporters who got those odd phone calls from him at 6:30 am can testify), but he had enough of a conscience to be uneasy with what he advocated (and had a well-ordered domestic life). It is a reasonable guess that George Pataki is a thoroughgoing sociopath, but, like Bilge Clinton, one of circumscribed ambition. We have now plunged into plain evil with this man. He was elected in a landslide with the support of every corner of the New York media and a corps of Vichy Republicans like Joanie Mahoney. The political culture of New York is just as stupid as Venezuela’s.

  • I agree with Donald in his statement, “That this man has not yet been excommunicated says all you need to know about the state of the American heirarchy.”

    But the problem goes further. Please see:

    “Father Lombardi: Weapons Are, Will Always Be, Too Many – Says US Aim to Control Use of Arms a ‘Step in Right Direction'”

    The Roman Church has forgotten the lesson of the Maccabean brothers in the Seleucid Empire, the Cristeros in Mexico, etc.

  • Fr Lonbardi is merely reflecting long-standing Vatican policy of supporting armament limitation treaties and regulation of the international arms trade, which was the main thrust of his remarks.

  • Fr. Lombardi is merely reflecting long-standing Vatican policy of supporting armament limitation treaties and regulation of the international arms trade, which was the main thrust of his remarks.

    I don’t see how his comments could be read in that light, given that he specifically referred to Sandy Hook, and Obama’s proposals aren’t directed at arms treaties.

  • Dale Price

    Fr Lombardi made the connection himself: “But while American society is engaged in this debate of dutiful civil and moral growth, we cannot but widen our gaze to recall that arms, throughout the world, are also instruments for legitimate defense, but surely they are everywhere the main instruments used to bring threats, violence and death. Therefore, it is necessary to repeat tirelessly our calls for disarmament, to oppose the production, trade, and smuggling of arms of all types, fuelled by dishonourable interests for power or financial gain. If results are achieved, such as international conventions, the ban of landmines and other deadly arms, the reduction of the immense and disproportionate number of nuclear warheads…all the better! But weapons are and will always be too many. As the Pope said while travelling to Lebanon, we are all distraught by the massacres in Syria, but the weapons continue to arrive. “

  • That’s my point: it is peculiar to bring up international arms treaties in the context of domestic legislation regulating civilian firearm ownership.

    Linking the subjects together allows for the inference that Lombardi is, in fact, advocating for the abolition of civilian firearm ownership from a Vatican pulpit.

  • When I first heard Coumo’s “you don’t need ten bullets to kill a deer” rant, I thought it was Joe Biden. I guess all idiocy sounds alike.

  • Michael, it is like the friggin’ US Conference of Catholic Bishops. The staff steals the signet ring and issues statements on their personal hobby horses. It is asinine and makes Vatican dicasteries look stupid. No point in attempting to justify it.

  • Art:

    The problem is, at least in the casse of the USCCB, many of the most influential bishops themselves make the same kind of assinine statements.

  • Has Cardinal Dolan issued a statement on this? I would be surprised if it turns out to be anything more than a statement that the proposed legislation is “troubling” or “raises grave concerns.”

    Perhaps more lay Catholics would treat these types of issues as serious business if their leaders acted like this was serious business.

  • The problem is, at least in the casse of the USCCB, many of the most influential bishops themselves make the same kind of assinine statements.

    What Thomas Sowell said (quoting T.S. Eliot): half the harm in the world is done by people who want to feel important. I think it is true of clergymen of all stripes that just performing the functions which attend their vocation leave them feeling empty, but it is especially dismaying with Catholic bishops. The teachings of the Church are lost in a great mass of policy white noise.

  • Expect hypocrisy and contempt to continue to reach new and increasingly higher levels in the next four years. The average IQ of American Democrat voters must be about 50.

  • Robert Rowland-
    Your being very kind…..50%
    By the way they will abort-themselves out of existence so we just hang in there and pray for their conversions.

We Will Outlast Them

Monday, January 21, AD 2013

Obama Joke

“That on you is fallen the shadow,
And not upon the Name;
That though we
scatter and though we fly,
And you hang over us like the sky,
You are more
tired of victory,
Than we are tired of shame.

“That though you hunt
the Christian man
Like a hare on the hill-side,
The hare has still more
heart to run
Than you have heart to ride.

“That though all lances
split on you,
All swords be heaved in vain,
We have more lust again to
Than you to win again.

G.K. Chesterton, Ballad of the White Horse

Continue reading...

15 Responses to We Will Outlast Them

  • You are the eternal optimist, Donald, but the alternative – despair – is a sin.

  • The truly important event takes place at noon on January 25th. Today was a gathering of pretenders. On Friday D.C. will see the honest Americans.
    Let us call to mind the 55 million plus.
    They, unlike Rosie Parks, never had a chance to ride in a bus, or walk through a doorway.
    Today was a sham.
    Friday American patriots take to the mall, and redeem the once sacred ground of Washington D.C.
    They honor the fallen. We will never forget the unborn dead.

  • 55,000,000 human souls scraped from the womb to prove that there is no God, that a person is who the state says is a person, that the state says that the Person of God is not a person.

    The Person of God was not tried in a court of law before being banned from the public square. The Person of God may be banned from the public square without trial, proof and conviction of wrongdoing, on the complaint of the soul who denies the human soul.

    In the absence of Justice, America has elected tyranny.

  • I too think conservatism will eventually win out. But, as it stands now, things will get worse, much worse, before they get better.

    Obama has been wildly successful in getting a left-wing ideology implemented as policy, unpopularity notwithstanding. And still got reelected. No mean feat.

  • To lighten the mood of a depressing day, go check the top story at my favorite Catholic humor site, Eye of the Tiber.

  • Just back from a board meeting of the Pro-life Crisis Pregancy Center in my county. I’ve been Chairman of the Board for a decade. Donations to the Center have been up sharply since the November election. A good sign I would say of determination of our supporters in the teeth of adversity.

  • I won’t waste one moment of my life watching this evil fraud re-crowned – I just couldn’t stomach it. These certainly are times that try men’s (and women’s) souls. My beautiful country has been subverted and diabolically inverted against herself. It’s a great struggle not to hate the people who out of their stupidity/malice put this guy back into office who will pull us ALL into the pit. We know ultimately the truth will prevail – it’s just very difficult waiting for justice to be done. I just hope I live long enough to witness it.

  • I am having a very rare moment of sanity. Do not worry. It will soon pass. It always does. But let’s remember that St Peter lived under brutal, vicious Roman Emperors who make Obama look like a timid piker by comparison, and he still wrote in verses 13 through 17 of his first epistle (some would say, the first Papal Encyclical ever):

    “13 Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16 Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God. 17 Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.”

    Therefore, having come across a rather nice prayer for the President in the Anglican 1928 Book of Common Prayer……..

    “ALMIGHTY God, whose kingdom is everlasting and power infinite; Have mercy upon this whole land; and so rule the hearts of thy servants THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, The Governor of this State, and all others in authority, that they, knowing whose ministers they are, may above all things seek thy honour and glory; and that we and all the People, duly considering whose authority they bear, may faithfully and obediently honour them, according to thy blessed Word and ordinance; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who with thee and the Holy Ghost liveth and reigneth ever, one God, world without end. Amen.”

    Even Jesus said to Pontius Pilate, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above…” (John 19:11) We have received the government we deserve, just as the children of Israel did in 1st Samuel chapter 8.

    Ok, this rare moment of sanity has passed. I shall now go back to being the right wing conservative nut case extremist (and pro-nuker) that irritates the heck out of all my liberal friends (and I don’t really have that many). 😉

  • Opps, 1st Peter chapter 2, verses 13 thru 17. Hate that there’s no editing function here! 🙁

  • “You are the eternal optimist, Donald, but the alternative – despair – is a sin.”

  • The 1928 Anglican BCP prayer is short and sweet, but there is also the Catholic prayer composed by Bishop John Carroll in 1789 on the occasion of George Washington’s inauguration:

    “We pray you, O God of might, wisdom, and justice,
    through whom authority is rightly administered,
    laws are enacted, and judgment decreed,
    assist with your Holy Spirit of counsel and fortitude
    the President of these United States,
    that his administration may be conducted in righteousness,
    and be eminently useful to your people, over whom he presides;
    by encouraging due respect for virtue and religion;
    by a faithful execution of the laws in justice and mercy;
    and by restraining vice and immorality.

    “Let the light of your divine wisdom direct
    the deliberations of Congress,
    and shine forth in all the proceedings and laws
    framed for our rule and government,
    so that they may tend to the preservation of peace,
    the promotion of national happiness,
    the increase of industry, sobriety, and useful knowledge;
    and may perpetuate to us the blessing of equal liberty.

    “We pray for the governor of this state,
    for the members of the assembly,
    for all judges, magistrates, and other officers
    who are appointed to guard our political welfare,
    that they may be enabled, by your powerful protection,
    to discharge the duties of their respective stations
    with honesty and ability.

    “We recommend likewise, to your unbounded mercy,
    all our fellow citizens throughout the United States,
    that we may be blessed in the knowledge
    and sanctified in the observance of your most holy law;
    that we may be preserved in union,
    and in that peace which the world cannot give;
    and after enjoying the blessings of this life,
    be admitted to those which are eternal.
    Grant this, we beseech you, O Lord of mercy,
    through Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. Amen.”

    The one change I would make would be to insert the name of the President and the name and state of one’s governor. Yes, it would make me cringe a bit to have to say out loud “the President of these United States, Barack Obama” and “the governor of this state of Illinois, Pat Quinn” for obvious reasons. But, these are real people — not just abstractions — for whom we pray, and they are responsible for the welfare of sovereign nations and states that each possess a unique history and culture. And if mentioning their names is an uncomfortable reminder of how much they need our prayers, well, consider it a small form of penance 🙂

  • During the Killing Times, the Scottish Covenanters replaced the State Prayers with the metrical version of the Psalm Deus Laudem (Ps 109/108)

    One must imagine the Precentor giving it out, line by line, to be repeated by the little congregation, “praying ahint a dyke.”

    A sample

    6 Set thou the wicked over him;
    and upon his right hand
    Give thou his greatest enemy,
    ev’n Satan, leave to stand.

    7 And when by thee he shall be judged,
    let him condemn-ed be;
    And let his pray’r be turn’d to sin,
    when he shall call on thee.

    8 Few be his days, and in his room
    his charge another take.
    9 His children let be fatherless,
    his wife a widow make.

  • Have just got back from a 5 day retreat for the deacons of our diocese (I’m a Candidate – expect a date for ordination to be April or May).
    I just about puked watching Obama take the pledge, vowing to uphold the Constitution. The bastard has done nothing for the past couple of years but attempt to eliminate it – or at least by-pass it .
    Can’t believe the hypocrisy of the man.

  • “Can’t believe the hypocrisy of the man.”

    Everything Obama says comes with an invisible expiration date.

  • Paul,
    I like your moments of sanity.
    Your correct in bringing us to the truth.
    St. Paul’s day was much worse.

Now Why Didn’t I Think of This?

Monday, January 21, AD 2013

Hmm, I have several complicated legal documents to draft today.  Surely I could have someone overseas do it for me?

Valentine was hired to investigate when the company, a Verizon client, saw that someone from Shenyang, China, was logging in to its computer network during every workday. The breach was traced to Bob’s VPN network, but he had to be innocent, the victim of some kind of breach, the company figured. He was a quiet family man, “someone you wouldn’t look at twice in an elevator,” Valentine writes. And Bob was sitting there, working at his desk, every day. But when Valentine’s staff looked more closely at Bob’s computer, they ultimately found the smoking gun.

Bob had PDFs of hundreds of invoices from a third-party contractor in Shenyang for developer services. Bob had been paying the contractor $50,000 a year, while he himself made hundreds of thousands of dollars.

While the developer was working 9-to-5, Bob surfed the Web. At 9, he’d roll in and surf Reddit, watching cat videos. At 11:30 he’d grab some lunch. After lunch it was time for EBay for about an hour, when Bob migrated to Facebook. At 4:30, he’d email management, telling them what he had “done” during the day, and at 5, he’d go home.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Now Why Didn’t I Think of This?

January 21, 1985: Reagan Second Inaugural Address

Monday, January 21, AD 2013

For some reason on this day I am thinking of a Presidential second inaugural, that of Ronald Reagan!  He summed up the theme of his Presidency well with this observation in his speech that day:

Four years ago, I spoke to you of a new beginning and we have accomplished that. But in another sense, our new beginning is a continuation of that beginning created two centuries ago when, for the first time in history, government, the people said, was not our master, it is our servant; its only power that which we the people allow it to have.

That system has never failed us, but, for a time, we failed the system. We asked things of government that government was not equipped to give. We yielded authority to the National Government that properly belonged to States or to local governments or to the people themselves. 

Here is the text of the speech of President Reagan 28 years ago:

Continue reading...

2 Responses to January 21, 1985: Reagan Second Inaugural Address

  • Awe inspiring, from beyond the grave, immortal words to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and or posterity”. The seeds of Liberty sown the world over are bearing good fruit.

  • That system has never failed us, but, for a time, we failed the system. We asked things of government that government was not equipped to give. We yielded authority to the National Government that properly belonged to States or to local governments or to the people themselves.

    1. Whether or not the system ‘failed’ us, systems can be better or worse adapted to a particular set of circumstances.

    2. Whomever you look to for guidance on principles of justice as manifested in political economy (John Rawls and Robert Nozick being two possibilities), I do not think whatever you describe is going to be severely prescriptive as to whether a function belongs to the central government, the municipal government, or some intermediate authorities, because states vary so in their demographic, social, and geographic characteristics.

You Are the Threat!

Sunday, January 20, AD 2013

Right Wing Extremists


You may never have considered yourself a terrorist, but if you are a conservative a new government study indicates that you might well be:

The report’s author is Arie Perliger, who directs the Center’s terrorism studies and teaches social sciences at West Point. I can only imagine what his classes are like as his report manages to lump together every known liberal stereotype about conservatives between its covers.

As Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times, who broke news of the report on Thursday, recounts:

[The Center’s report] says anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”

The report also draws a link between the mainstream conservative movement and the violent “far right,” and describes liberals as “future oriented” and conservatives as living in the past.

“While liberal worldviews are future- or progressive -oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo,” the report says. “The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community.”

The report adds: “While far-right groups’ ideology is designed to exclude minorities and foreigners, the liberal-democratic system is designed to emphasize civil rights, minority rights and the balance of power.”

The Times quotes a congressional staffer who has served in the military calling the report a “junk study.” The staffer then asked: “The $64,000 dollar question is when will the Combating Terrorism Center publish their study on real left-wing terrorists like the Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, and the Weather Underground?”

This is not the first time elements of the federal government have tried to smear conservatives with sloppy work and a broadbrush analysis.

Continue reading...

23 Responses to You Are the Threat!

  • “O, Columbia the Gem of the Ocean! . . . Thy mandates make tyranny tremble . . . ”

    Liberal propaganda: everybody that disagrees is a dangerous, evil person that should be liquidated. The same tune ever and always was by mass murdering progressives: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al.

    Academia, the media and the Clinton regime similarly tried, convicted, and executed scores of citizens at Waco, TX in 1993. They werecondemned in the lying, liberal media and they were murdered by the government.

    Maybe we the people need to defund the USMA.

  • The thing is that we aren’t even anti-federalists.

    Look at the references Conservatives use in our arguments: Madison, Adams, Washington, Hamilton, et al. I haven’t noticed even the slightest of anti-federalist sentiments in our own Paul Zummo, for example.

    I actually know an anti-federalist. He is a Southerner with a strong Libertarian streak to his Jeffersonian idealism. Given the spirited disagreements we’ve had, I don’t think he would call me an anti-federalist

    If one is going to use a word with an established definition in a published report, one should make sure one knows the definition of that term and can apply it correctly in discussion.

  • I’m going to have to agree with Mr. Perliger. Right wing domestic terrorists abound. Just think of all of the acts of terror that right wing extremists have committed in the past ten years. There’s… uh. Well, never mind that. We know they do it all the time.

    A while back, DHS published a list of characteristics you might find in those pesky ol’ potential right wing domestic terrorists, and so I had to go back and re-think some of my positions so I would get off the list. I can proudly say that I am no longer a potential terrorist because I believe in overthrowing the constitution, killing unborn babies, and I renounced my status as a veteran who had taken an oath to defend the constitution.

    With my new-found cuddly-wuddly non-terroristic tendencies, I will embrace the centralization of government power in one man and seek to crush Christianity, driving that priest-ridden anachronism into the grave, one lion-mauled and waterboarded Christian at a time. After that, we go after the babies in the womb. None shall escape unless genetic testing shows that they are homosexual, in which case we shall demonstrate Lord Obama’s magnificent tolerance…. oh, wait. I guess I wan’t the terrorist after all. Okay, back to my old freedom-loving, Catholic self.

  • I hope that we are a threat to the Democrats, the Administration, liberalism, progressivism, humanism, secularism and atheism. If we are not a threat, then we are doing something wrong.

    That said, the threat should never be one of the initiation of force. But everyone here at this blog knows (or should know) that. What is threatening to Democrats, the Administration, liberals, progressives, humanists, secularists and atheists is that most of us, in placing the highest value on human freedom and dignity, will respond with commensurate force to the initiation of force to coerce us into bowing to Caesar. In some cases martyrdom may result (and it always has in the past). In other cases, armed resistance is required (the Maccabean brothers in 160 BC and the Cristeros in Mexico in the 1920s).

    So yes, I want to be a threat (or at least a humble part thereof). How we think and what we are doing should be threatening to the Satanic forces of evil, and that is as it should be.

  • Paul, we are a threat. Unfortunately, the other side asserts that we are a violent threat, no matter what we do to try to demonstrate otherwise. Case in point, a few months ago we got 90 people to show up at a school board meeting to protest Planned Parenthood’s involvement in our schools. The school administration looked visibly frightened by all of these people showing up. We were peaceful, and polite. At the next school board meeting they had security guards up the wazoo. Why is that? Nobody did anything even remotely considered disorderly. It’s because they consider us a threat. They assume that we will act like they do, which of course leads to their fear of the violence that they themselves promote.

  • Common sense is subversion.

    Hysteria and lies are all they have.

    The following is true under the Obama regime. “Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.” — George Orwell.

  • Conservatives had better be a threat to those trying to usurp our Declaration of Independence. Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

  • How do you emphasize both minority rights and a balance of powers, even before you add in “emphasis” on civil rights?

    Unless he meant “act like all interests have the same weight.” Still doesn’t make sense, since that just doesn’t work. (Great way to get power, though, being the guy in charge of deciding what’s fair.)

    Seriously, though, this just sounds like pop knowledge mud and gravel with all the gems removed.

  • Anyone thought of doing something non-violent about it like suing the crap out of Arie Perliger, the center, and West Point?

  • I don’t think there is a legal basis for such a law suit. A better tactic might be to attempt to enlist West Point alums, doubtless retired from the Army, to protest this pc waste of resources.

  • Has anyone thought of submitting a Freedom of Information Act request concerning his salary; the syllabus of his course (“social” is not a science); his address; etc.?

    That’s the type of action Obama-worshiping facsists would take against we threats to the liberal, national wrecking ball.

  • Look, I get the whole “shake in rage against liberals” thing, but there definitely are right-wing violent extremists out there. I haven’t read the study, so I don’t know how fair it is, but we all know that such people exist. I imagine that the average Academy man is going to run into right-wing starry-eyed suckups a lot more than, say, Occupiers who are enthralled with the military.

  • Right wing extremism in this country Pinky is simply not a threat compared to the threat from jihadists. The Hutaree Militia Trial and the dismissal of the charges by the judge indicated the normal trajectory of these attempts by government informants to transform molehills into mountains.

    This type of ideological look at terrorist threats is not unusual for the director of the Center. When he was in Israel his focus was on the minute amount of Jewish terrorism rather than on Islamic terrorism.

    What is the chief objectionable feature of this study is the attempt to link mainstream conservatives to terrorism.

  • I agree with Pinky, but while I am a right wing extremist and own a mini-14, I would never ever use it against another human being except in the God-aweful circumstance of self-defense, and then if I survived the experience, I would get my behind to confession pronto! Sure, there are Nazis and Fascists and Skinheads and others, but they aren’t the mainstream conservative movement. However, murdering unborn babies and sanctifying the filth of homosexual sodomy is the mainstream liberal movement, and that’s why it has to be destroyed. Yeah, that’s a volatile term, but it’s still correct. Furthermore, that doesn’t mean destroy it by guns, but destroy it by changing hearts and lives. Yet that is too extreme for liberals.

  • Please don’t help the folks that insist Nazis, fascists and shaved Nazis are “right wing.” I’ll just point over at Jonah Goldberg and leave it at that!

    The guy was pretty clear who he was calling “right wing”– anti-federalists who do not have an “emphasis” on minority rights, “balance of powers” and civil rights.

    The guy’s strawman is bad enough without helping him.

    feel free to start listing the actual threats from anti-federalists.

  • I haven’t read the study, so I don’t know how fair it is,

    But that didn’t stop you from commenting and making snide comments about the criticisms of it, did it?

    but we all know that such people exist

    No one’s denying that such people exist – we’re denying that they are a substantial threat to the security of this country.

    I do have to hand it to those who want to paint right-wing extremists as the true threat to peace and stability of this country, because they certainly make my little bit of satire all the more on point.

  • Pingback: MONDAY GOD & CAESAR EXTRA | Big Pulpit
  • I imagine that the average Academy man is going to run into right-wing starry-eyed suckups a lot more than, say, Occupiers who are enthralled with the military.

    A question– have you been around young officers lately?

    A decade back, my first officer was utterly horrified that someone who seemed like “such a nice girl” would have a Bush/Cheney sticker on her car.

  • I didn’t intend to be snide. More like a little impatient.

    It’s the obligation of the person who’s criticizing the report to be familiar with it. If the author of this article has read the report, he didn’t indicate it. (I’m a big fan of Donald.) On that subject, this article said that the report made a distinction between the mainstream right and the nutty right. If so (and I have no reason to doubt it), then this report isn’t any sort of accusation against the mainstream right. It’s not saying that we are the threat.

    I agree that Islamic fanatics are a lot bigger threat to this country than any home-grown right-wing group. I’m not even sure why West Point has to teach people about domestic threats. But if they’re not teaching them about Islamic terrorists (or Islamist, or whatever), then there’s something really wrong. The battlefield commanders of the next few decades better understand Islamic fanaticism backwards and forwards, because they’re going to be dealing with it a lot.

    A bit off-topic, Paul, why would you feel the need to go to Confession after killing someone in self-defense?

  • Because I will have killed a man, and regardless that I may think it was done in self-defense, I would still go to Confession because I do not belong alone inside my head without adult supervision, especially after such a horrific event as having to kill another human being.

  • I submit that Nazis, skin heads, et al are not “right” at all. I point to Ludwig von Mises proposition of quadrants vs linear for the two axis: economic vs. goverance. Both Nazis and Communists are socialist, both are dictatorships, the only real difference is that the Nazis were national socialist and the Communists were international socialist. Not much of a difference if you ask me. But I swim agaist the river with the lefts faulty premise that Nazis are right of center.

  • Don’t use too much logic, CL, keep in mind that it’s putting fascists and folks opposed to an overpowering federal gov’t in the same group.

  • Liberals are not progressive or future oriented. They’re merely rehashing late 19th century Ideas of Marx, Malthus and Bismarck. Same old centralization and nationalization. Same old materialism, eugenicism, elitism, and inculturation of a national religion (read liberal secularism). Same old using social upheaval to take over more power.

Guns and “All Men Are Created Equal”

Saturday, January 19, AD 2013

Few issues demonstrate better that liberal elites and the rest of us might as well live on different planets than the Second Amendment.  Frequently living in gated communities, usually working in institutions that have armed guards, and sending their kids to elite schools that have elaborate security, liberal elites are quite good at proclaiming that other people should disarm and rely on the police for protection who, as most cops will readily admit, are minutes away when seconds count.  James O’Keefe, the master of conservative undercover journalism, and his Project Veritas, expose liberal hypocrisy in the above video.  Contemporary liberalism is all about implementing rules for the majority to live by, rules which liberal elites themselves, and their friends and colleagues, can freely ignore.  Such a system, with one set of rules for the masses who live under the laws, and another set of rules for those who effectively live above the laws, is an essential component of a tyranny in the making.  It makes a mockery of the words of Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:  “all men are created equal.”   Let us recall these words of Abraham Lincoln:

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Guns and “All Men Are Created Equal”

  • liberal elites are quite good at proclaiming that other people should disarm and rely on the police for protection who, as most cops will readily admit, are minutes away when seconds count.

    And of course when you do put cops seconds away–that is, put lots of cops where there is notoriously lots of crime, they start wetting themselves about profiling. Yesterday I saw this:

    A Canadian truck driver was shot and killed early Wednesday on the South Side of Chicago. Police said he was the victim of a robbery with multiple male perpetrators.

    And someone pertly replied:

    “Yeah, more of that ‘male’ crime we’re always hearing about.”

  • Don

    I know it is not common to reccomed comment by left leaning persons on this site but enjoy!
    “We Did It To Ourselves” by Joe Bethancourt

  • The point of this execrable exercise in faux fear and public health hysteria is, “Do as I say.”

    The common good is the common alibi of all tyrants.

    In America, you can have a pizza delivered quicker than you will see a policeman in an emercgency; unless they are breaking down your door at four AM to drag you off to the concentration camp.

    One is not equal or free if one cannot be similarly empowered as the police state.

    As to your excellent title: “God Created Men Sam Colt Made Them Equal.”

  • “Don I know it is not common to reccomed comment by left leaning persons on this site”

    Mr. Bethancourt may be left leaning Hank, but with songs like this he risks being labeled a dangerous right wing extremist by the Obama administation!

  • Tyranny in the making. I do wonder if coronation will become a synonym for inauguration.

  • For fairness’ sake, some gated communities are pretty basic “good fences make good neighbors” type planning, with cops allowed to go in. That’s the sort we lived for a few years, in an almost bad area just down the road from several more affordable rental communities that had a large number of young adult males hanging around everywhere at two on a Tuesday. (Worked pretty well, really, only minor break-ins– and they could background check before renting because of the on-site daycare.)

  • “Human existence is the criterion for the objective ordering of human rights” from Thomas Aquinas through Jose Suarez(sp) If a person exists, his human rights may not be denied or altered for God (their Creator )is unchangeable. The human being comes into existence at conception when God creates and endows the human soul with free will, intellect and personhood. A person is a person is a person. The person is immutable. That is why when an atheist or tyrant denies the person’s soul, he forfeits his own soul. Only through free will can a person mute his soul and God will not and cannot contradict Hmself. God allows the atheist to deny his God-given soul to the atheist’s detriment. It is only in imposing his detriment on society that the tyrant comes into being. Truth is immutable. If it is not the TRUTH, then it is a lie. The simple explanation of the Pope’s infallibility. May God bless and keep you.

  • @Robert A. Rowland, I do believe that Obama is more leaning towards being emperor, but will have to settle for coronation as king, like Elizabeth II.

  • At least Elizabeth II has poise and dignity.

  • Secretaries are servants. Czars are overlords. Secretary of the Interior is now “czar”. Obama appoints “czars”, (32 at last count and more in the making). The constituents elected a president as a public servant. The public servant appoints czars to collect tribute from the people. It is not taxation without representation. It is tribute without recompense. It is not representative government. It is dynasty.
    Jesus Christ has a human, rational soul. Obama says He doesn’t.

There’ll Be a Hot Time in the Old Town

Saturday, January 19, AD 2013

Something for the weekend.  Hands down the favorite song of the troops during the Spanish-American War was the ragtime hit, written in 1896 by Theodore August Metz, There’ll Be a Hot Time in the Old Time Tonight.  This presented something of a generational music gap as most of the older officers were used to the more sedate melodies of the earlier Nineteenth Century, but most of the men in the ranks and the younger officers were more attuned to ragtime and its syncopated style. 

Continue reading...

2 Responses to There’ll Be a Hot Time in the Old Town

  • The Fightin’ Texas Aggie Band still does a rendition of this tune, arranged as a military march. It often follows the “Aggie War Hymn”. However, it’s called “Hot Time in Austin” and the lyrics are as follows:

    Late one night, when the teasips were in bed,
    Old Sul Ross took a lantern in the shed.
    The Aggie kicked it over, he winked and then he said,
    “It’ll be a hot time in Austin tonight.”

  • I have always respected Teddy Roosevelt. Thank you for letting me know why.

    The Aggie War Hymn if indeed inspiring to this former University of Arkansas band member, and no stranger to any Southwest Conference School of the late 40s I can appreciate Big Tex’s humor.

Jonah Goldberg’s Message to Socially Liberal Fiscal Conservatives

Friday, January 18, AD 2013

Socially Liberal Fiscal Conservatives – like albino monk assassins sent out by Opus Dei, orthodox Catholics on the staff of the National Catholic Reporter, people who like the movie Gigli, and Lennay Kekua – have contributed much to society. But it looks like Jonah Goldberg has grown a bit tired of their act. So he has written an open letter to them, addressed to “Bob.”

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Jonah Goldberg’s Message to Socially Liberal Fiscal Conservatives

  • I have always believed that there is not any fiscal conservatism without social conservatism and no social conservatism without fiscal conservatism.

  • I agree Greg.. fiscal and moral are not two separate parts of life! One ball of wax.

  • My hat is quite often off to Jonah Goldberg for his well balanced good sense.

  • The excellent Mr. Goldberg is doing two things: Preaching to the choir and Wasting his efforts giving facts to imbeciles.

  • Come now. You all make too harsh a judgment. There is no problem with being fiscally conservative and socially liberal. If we’ve run up a huge debt that we can’t pay off, then it must be paid off by the next generation. So we kill them off with abortion. Problem solved. The debt will disappear when the debtors do. Come to think of it, the creditors will disappear as well. Unless we borrow it from another country, like China and Japan. Oh, wait, they’re disappearing too. See? No problem at all.

  • AS:

    Agree with all your excellent points.

    Except: In my assessment, I am candid not “too harsh.”

  • Get rid of poverty by getting rid of poor people should we be candid about it.

    candid (adj.)
    1620s, “white,” from Latin candidum “white; pure; sincere, honest, upright,” from candere “to shine,” from PIE root *kand- “to glow, to shine” (see candle). In English, metaphoric extension to “frank” first recorded 1670s (cf. French candide “open, frank, ingenuous, sincere”). Of photography, 1929. Related: Candidly; candidness.

  • @T. Shaw:

    “The excellent Mr. Goldberg is doing two things: Preaching to the choir and Wasting his efforts giving facts to imbeciles.”

    The excellent Mr. Goldberg is giving us “ammunition” is this war against Obama.
    I am tickled by your terminology “imbeciles”. LOL. It is very freeing.

  • I do disagree with one thing Goldberg says about the GOP being the only fiscal conservatives in town. To be sure, they are more fiscal conservative than the Democrats, which in itself isn’t saying much. But they are not fiscal conservative by any stretch.

  • National Catholic Distorter does have John Allen, the best Catholic journalist in the country, on its staff.

  • There’s a reason that Mr. Goldberg’s writing led me to NRO…..

  • What is the abortion issue to a pro-choice voter? It is the threat that an elective surgery which is performed to prevent embarrassment (embarrassment over something that the social liberal has no problem with) will – sometime in the far distant future – possibly get struck down as a Constitutional right by the Supreme Court, and then it will be left up to the states, where most of them will continue to uphold the legality of the elective surgery. If you claim that Obama is bad for the economy, why would you ever weigh the former above the latter?

18 Responses to Cult of Personality? What Cult of Personality?

  • The photo reminds me of a police line-up.

    The Acts quote (and others like it) is never far from my mind these days. Sinfully so, perhaps. But I just can’t bear modern life otherwise.

  • The photo reminds of another fascist: Mussolini, who said in 1937, “We have buried the putrid corpse of liberty.”

    St. Paul, Romans 1:25, ” Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.”

  • Saying anything about him could indeed become an occasion of sin.

  • They have stopped publishing in paper. Of what is this an image?

  • Benito Mussolini’s second coming. Mussolini and his wife were dragged through the streets of Italy by their feet and hung upside down in the public square where they were beaten with clubs by all of their victims. Obama has long portrayed the likeness of Mussolini, even once tried FDR. Benito was no good and Barack is not a lamb.

  • They are using this image at the Daily Beast, so it is authentic. They have published the article by Evan Thomas online (or an abridgement of it). It is banal.
    Thomas has a problem. The man has been in office for four years and his behavior patterns are recognizable. The only thing he has delivered is large quantities of gassy blather while Reid and Pelosi hatch their schemes (with the mute button pressed). Why does Thomas think anyone will entertain the idea that the next four years will be different?

  • “Why does Thomas think anyone will entertain the idea that the next four years will be different?”

    Religious faith Art.

  • Made in the image and likeness of God, all men are “sort of” divine. Obama needs to start representing his constituents, not one world government under the world bank. Obama is more sovereign than other sovereign persons, especially since Obama has sold out America’s sovereignty. To quote the cartoon character Hazel to the Russian diplomat: “your share is more equal than the rest” Obama’s share will become more and more equal as he removes the citizens’ sovereign freedoms and assumes total power.

  • ….worms may find him distasteful.

  • I wonder what they mean by “saving” Europe?

  • The left is stretching with all their effort to paint their leader in a positive light. They are necessarily approaching a supernatural characterization. After all, under his presidency our nation is more seriously divided, business is poor, and the family is under attack.

    If Obama were really a good leader, this over-reach to praise him would not be necessary. But alas, he is not a good leader at all. This article is indirect evidence.

    The outcome of the midterm election will be direct evidence.

  • Personality is a response to personhood. Obama discarded his sovereign personhood when he let American citizens, persons who became citizens at birth, die in a broom closet after they survived abortion. The cult cannot seriously honor such a nobody.

  • Algeria crisis resolved: hostages killed.

  • It rather reminds me of 2nd Maccabees, Chapter 9, where Antiochus dies.

    “Far from giving up his insolence, he was all the more filled with arrogance. Breathing fire in his rage against the Jews, he gave orders to drive even faster. As a result he hurtled from the speeding chariot, and every part of his body was racked by the violent fall.
    Thus he who previously, in his superhuman presumption, thought he could command the waves of the sea, and imagined he could weigh the mountaintops in his scales, was now thrown to the ground and had to be carried on a litter, clearly manifesting to all the power of God.c
    The body of this impious man swarmed with worms, and while he was still alive in hideous torments, his flesh rotted off, so that the entire army was sickened by the stench of his corruption.d
    Shortly before, he had thought that he could reach the stars of heaven, and now, no one could endure to transport the man because of this intolerable stench.”

  • replacing “America” with what? Thank goodness people are beginning to see that America is more than what is in the outlines on the map– America is not just geophysical, or just political, more than an idea– America is not just any nation among the nations but it is endued with a spiritual reality.. America must live out her holy calling in physical political and idealogical ways. Otherwise it’s back to the way it was before….

  • In August 2010, The Washington Post Company sold Newsweek for $1.00 to an 81-year-old billionaire named Harman.

    Mr. Harman did not amass a billion dollars by consumating such ill-conceived transactions.