Trump Largely Wins One In the Supreme Court

Monday, June 26, AD 2017

 

In an unsigned opinion today the Supreme Court lifted stays imposed by lower courts on President Trump’s travel ban on travel for 90 days from Sudan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia and Yemen, except for nationals of those country who have a connection with the US, for example through relatives, etc.  The ban itself will be argued before the Court in the fall, by which time the 90 days would have expired in any case.  Justices Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito joined in a dissent written by Thomas which argued that the injunctions should have been lifted in toto.  Go here to read the decision.

Continue reading...

One Response to Trump Largely Wins One In the Supreme Court

Leave a Reply

6 Responses to PopeWatch: Purple Dinosaur

  • This video suggests sameness of all religions despite the different appearances. How about we become the Church Militant again and make converts like Christ said He wanted us to do.

  • Great! All we need is be lectured on making friends with those who are different from us from those who wouldn’t be caught dead hanging out with those think different from them!

    The Barney video is more in line with mature of the two.

  • Seeking unity with those who deny the sole Divinely-Constitued Church established by Jesus Christ (and His Commandments) without them first repudiating their errors and converting to the One True Faith is to do the work of the Devil.

    It is within the lifetime of ABS that one could understand such an impetus being actualised by Masonry * (and only Masonry) but not by the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church but that was prior to the revolution within the form of Catholicism which supplanted Salvific Theocentrism with political and social Anthropocentrism.

    Jesus gives us what we want and we want man and we want unity at all cost no matter whether we unify with those who reject the Church Jesus established or whether we unify with those who reject the Sacramental System established by Jesus or whether we unify with those who reject the Commandments of Jesus.

    We want a unity that reconciles Christ with Belial.

    And still invisibilium within the Hierarchy is that Prelate whose puissant possession of Tradition is such that it could be used as a force against our Inertia Into Indifferentism.

    *
    Statement on Freemasonry and Religion

    Prepared by the Masonic Information Center

    Basic Principles. Freemasonry is not a religion, nor is it a substitute for religion. It requires of its members a belief in God as part of the obligation of every responsible adult, but advocates no sectarian faith or practice. Masonic ceremonies include prayers, both traditional and extempore, to reaffirm each individual’s dependence on God and to seek divine guidance. Freemasonry is open to men of any faith, but religion may not be discussed at Masonic meetings.

    The Supreme Being. Masons believe that there is one God and that people employ many different ways to seek, and to express what they know of God. Masonry primarily uses the appellation, “Grand Architect of the Universe,” and other non-sectarian titles, to address the Deity. In this way, persons of different faiths may join together in prayer, concentrating on God, rather than differences among themselves. Masonry believes in religious freedom and that the relationship between the individual and God is personal, private, and sacred.

    Volume of the Sacred Law. An open volume of the Sacred Law, “the rule and guide of life,” is an essential part of every Masonic meeting. The Volume of the Sacred Law in the Judeo/Christian tradition is the Bible; to Freemasons of other faiths, it is the book held holy by them.

    The Oath of Freemasonry. The obligations taken by Freemasons are sworn on the Volume of the Sacred Law. They are undertakings to follow the principles of Freemasonry and to keep confidential a Freemason’s means of recognition. The much discussed “penalties,” judicial remnants from an earlier era, are symbolic, not literal. They refer only to the pain any honest man should feel at the thought of violating his word.

    Freemasonry Compared with Religion. Freemasonry lacks the basic elements of religion: (a) It has no dogma or theology, no wish or means to enforce religious orthodoxy. (b) It offers no sacraments. (c) It does not claim to lead to salvation by works, by secret knowledge, or by any other means. The secrets of Freemasonry are concerned with modes of recognition, not with the means of salvation.

    Freemasonry Supports Religion. Freemasonry is far from indifferent toward religion. Without interfering in religious practice, it expects each member to follow his own faith and to place his Duty to God above all other duties. Its moral teachings are acceptable to all religions.

    Prepared by the Masonic Information

    Are we all to be Masons now?

  • What if the obsession with sameness?

    Human lungs and pears have roughly the same among of water – 83%- but, say, were one to have cancerous lungs, a man would not be too keen on a Doctor suggesting surgery in which a pair of pears replaced the pair of lungs.

  • Hmm.
    Friends are one thing, trying to convince a friend what’s true is something friends do-

    Now, if you don’t actually believe your religion is true, what are you doing in that religion?

  • Religion is man’s response to the gift of FAITH from God. All men are called to the true FAITH from God. Atheists and secular humanists reject the gift of FAITH from God . God reverences mankind and respects our free will.
    In rejecting the gift of FAITH from God, atheists and others reject the religious persons who cherish their gift of FAITH.
    Man’s response to the gift of FAITH from God is religion. The freedom of religion is inscribed in our FIRST AMENDMENT. The state and all other peoples have no authentic authority to impede man’s pursuit of Happiness in pursuit of the TRUTH.
    Belief may be of the flat earth or selling one’s common sense to some imaginary creature. Religion is man’s response to the gift of FAITH from The SUPREME SOVEREIGN BEING, in TRUTH, the will to follow Jesus Christ, in time and in eternity.

Leave a Reply

Fortnight For Freedom: SERTUM LAETITIAE

Monday, June 26, AD 2017

Pius XII was the first Pope to visit the United States, albeit as Papal Secretary of State.  He visited Mount Vernon while in the country on October 22, 1936.  On  November 1, 1939 he issued the encyclical SERTUM LAETITIAE commemorating the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the establishment of the hierarchy.  His comments on America are still of interest:

SERTUM LAETITIAE

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
ON THE HUNDRED AND FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY
OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIERARCHY
IN THE UNITED STATES

To Our Beloved Sons: William O’Connell, Cardinal Priest of the Holy Roman Church, Archbishop of Boston, Dennis Dougherty, Cardinal Priest of the Holy Roman Church, Archbishop of Philadelphia, and to all the Venerable Brethren, the Archbishops, Bishops and Ordinaries of the United States of America in Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See.

Venerable Brethren, Health and Apostolic Benediction:

1. In our desire to enrich the crown of your holy joy We cross in spirit the vast spaces of the seas and find Ourselves in your midst as you celebrate, in company with all your faithful people, the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the establishment of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy in the United States of America. And this We do with great gladness, because an occasion is thus afforded Us, as gratifying as it is solemn, of giving public testimony of Our esteem and Our affection for the youthfully vigorous and illustrious American people.

2. To one who turns the pages of your history and reflects upon the causes of what has been accomplished it is apparent that the triumphal progress of Divine religion has contributed in no small degree to the glory and prosperity which your country now enjoys. It is indeed true that religion has its laws and institutions for eternal happiness but It is also undeniable that it dowers life here below with so many benefits that it could do no more even if the principal reason for its existence were to make men happy during the brief span of their earthly life.

3. It is a pleasure for Us to recall the well remembered story.
When Pope Pius VI gave you your first Bishop in the person of the American John Carroll and set him over the See of Baltimore, small and of slight importance was the Catholic population of your land. At that time, too, the condition of the United States was so perilous that its structure and its very political unity were threatened by grave crisis. Because of the long and exhausting war the public treasury was burdened with debt, industry languished and the citizenry wearied by misfortunes was split into contending parties. This ruinous and critical state of affairs was put aright by the celebrated George Washington, famed for his courage and keen intelligence. He was a close friend of the Bishop of Baltimore. Thus the Father of His Country and the pioneer pastor of the Church in that land so dear to Us, bound together by the ties of friendship and clasping, so to speak, each the other’s hand, form a picture for their descendants, a lesson to all future generations, and a proof that reverence for the Faith of Christ is a holy and established principle of the American people, seeing that it is the foundation of morality and decency, consequently the source of prosperity and progress.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Fortnight For Freedom: SERTUM LAETITIAE

  • If I am not mistaken, the first pope to set foot on American sovereign territory was Pio Nono. It was an American naval vessel docked in Naples I think.

  • WOW. Pope Pius XII is my Pope. I love him.
    Marriage is the expression of reverence for human life. I must thank the good sisters and the Baltimore Catechism for my FAITH.
    Gandhi is also on that newspaper:
    On the death Penalty: Capital punishment is the temporal punishment due to homicide in the first degree. After the crime is forgiven and repented, temporal punishment must be imposed. If the murderer has expired with grief over the commission of his crime, then it may be known that he is repented. If the murderer has not expired with grief over the commission of his crime, then it may be known that he is not repented. Homicide in the first degree must be equal Justice.
    Gandhi said: “An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.” An eye for an eye will be a deterrent to making the whole world blind. In this sense, the crimes never committed may be counted. It may be said that at the least, all sighted individuals chose to avoid becoming murderers because of the capital punishment imposed. Counting persons who avoided becoming murderers, their number far exceeds those of actual murderers.

  • People have a personal space that may not be violated. A person’s personal space is not owned by the government, nor is a man’s personal space owned by the public. A man’s personal space is an innate human right flowing from his transcendent being.
    The government may regulate his business, tax his income and place restrictions on his public comings and goings, but only to serve the common good. These are conformities to a man’s outward life.
    The personal space of the human being may not be violated by crime committed by himself or by others. For other individuals to violate a man’s personal space is the crime of assault. For the man to violate his own personal space makes him an outlaw.
    The personal space of the human being is analogous to the public square of the community and the sovereignty of a nation. The personal space of the human being is to the individual what the public square is to the community and sovereignty is to a nation. Violations of “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” may not be perpetrated therein, neither in the man’s personal space nor in the community’s public square, nor in the sovereignty of the nation, not by the person nor by his enemies.

  • For Pope Pius XII: Jesus Christ, the Son of Man and the Son of God was murdered. If Jesus Christ was not an innocent man, then He would have had to die for His own sins. Mankind would not have been saved. Born of The Virgin who willed to love God perfectly, Mary maintained her original innocence and was not subject to the concupiscence of the sin of Adam, original sin. Mary’s Immaculate Conception testifies to the innocence of her Son and the Son of God.
    Mary’s soul was created in eternity by God in response to the Son of God loving mankind. Mary’s soul was created after Adam and Eve were created but before our first parents chose to disobey God. Mary, in her free will, chose to remain obedient and maintain her virginity in her love of God. Mary maintained her original innocence and was not subject to the concupiscence of the sin of Adam, original sin. Mary’s fiat began with Mary’s existence.
    Mary’s identity: “I AM THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION”, means that God infused Mary’s immaculate soul created in eternity, outside of time, into her body procreated in time with Mary’s informed consent. Mary gave informed consent through her free will to be preserved from original sin in the privilege of her IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. In Justice, God required Mary’s informed consent, given in free will, to grant the privilege of her IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, the doctrine of Mary’s preservation from original sin.
    God does not contradict himself. God’s gift of free will will not be revoked, not for St. Lucifer, nor for The Mother of the Son of God. In reverence for the sovereign personhood of mankind, God in His love for His Son and in reverence for Himself desires such “fiat”. In obedience to God’s desire, Mary made her “fiat” for all mankind.

Leave a Reply

What a Salon Writer Thinks Illegal Aliens Are For

Sunday, June 25, AD 2017

 

Well, Ms. Williams, other than their Grandparents and their Aunt Cathy, my wife and I had someone else look after our three kids precisely once as they were growing up.  I have the duty of scrubbing out the toilets at my home, my Air Force Sergeant Dad having made sure I learned to do that job properly as I grew up, and I have always driven myself, although I have never owned a limo.  Go here to read other responses to Ms. Williams.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to What a Salon Writer Thinks Illegal Aliens Are For

Leave a Reply

Fortnight For Freedom: Getting in Bed With Caesar

Sunday, June 25, AD 2017

tiberius

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

Sam Adams, August 1, 1776

(This is a repeat from last year.  I can’t improve upon it, except for minor changes that I have made.)

The American Catholic is proud to participate in this year’s Fortnight For Freedom.  The Fortnights were started in 2012 by the bishops of this country in response to the unprecedented assault on religious liberty posed by the Obama administration, to remind Catholics of the preciousness of their inheritance of freedom as Americans and Catholics and the necessity of standing up to threats to it.  All well and good, and a very worthy cause indeed.  However, the leadership of the Church appears to be schizophrenic on this subject.  While Caesar seeks to limit the freedom of the Church, too many ecclesiastics respond by wanting to get into bed with Caesar.

The examples of this are legion.

It was the policy of the Church to aid the Obama administration in flouting the immigration laws of this country, acting as a virtual arm of the State in sheltering illegal aliens.  Thank heavens that administration is now one with Nineveh and Tyre.

The Church was all in favor of Obamacare, until the Obama administration targeted the Church with the contraceptive mandate.

The Green Encyclical, Laudato Si, released in 2015, is one long demand for Caesar to engage in an immense power grab, and regulate business and citizens to fight a mythical global warming threat.

The Vatican is a cheerleader of UN activities that spell a mortal danger to economic freedom in the West.

The Church through the Catholic Campaign for Human Development funds hundreds of left wing pressure groups to call for ever bigger government, and, inevitably, further restrictions on freedom.

Welfare States require huge amounts of tax money and huge amounts of government power.  The default position of the Church today when confronting any need traditionally filled by private or Church charity, is to scream for Caesar to come fix things.  This bastardized parody of the social teachings of the Church inevitably comes back to bite the Church as Caesar will always exact a price for his favors and under the Obama administration that price was for the Church to bend the knee to contraception, abortion and gay marriage.  For all too many of our shepherds that was a small price to pay to keep the government largess flowing.  There is a reason why Christ whipped the money changers from the Temple and why He uttered the phrase to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.   These days the Church too often seems willing to bow the knee to Caesar, no matter what Caesar demands, so long as the funds from Caesar keep flowing.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Fortnight For Freedom: Getting in Bed With Caesar

  • NPR doesn’t get it but Bishop Paprocki does. This Bishop has moxie. Willing to defend Holy Catholic Church and it’s teachings. Freedom fighter Paprocki!
    God bless you.

    http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/23/534127330/illinois-bishop-decrees-no-communion-funeral-rites-for-same-sex-spouses

  • Not one red cent for any Catholic anything. Not one. None of them can be trusted to ensure the money is spent on what God wants instead of on Caesar.

    “The Green Encyclical, Laudato Si, released in 2015, is one long demand for Caesar to engage in an immense power grab, and regulate business and citizens to fight a mythical global warming threat.”

    “The Vatican is a cheerleader of UN activities that spell a mortal danger to economic freedom in the West.”

    “The Church through the Catholic Campaign for Human Development funds hundreds of left wing pressure groups to call for ever bigger government, and, inevitably, further restrictions on freedom.”

  • Pope Francis et al, Orwell’s 1984 was a warning, not a guidebook.

    Todays’ St. Matthew is most important. Fear not that which can only destroy the body. Fear God Who can destroy body and soul, and consign one to eternal fire in Hell. Sadly, few are given that message. Concomitant with selling out to Big Brother, there is scarcely an iota of zeal for the salvation of souls. Tragic!

    Sam Adams was a fire brand.

  • When a Capitular of 800 making the payment of tithes universal within the fiscal domain of the whole Frankish kingdom was published in Rome, we are told the reading of this Capitular was interrupted by loud and repeated shouts from Pope Leo III and the assembled clergy of “Life and victory to our ever-august Emperor!” – Vita! Victoria!

  • The Papacy created the Holy Roman Empire and then spent most of the next thousand years fighting against it.

  • The Church’s problem isn’t ‘getting in bed with Caesar’. Cadres who know their own mind (however witless the contents) will engage in try-every-door non-compliance (and will be selectively succored by the judiciary for so doing). The problem is that Caesar’s compliance mandates are a tool in the hands of intramural factions which wish to suborn and corrupt the institution. These people are already there. The bishops, religious superiors, and college trustees could can these crooks, but they cannot be bothered, by and large. (For reasons it’s not difficult to imagine). Dollars to doughnuts, a sociological and psychological survey of people who work for the Church and it’s subsidiaries would reveal them to be quite similar to people who work for NGOs generally. Remember Todd Flowerday, music director? (“Peace, All”). When he was in discernment (eventually electing not to go to seminary), he was working for the NPR station in Rochester.

    There’s been a certain amount of chuffering about ‘religious freedom’ in this fora and certain parties may be quite right that the last Oecumenical Council generated some serious theological trouble with its pronouncements. Trouble is, brass tacks, it does not matter for obvious reasons.

    “Welfare state” is a rhetorical thrust without much content, and people should stop using it. Some element of common provision administered by public or parastatal authorities is a pervasive feature of human societies. It wasn’t absent in the world in which Calvin Coolidge was a working politician, which was populated by state schools, state asylums, state sanitoriums, veterans hospitals, &c.

    Social Security hardly requires more public power than is necessary to collect taxes. The same is true with SNAP (formerly Food Stamps), and, in a more qualified way, housing vouchers. The lumbering mess various authorities have made of the finance of medical care over the last 50 odd years (and, in some respects, the last 75 years) incorporates more discretion on the part of public authorities, but that’s contextually a subsidiary problem. The main problems all have to do with perverse incentives which have distorted and disfigured the market, the doctor-paitient relationship, and the professional lives of practitioners.

    Where you’re going to see troublesome discretion, it’s in the state schools and the child protective apparat. The latter does not incorporate much of a financial flow and the former was a feature of the common life two-or-three generations ‘ere anyone had ever heard of Franklin Roosevelt.

  • You have perfectly stated the issue and the proper response Mr. McClarey.

    Having given up their belief in the largess of God the Bishops seek succor from the government as tools of the Democrat party. The ultimate end of their endeavors has to be Communism which will bring untold misery to folks they presume to protect. One thinks that these faithless Bishops must be loathsome in the eyes of God as they focus on the goods of this world rather than those of the Kingdom of God.

    By the way, this morning I was re-reading Bishop Fulton Sheen’s ”Life of Christ’, chapter 15, entitled (Christ’s) ‘Refusal to be a Bread King.’ The huge crowds that followed Christ stopped when He told them they must eat His body and drink His blood to be saved. They were looking for earthly satisfaction like our Bishops seem to be doing today.

  • The main difference between the time of Samuel and now, is that back then some merely (if helplessly) wanted a king (Caesar), and today with democracy, we actually pick our own Caesar…i.e. we are Caesar…or perhaps lately, we are more like Nero.

  • It was actually a two part process. Samuel annointed Saul as King, and then later the people acclaimed him as King. It is striking that such an anti-monarchical section survived in Scripture.

  • The establishment of a monarchy was basically a rebellion of the Jewish people against God (1 Sam 8):
    But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”
    Just as men as societies now reject the Kingship of Christ.

  • The main difference between the time of Samuel and now, is that back then some merely (if helplessly) wanted a king (Caesar), and today with democracy, we actually pick our own Caesar…i.e. we are Caesar…or perhaps lately, we are more like Nero.

    No, the main difference is that we’re not a collection of pastoralists organized around lineages. If you fancy you can do without a central government, you might just review what life was like in Beirut ca. 1982 or visit Mogadishu today.

  • Art, you latest post, while in many ways true, has nothing to do with Don L’s post. Really.

  • Art, you latest post, while in many ways true, has nothing to do with Don L’s post. Really.

    It’s a precise reply to something he said, verbatim quotation included. I’m sorry the relevance eludes you, but that’s not my problem.

  • Art Deco: Love your put down of TomD.
    “and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen” I understand that the souls in hell are not remembered not ever. Sam Adams got it right.

  • It is your problem, Art, if it eludes a fair number of other people.

Leave a Reply

PopeWatch: Checkmate

Saturday, June 24, AD 2017

 

From the only reliable source of Catholic news on the net, Eye of the Tiber:

 

 

Society of St. Pius X chess grandmaster Larcel Mafebvre has turned four of his pieces into bishops without approval from the World Chess Federation, officials have confirmed.

“Mr. Mafebvre has, without approval from the Federation, created bishops out of pawn pieces,” said World Chess Federation head Antonio Salamanca. “After speaking with Mr. Mafebvre regarding abiding by the new chess rules, wherein players are given the freedom to concelebrate the match, and to say the words of ‘checkmate’ in the vernacular, he has sadly decided to ignore our requests.”

Salamanca went on to tell reporters that Mafebvre had automatically incurred excheckommunication because of his disobedience.

“I must do what is in my conscience to preserve the dignity of the game,”  Mafebvre told EOTT in an exclusive interview. “Therefore, I have decided to consecrate four of my pieces into bishops to help my depleted side, for, from some Fischer, the smoke of Satan has entered the chessboard of God.”

At press time, one time follower of Larcel Mafebvre’s, Bavid Dawden, told EOTT that he has decided to become head of the World Chess Federation, though he only has three pawns to play with.

Continue reading...

Leave a Reply

Fortnight For Freedom: Over There

Saturday, June 24, AD 2017

 

 

 

 

Something for the weekend.  George M. Cohan wrote Over There, the song which will always be associated with America in World War I.  He was immortalized by James Cagney in the 1942 film biopic Yankee Doodle Dandy.  Dying on November 5, 1942 of stomach cancer, Cohan saw the film shortly before its release in a private screening.  I do not know if the ending of the film in the clip brought tears to his eyes, but it always does mine.  Cohan wrote the song in under two hours on April 7, 1917, two days after the US declared war on Imperial Germany.  Over There would be introduced to the public during a Red Cross benefit in New York City during the fall of 1917, and swiftly became the American anthem for the war effort.  Son of Union veteran Jeremiah Cohan, who lied about his age to serve as a Union surgeon’s orderly during the Civil War, Cohan attempted to enlist during World War I in the Army but was rejected due to his age.  I have always liked this song.  It has a brash exuberance matched with a determination to accomplish a hard task, traits which have served the US well in dark times.  We could use much more of that spirit today.

Continue reading...

Leave a Reply

Prayer Request

Friday, June 23, AD 2017

 

LarryD at Acts of the Apostasy has the dreadful news that his nineteen year old nephew took his life.  I would regard it as a personal favor for prayers to be offered for LarryD, the young man’s family and the repose of the soul of the young man.  I have long believed that before we reach our end, God throws a rope to us.  Let us hope that the young man grasped it before his soul left his body.

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.  Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.  Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.  Amen.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Prayer Request

Leave a Reply

The Truth Always Gets Out

Friday, June 23, AD 2017

 

 

The ridiculous and clearly politically motivated criminal charges brought by the Democrat Attorney General of California against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt are coming apart at the seams:

 

In a huge victory, a California court today dismissed almost all of the criminal charges abortion activists filed against the pro-life advocates who recorded undercover videos exposing Planned Parenthood selling the body parts from aborted babies.

 

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra filed 15 felony charges against both David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt. Becerra is a longtime abortion advocate with financial connections to the Planned Parenthood abortion company that the two pro-life Advocates exposed in the videos for selling body parts such as fetal brains and livers.

At the time, pro-life advocates said Becerra’s 15 felony charges were bogus charges meant to belittle the expose’ campaign and to cast aspersions on Daleiden and the organization behind the videos. They said the attempt was about drawing attention away from Planned Parenthood’s sales of aborted baby parts.

The San Francisco Superior Court on Wednesday dismissed 14 of 15 criminal counts but the pair are still charged with one count of conspiracy to invade privacy. However the court dismissed the charges with leave to amend — meaning Becerra could re-file the charges with additional supposed evidence against the pair.

The court ruled that counts 1-14 were legally insufficient. The state has the opportunity to amend if it can plead a more legally sufficient and specific complaint. The California’s Attorney General filed 15 criminal counts against Merritt, with counts 1-14 for each of the alleged interviews and count 15 for an alleged conspiracy. San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Christopher Hite gave the state attorney general’s office until mid-July to file a revised complaint.

In a statement to LifeNews, pro-life attorney Mat Svaer of LibertyCounsel, representing Merritt, said, “This is a huge victory to have 14 criminal counts dismissed.”

“We will now turn our attention to dismissing the final count. Sandra Merritt did nothing wrong. The complaint by the California Attorney General is unprecedented and frankly will threaten every journalist who provides valuable information to the public. This final count will also fall,” said Staver.

Continue reading...

20 Responses to The Truth Always Gets Out

  • Seems that the “could re-file these charges” are being held as a “hush up now” threat?

  • No. Judges normally do not dismiss charges with prejudice unless it would be clearly impossible for the legal defects to be cured. It does mean that the charges were sloppily drafted and that the State might not be able to cure the legal defects to successfully charge the crime.

  • When a victim of murder is hidden in a closet. The victim’s rights are still intact and the closet may be searched without a warrant because of the victim’s rights. Hiding crimes is obstruction of Justice.
    This video ought to be disturbing. Crime is disturbing.

  • Will state have to pay the accused court costs? Am not a lawyer.

  • No, the state doesn’t pay the defense lawyer unless the accused is indigent. I think Liberty Counsel is probably representing this guy pro bono. Kudos on the dismissals; hopefully the California AG gets the message and backs down.

  • Kamala Harris, the new Senator from California, was California Attorney
    General while these 15 charges were drawn up. Just during the time her
    office was doing its investigation, her Senate campaign accepted roughly
    $40K in contributions from Planned Parenthood and its affiliates.

    When Harris moved up the political food chain from Sacramento to DC,
    Becerra was appointed to fill her office and subsequently filed the charges
    she’d prepared. During that short interval, he too received almost $8K in
    contributions from PP and NARAL.

    It is disturbing that an Attorney General can receive money from entities
    involved in an investigation currently being handled by their office.
    Harris and Becerra don’t seem too concerned over any appearance of
    impropriety, however. I assume there is some sort of legal nicety to
    be observed that magically transforms that behavior from an ethics
    violation and conflict of interest into just another day at the office…

  • “It does mean that the charges were sloppily drafted and that the State might not be able to cure the legal defects to successfully charge the crime.”
    Unless, of course, the process is meant to be the punishment.

  • Don, is it really possible to be charged with conspiracy when no one else can be?

  • Not in Illinois:

    “A person commits the offense of conspiracy when, with intent that an offense be committed, he or she agrees with another to the commission of that offense. No person may be convicted of conspiracy to commit an offense unless an act in furtherance of that agreement is alleged and proved to have been committed by him or her or by a co-conspirator.”

  • I am not a lawyer either but it does seem that if the State is behind these thin air charges the State should bear some responsibility for frivolity

  • Unfortunately, the process is the punishment.

  • It is disturbing that an Attorney General can receive money from entities
    involved in an investigation currently being handled by their office.

    Yes it is disturbing. The thing is, it’s a reasonable wager Harris and Bacerra would have done what they did had they received not one thin dime from PP. The culture of the law schools, of the legal profession generally, and of the professional-managerial class generally is godawful. The exceptions are commonly people who have discrete affiliations which mark them as distinct within that stratum. (E.g. small town residence or belonging to an evangelical congregation).

  • Planned Parenthood’s own legal counsel worked with Kamala Harris’
    AG office to craft the legislation used to charge Daleiden and Merritt.
    Harris declined to investigate, let alone prosecute PP for its actions
    revealed in the videos, and instead her office turned PP’s legal team
    into a branch of the California DOJ, writing laws designed to target
    Daleiden and Merritt and any other pro-lifers who might try something
    similar against PP in the future.

    https://www.liveaction.org/news/planned-parenthood-wrote-portion-
    california-law-designed-target-pro-life-journalists/.

    So we appear to have a politician declining to investigate apparent
    illegal activity documented on video, opting instead to work with
    that party to craft legislation designed to criminalize the investigator’s
    actions, all while the politician is accepting substantial campaign
    contributions from the party whose illegal activity was captured
    on video. And now that politician is a US Senator, touted as a
    likely candidate for president in 2020. And no major news outlet
    seems to care.

  • When are they going to go after Planned “un”Parenthood and shut down the death dealers and put all of the evil doers in prison!?! Sadly, there are evil, greedy people out there who don’t even blink about killing babies and selling their body parts for material possessions such as expensive cars and houses. Also, there are others benefiting financially from evil PP. The people working at, for, or with PP should always have to hear the “tell-tale” hearts of all of those babies, at least, unless or until they repent of their evil. Anyway, no matter what, God sees all and God is not mocked!

  • So we appear to have a politician declining to investigate apparent
    illegal activity documented on video, opting instead to work with
    that party to craft legislation designed to criminalize the investigator’s
    actions, all while the politician is accepting substantial campaign
    contributions from the party whose illegal activity was captured
    on video.

    Again, the contributions are chump change in a constituency the size of California. The corruption here is not in the pecuniary realm, but derived from the culture of the bar, the culture of the Democratic Party, and the culture of Kamala Harris circle of friends. Of course this woman should never be in a position of public trust. That’s likely true of about 90% of the people around her. We live in a decadent age.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “Judges normally do not dismiss charges with prejudice unless it would be clearly impossible for the legal defects to be cured.”

    The usual interlocutor is, “FIND the libel irrelevant to infer the pains of law; desert the diet simpliciter and dismiss the panel from the bar.”

    However, as the party has not tholed an assize, the prosecutor may serve a fresh libel, so long as the time limit for prosecuting (110 days from arrest, if the accused is in custody; a year, if he is not) has not expired.

  • TomD asked Don, “is it really possible to be charged with conspiracy when no one else can be?”

    Obviously, a person cannot conspire with himself. “Cospiracy” comes from the Latin “conspirare” – to whisper together.

    However, an individual may be charged with conspiring with “other ill-disposed persons to the prosecutor unknown” and the allegation that A and B and others to the prosecutor unknown are “all and each or one or more of you, to the number of two together” guilty of conspiracy is relevant.

    This commonly happens, for example, when a person is charged with conspiring to import controlled substances (such as drugs) into Scotland and the names of his overseas suppliers and confederates are unknown to the authorities, the evidence consisting of the receipt here of packages sent from abroad. The dispatch and receipt are libelled as being done in furtherance of the conspiracy, as drug dealers tend not to send their wares to strangers on approval, or as unsolicited samples.

  • “However, an individual may be charged with conspiring with ‘other ill-disposed persons to the prosecutor unknown'”
    Yes, I am sure that is the case, which is why I phrased my question “when no one else can be?” There must be some rational idea behind ‘other ill-disposed persons to the prosecutor unknown’ and not just paranoia.

  • “It is disturbing that an Attorney General can receive money from entities
    involved in an investigation currently being handled by their office.”
    Sounds like bribery

  • Mary De Voe– precisely. As I mentioned earlier, I’m sure there’s
    some sort of legal nicety one has to observe to dodge possible
    charges of bribery, but the behavior of both Harris and Becerra,
    accepting any funds from PP while their office was handling
    the case shows an indifference to even maintaining the appearance
    of objectivity and probity.

    Couple that with the brazen way PP lawyers worked with the AG’s
    office to craft a law designed to target Daleiden and Merritt, and you
    have a state DOJ that is not only corrupt, but using its authority
    to bring the might of that state to bear against those whom PP
    would have them target. The California AG’s office is not merely
    corrupt, it’s become tyrannical.

Leave a Reply

PopeWatch: Apostasy

Friday, June 23, AD 2017

 

Edward Pentin at National Catholic Register has a barn burner of interview with Monsignor Nicola Bux, a former consultor to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

Monsignor Bux, what are the implications of the ‘doctrinal anarchy’ that people see happening for the Church, the souls of the faithful and priests?

The first implication of doctrinal anarchy for the Church is division, caused by apostasy, which is the abandonment of Catholic thought, as defined by St. Vincent of Lerins: quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditur (what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all). Saint Irenaeus of Lyon, who calls Jesus Christ the “Master of unity,” had pointed out to heretics that everyone professes the same things, but not everyone means the same thing. This is the role of the Magisterium, founded on the truth of Christ: to bring everyone back to Catholic unity.

St. Paul exhorted Christians to be in agreement and to speak with unanimity. What would he say today? When cardinals are silent or accuse their confreres; when bishops who had thought, spoken and written — scripta manent! [written words remain]— in a Catholic way, but then say the opposite for whatever reason; when priests contest the liturgical tradition of the Church, then apostasy is established, the detachment from Catholic thought. Paul VI had foreseen that “this non-Catholic thought within Catholicism will tomorrow become the strongest [force]. But it will never represent the Church’s thinking. A small flock must remain, no matter how small it is.” (Conversation with J. Guitton, 9.IX.1977).

 

What implications, then, does doctrinal anarchy have for the souls of the faithful and ecclesiastics?

The Apostle exhorts us to be faithful to sure, sound and pure doctrine: that founded on Jesus Christ and not on worldly opinions (cf. Titus 1:7-11; 2:1-8). Perseverance in teaching and obedience to doctrine leads souls to eternal salvation. The Church cannot change the faith and at the same time ask believers to remain faithful to it. She is instead intimately obliged to be oriented toward the Word of God and toward Tradition.

Therefore, the Church remembers the Lord’s judgment: “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” (John 9:39). Do not forget that, when one is applauded by the world, it means one belongs to it. In fact, the world loves its own and hates what does not belong to it (cf. John 15:19). May the Catholic Church always remember that she is made up of only those who have converted to Christ under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; all human beings are ordained to her (cf. Lumen gentium 13), but they are not part of her until they are converted.

 

How can this problem best be resolved?

The point is: what idea does the Pope have of the Petrine ministry, as described in Lumen gentium 18 and codified in canon law? Faced with confusion and apostasy, the Pope should make the distinction — as Benedict XVI did — between what he thinks and says as a private, learned person, and what he must say as Pope of the Catholic Church. To be clear: the Pope can express his ideas as a private learned person on disputable matters which are not defined by the Church, but he cannot make heretical claims, even privately. Otherwise it would be equally heretical.

I believe that the Pope knows that every believer — who knows the regula fidei [the rule of faith] or dogma, which provides everyone with the criterion to know what the faith of the Church is, what everyone has to believe and who one has to listen to — can see if he is speaking and operating in a Catholic way, or has gone against the Church’s sensus fidei [sense of the faith]. Even one believer can hold him to account. So whoever thinks that presenting doubts [dubia] to the Pope is not a sign of obedience, hasn’t understood, 50 years after Vatican II, the relationship between him [the Pope] and the whole Church. Obedience to the Pope depends solely on the fact that he is bound by Catholic doctrine, to the faith that he must continually profess before the Church.

We are in a full crisis of faith! Therefore, in order to stop the divisions in progress, the Pope — like Paul VI in 1967, faced with the erroneous theories that were circulating shortly after the conclusion of the Council — should make a Declaration or Profession of Faith, affirming what is Catholic, and correcting those ambiguous and erroneous words and acts — his own and those of bishops — that are interpreted in a non-Catholic manner.

Otherwise, it would be grotesque that, while seeking unity with non-Catholic Christians or even understanding with non-Christians, apostasy and division is being fostered within the Catholic Church. For many Catholics, it is incredible that the Pope is asking bishops to dialogue with those who think differently, but does not want first to face the cardinals who are his chief advisors. If the Pope does not safeguard doctrine, he cannot impose discipline. As John Paul II said, the Pope must always be converted, to be able to strengthen his brothers, according to the words of Christ to Peter: “Et tu autem conversus, confirma fratres tuos [when you are converted, strengthen your brothers].” 

Continue reading...

5 Responses to PopeWatch: Apostasy

  • Thank you.
    The tug of war ragging in my heart is exhausting and separating the office from the man has been a challenge.

    Can God turn him? Can our offerings help in his conversion?

    Not every single word from his mouth is teetering on error but his reluctance to address the matter personally is cowardice.

    Thank you for the correct perspective.

  • The smoke of Satan has indeed entered the tabernacle. Information as to how the faithful must navigate these historically crucial times is needed more than ever to insure a viable thriving remnant remain.
    Thanks for the article Don.

  • Good commentary at St. Corbinian’s Bear:

    http://corbiniansbear.blogspot.com/2017/06/who-is-antichrist-debate-between-bear.html

    Liberals say Trump isn’t their President. Well guess what? Obama wasn’t my President and Jorge Bergoglio isn’t my Pope.

  • Monsignor Nicola Bux is playing the role of Thomas More in our age of the tragic decline of the Catholic Church and particularly it’s leadership. Pope Francis has much the same attitude as Henry VIII in deciding he has no higher authority than himself.

  • What you are seeing is a crisis deliberately manufactured by the pontiff, his inner circle and his awful appointees. There is a dangerous fissure, it is spreading and the Bishop of Rome wants it to spread. Refuse to be gaslit, and ignore the Chip Dillers who insist despite all the evidence to the contrary that all is well.

Leave a Reply

Fortnight For Freedom: Catholics in the American Revolution

Friday, June 23, AD 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nor, perchance did the fact which We now recall take place without some design of divine Providence. Precisely at the epoch when the American colonies, having, with Catholic aid, achieved liberty and independence, coalesced into a constitutional Republic the ecclesiastical hierarchy was happily established amongst you; and at the very time when the popular suffrage placed the great Washington at the helm of the Republic, the first bishop was set by apostolic authority over the American Church. The well-known friendship and familiar intercourse which subsisted between these two men seems to be an evidence that the United States ought to be conjoined in concord and amity with the Catholic Church. And not without cause; for without morality the State cannot endure-a truth which that illustrious citizen of yours, whom We have just mentioned, with a keenness of insight worthy of his genius and statesmanship perceived and proclaimed. But the best and strongest support of morality is religion.

Pope Leo XIII

American Catholics, a very small percentage of the population of the 13 colonies, 1.6 percent, were overwhelmingly patriots and played a role in the American Revolution out of all proportion to the small fragment of the American people they represented.  Among the Catholics who assumed leadership roles in the fight for our liberty were:

General Stephen Moylan  a noted cavalry commander and the first Muster Master-General of the Continental Army.

Captains Joshua Barney and John Barry,  two of the most successful naval commanders in the American Revolution.

Colonel John Fitzgerald was a trusted aide and private secretary to General George Washington.

Father Pierre Gibault, Vicar General of Illinois, whose aid was instrumental in the conquest of the Northwest for America by George Rogers Clark.

Thomas Fitzsimons served as a Pennsylvania militia company commander during the Trenton campaign.  Later in the War he helped found the Pennsylvania state navy.  After the War he was one of the two Catholic signers of the U.S. Constitution in 1787

Colonel Thomas Moore led a Philadelphia regiment in the War.

Major John Doyle led a group of elite riflemen during the War.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Fortnight For Freedom: Catholics in the American Revolution

  • Colonel Fitzgerald was one of the founding members of my church, St. Mary’s in Alexandria, VA. He hit up his friend General Washington for a donation to the building fund of the first church. So George Washington is on the original donor list to St. Mary’s Catholic Church, the oldest Catholic Church in Virginia.
    Another great American president, Abraham Lincoln, allowed the builders of the first predominately black Catholic Church in D.C., St. Augustine’s, to hold a fundraising picnic on the White House grounds. There is a plaque in the back of the church commemorating this event.

  • Colonel Fitzgerald sounds like a fascinating fellow BPS and probably historically worthy of having a biography done of him.

  • An excerpt from the diary of Colonel Fitzgerald on the battle of Trenton:

    “Christmas, 6 P.M….It is fearfully cold and raw and a snow-storm setting in. The wind is northeast and beats in the faces of the men. It will be a terrible night for the soldiers who have no shoes. Some of them have tied old rags around their feet, but I have not heard a man complain….I have never seen Washington so determined as he is now….He stands on the bank of the stream, wrapped in his cloak, superintending the landing of his troops. He is calm and collected, but very determined. The storm is changing to sleet and cuts like a knife….

    [3 A.M.] I am writing in the ferry house. The troops are all over, and the boats have gone back for the artillery. We are three hours behind the set time…[the fishermen directing the boats] have had a hard time to force the boats through the floating ice with the snow drifting in their faces….

    …it was broad daylight when we came to a house where a man was chopping wood. He was very much surprised when he saw us. ‘Can you tell me where the Hessian picket is?’ Washington asked. The man hesitated, but I said, ‘You need not be frightened, it is General Washington who asks the question.’ His face brightened, and he pointed toward the house of Mr. Howell.

    It was just eight o’clock. Looking down the road I saw a Hessian running out from the house. He yelled in Dutch and swung his arms. Three or four others came out with their guns. Two of them fired at us, but the bullets whistled over our heads. Some of General Stephen’s men rushed forward and captured two. The others took to their heels, running toward Mr. Calhoun’s house, where the picket guard was stationed, about twenty men under Captain Altenbrockum. They came running out of the house. The captain flourished his sword and tried to form his men. Some of them fired at us, others ran toward the village.

    The next moment we heard drums beat and a bugle sound, and then from the west came the boom of cannon. General Washington’s face lighted up instantly, for he knew that it was one of [General John] Sullivan’s guns.

    …We could see a great commotion down toward the meetinghouse, men running here and there, officers swinging their swords, artillerymen harnessing their horses. Captain Forrest unlimbered his guns. Washington gave the order to advance, and we rushed on to the junction of King and Queen streets. Forrest wheeled six of his cannon into position to sweep both streets. The riflemen under Colonel Hand and Scott’s and Lawson’s battalions went upon the run through the fields on the left to gain possession of the Princeton Road. The Hessians were just ready to open fire with two of their cannon when Captain [William] Washington and Lieutenant [James] Monroe with their men rushed forward and captured them.

    We saw [Colonel Johann] Rall [commander of the Hessians] riding up the street from his headquarters, which were at Stacy Potts’ house. We could hear him shouting in Dutch, ‘My brave soldiers, advance.’

    His men were frightened and confused, for our men were firing upon them from fences and houses and they were falling fast. Instead of advancing they ran into an apple orchard. The officers tried to rally them, but our men kept advancing and picking off the officers. It was not long before Rall tumbled from his horse and his soldiers threw down their guns and gave themselves up as prisoners….

    [9 P.M.] …I have just been with General Washington and [Nathanael] Greene to see Rall. He will not live through the night. He asked that his men might be kindly treated. Washington promised that he would see they were well cared for.”

Leave a Reply

Witchhunt

Friday, June 23, AD 2017

 

Bad enough being sent to prison for a crime you committed.  Imagine being sent to prison for twenty-one years for a crime that you did not commit:

The only physical evidence against the Kellers was the testimony of Dr Michael Mouw, who examined the girl in the emergency room of a local hospital after the therapy session and said he found tears in her hymen that potentially indicated that she was molested.

Mouw signed an affidavit last January in which he affirms that he now realises his inexperience led him to a conclusion that “is not scientifically or medically valid, and that I was mistaken.”

In an appeal filed on behalf of Fran Keller earlier this year, her lawyer, Keith Hampton, also argued that the state presented misleading evidence about the cemetery, relied on a false witness confession and the testimony of a “quack” satanic abuse “expert”, and that suggestive interview techniques had encouraged the children to make “fantastical false statements”.

According to police reports and trial records, the children said that Dan Keller killed his dog and made children cut it up and eat it, “baptised” kids with blood and disembowelled pets, forcing children to drink the blood.

The Kellers were also said to have decapitated and chopped up a baby, put the remains in a swimming pool and made the children jump in. In one account, the Kellers were said to have stolen a baby gorilla from a park and Frances cut off one of its fingers.

The pair, who apparently liked to wear robes, were said to have dug graves in a cemetery to hide dead animals and a passer-by who was shot and carved up with a chain saw.

The children were supposedly taken to military bases and on secret aeroplane trips, including to Mexico, where they were abused and returned to the centre in time for their parents to pick them up as normal. They said they were coerced into videotaped sex acts and drugged so they would forget what they had seen.

In court, the jury heard about the extensive attempts by Austin police to substantiate the stories – and Hampton believes that lent them credibility. Police conducted inquiries at nearby airfields, took the children to a cemetery and examined graves from a helicopter using an infrared camera that they said could detect “hot-spots” on decomposing corpses.

In a letter of support for the Kellers dated March 17 this year, James Wood, a psychology professor at the University of Texas at El Paso, wrote: “There is now general agreement among reputable scholars that the Daycare Abuse Panic was a twentieth-century manifestation of ‘witchcraft fever’ of the same kind that swept Salem, Massachusetts in 1692 and Western Europe in the centuries before that.”

Continue reading...

11 Responses to Witchhunt

  • Unfortunately, common sense is all too uncommon nowadays.

  • In the case of which I have personal knowledge (one much less lurid) t was a prosecutor, parents, and a local OB GYN, compounded by a judge I wouldn’t trust either. The jury split the difference, convicting the defendant on one count (they believed the OB GYN) and acquitting on another. The sequence of events over the next 14 years (during which time he was in prison) is enough to persuade you that the parole system is humbug and should be replaced. The prosecutor in the case, in addition to insulting in open court members of the community who supported the accused, later went to work for some shizzy ‘NGO’ ‘advocating’ on behalf of the abused.
    He picked up enough vocational training in prison and his mother and father had enough good will in the community that he could find work on his release, though he lost one job when the quondam prosecutor located him and whipped up a lynch mob against one employer. (Local newspapers had in their files a bizarre mugshot that looked nothing like him and reprinted it to illustrate their articles). He moved out of state after a couple of years, and, in a surprise to everyone, found someone to marry him. He was, in the first two years after his release, episodically angry, and may still be.

  • To the hell of being wrongfully convicted and sentenced for such a horrendous crime, and then serving 21 years for said crime you didn’t commit, add the PARTICULARIZED HELL of what happens to people in prison that are convicted of crimes harming children. We can only imagine (and we probably don’t want to) what these poor people were forced to endure.

  • I am being called to my civic duty as a juror in 10 days. First time ever. Any advice about how to properly serve? The comment about “If is sounds like baloney, it usually us,” prompts me to fine tune my crap detector…

  • Bring a good book to read. You will probably be waiting quite a bit before appearing on panels for the attorneys or the courts to voir dire. If your are picked for a jury listen hard to the testimony. Remember that what the lawyers say is not evidence. The Judge will instruct all of you as to the applicable law at the end of the case. If you get a criminal case remember that beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean either “any doubt” or “he probably did it.” If you serve on a jury and they take you all to lunch during trial, I hope it is some place decent. Sometimes jurors get taken to some of the most miserable greasy spoons imaginable. After a jury verdict, jurors are not required to talk about their votes to anyone.

  • Don: thanks for the advice. I am hard of hearing but do wear hearing aids after my time flying in the military. Even with hearing aids, I often find it hard to follow conversations. Can we ask the Judge to have things repeated? I’m intrigued by going to court and I want to do a good “job” but also don’t want an important decision to rest on my hit and miss hearing…

  • The Court would probably give you a hearing device that might help better than your hearing aid. You would definitely want to bring this to the attention of the Court when you are being questioned as part of a panel during the picking of the jury.

  • Hey, miserable greasy spoons often serve up some of the best chow around.

  • Don’t forget, sometimes even Catholic priests are subjected to witchhunts. Here is a likely case: http://thesestonewalls.com/about/

  • “Hey, miserable greasy spoons often serve up some of the best chow around.”

    Those that do not also cause you to vomit it right back up. Perhaps I have simply gotten too familiar with the food inspection process over the years in my home county.

  • ABS has been selected several times to be part of a jury pool but has yet to be chosen for a trial.

    One of the positive things about being selected for a pool is that it gives ABS a chance to tell others about nullification.

Leave a Reply

FBI Pretends That Political Assassin Wasn’t

Friday, June 23, AD 2017

 

Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist tells us that the FBI has decided that would be political assassin James T. Hodgkinson was merely a victim of poor anger management:

 

 

The FBI admits that Hodgkinson:

vociferously raged against Republicans in online forums,
had a piece of paper bearing the names of six members of Congress,
was reported for doing target practice outside his home in recent months before moving to Alexandria,
had mapped out a trip to the DC area,
took multiple photos of the baseball field he would later shoot up, three days after the New York Times mentioned that Republicans practiced baseball at an Alexandria baseball field with little security,
lived out of his van at the YMCA directly next door to the baseball field he shot up,
legally purchased a rifle in March 2003 and 9 mm handgun “in November 2016,”
modified the rifle at some point to accept a detachable magazine and replaced the original stock with a folding stock,
rented a storage facility to hide hundreds of rounds of ammunition and additional rifle components,
asked “Is this the Republican or Democrat baseball team?” before firing on the Republicans,
ran a Google search for information on the “2017 Republican Convention” hours before the shooting,
and took photos at high-profile Washington locations, including the east front plaza of the U.S. Capitol and the Dirksen Senate Office.

We know from other reporting that the list was of six Republican Freedom Caucus members, including Rep. Mo Brooks, who was present at the practice.

So what does the FBI decide this information means? Well, the takeaway of the briefing was characterized well by the Associated Press headline about it: “FBI: Gunman who shot congressman had no target in mind.” The Associated Press reported the FBI:

believes the gunman “had no concrete plan to inflict violence” against Republicans,
“had not yet clarified who, if anyone, he planned to target, or why,”
believes he may have just “happened upon” the baseball game the morning of June 14, and that the attack appeared “spontaneous,”
are unclear on the “context” of Hodgkinson’s note with six names of members of Congress,
does not believe that photographs of the baseball field or other sites “represented surveillance of intended targets,” and
“painted a picture of a down-on-his-luck man with few future prospects.”

In fact, USA Today went with “FBI offers portrait of troubled Alexandria shooter with ‘anger management problem’” for their headline, since that’s what the FBI emphasized in the briefing.

The FBI also said there was no “nexus to terrorism” in the attempted mass assassination of Republican leadership by a Democratic activist. The claim that tourists take pictures of a a completely unremarkable baseball field in a tiny neighborhood also seems odd, particularly when the pictures were taken a few days after The New York Times reported that Republican members of Congress practice baseball there with little security. Someone going by the moniker “Yoenis Cespedes” wrote, “As a guy who could arguably be called a reconnaissance manager when he was in the Army, this is reconnaissance.”

Oh, and here’s a little tidbit that didn’t interest many people in the media beyond a brief mention in the last paragraphs:

Hodgkinson also visited the office of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose campaign he had worked on as a volunteer, and was in email contact with the two Democratic senators from his home state.

As one Twitter wag put it, “You’d think “Congressional Shooter Visited Actual Capitol Hill Offices” would be kinda a big deal and you’d be wrong.”

I wrote last week that the media’s big problem right now is that everyone in the country knows how they’d be covering the shooting if the parties were reversed. Can you imagine if a shooter had visited the office of Sen. Ted Cruz and corresponded with two Republican senators? Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) gave emails to investigators last week but it was treated mostly as local news.

With trust in institutions at historic lows, and the bureaucracy beset by fears of politicization, the FBI made a poor decision to gaslight Americans by claiming that the assassination attempt wasn’t premeditated terrorism but a spontaneous “anger management” problem.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to FBI Pretends That Political Assassin Wasn’t

  • I actually think the term “living wage” is a terrible term. After all, what is a living wage? Many would say that it is a wage that enables a worker to support himself and his family. But a living wage for a man with a wife and three kids to support is going to be different than a living wage for a single man with only himself to support. So, by this logic an employer would have to pay the former more than the latter regardless of any difference in productivity. This is clearly untenable. But that term gets thrown around even by some conservatives.

  • I’m never quite sure if that’s what the officialdom said, or if that’s the fiction the reporters and editors have elected to run with. If it’s not the latter, I’d say it’s remarkable how thoroughly Holder and Lynch managed to ruin the agency.

    What’s pathetic is the degree to which federal law enforcement consists of a string of ineffective bureaucracies. See the Secret Service, which couldn’t prevent some random dude from invading the White House and is amply populated with officers who think little of cheating on their wives with Colombian hookers. See Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which may be able to defend itself by providing evidence that they’re better at their jobs than their predecessor agency.

  • I’m with Art on this– why would we trust the AP on this?

  • There’s a meme marching about bragging about how few Democratic administration members have been indicted as compared to Republicans. With weaponized decision-making like this, it is small wonder.

Leave a Reply

Dissolve Illinois!

Thursday, June 22, AD 2017

 

John Kass, the only reason to read the Chicago Tribune, has a column calling for the dissolution of the failed State of Illinois.  Go here to read it.  I see my chunk of the State would go to Indiana.  I could live with being a Hoosier if it meant being out from under the thumb of Cook County.

 

 

My preferred solution of course would be Illinois separating into two new states:  The Land of Lincoln and Cook County.

 

Alternative names would be God’s Country and Hell.

 

Continue reading...

34 Responses to Dissolve Illinois!

  • If I’m reading the map correctly — some downstate cities, highways or landmarks should have been included for reference — Springfield would go to Missouri (aside from being a Cubs fan, I’d be OK with that) but they already have a Springfield so I suppose our Springfield would have to change its name. Any suggestions?

  • Have you ever noticed godless Democrats squeeze into small areas like snakes in a den, but then they devastate areas from beyond where they live?

  • Hmmm… not sure how I feel about Kentucky getting some of that… what did we do wrong?

  • “Any suggestions?”

    Lincoln Theme Park! (Let the name reflect the reality!)

  • Ah, you blue grassers Nate are getting the prettiest part of the State!

  • Who would get Great Mistakes (I mean Great Lakes) Naval Training Center?

  • It is in Lake County so it goes to Land of Lincoln!

  • I sympathize… I wish we could create the state of Northern Virginia (Washingtonistan?) north of the Rappahannock, and leave the rest of the Commonwealth to her sane self. I was wondering what your take on Illinois’ woes was. I like the suggestion I saw that would require any state declaring bankruptcy to revert to territory status, give up its representation in DC, and have to apply for readmission to the Union. But it seems that, like in Virginia, one small part of the state is doing most of the mischief.

  • I think this could be a coming issue Tom, all kidding aside. Our states are increasingly uneasy marriages of urban centers and rural areas, and some sort of separation seems inevitable down the road.

  • Michigan has enough problems, so I’m happy that we would not get part of Illinois.

  • DJH, IL does claim part of Lake Michigan (it’s the purple wedge on Don’s map). So you might get that, but fortunately only fish live there.

  • As for Springfield’s new identity, I’d suggest “Lincoln Theme Park and Video Gaming Parlors”.

  • Surely a step in the right direction. Maybe we need a Constitutional Convention to bring the country back in line with the founders conception.

  • Hoha. This is so an inter country problem
    Here in NZ, those who live in Auckland (our biggest city of 1.5 mil situated in the northern quarter of the North Island) – are known as ‘JAFFA’S – translated as “just another funny f****in Aucklander’. Why, because they think that all NZ resides in that city. The boundary to the souht west is the Bombay Hills – a low range that tends to separate Auckland from the fertile Waikato region and the rest of the country to the south, west and east. So the Jaffa’s think that NZ ends at the Bombay hills.
    News for them – as NZ is essentially a primary producing economy, the bulk of the wealth comes from those regions south of the Bombay – including the balance of the North Island, and the South Island. The Jaffas even tend to speak a bit differently – even if it is only our imagination – but it is there attitude; and most Jaffas are lefties – so the balance of the real kiwis are happy to separate them. But we are not big eonugh, nor a federal state to cast them off – so we tolerate them 😉

  • Arbitrary state and local government boundaries are an important problem, and one which receives very little discussion (and provokes neuralgic responses on the odd occasion it is brought up). It’s more of a problem in the northeast than the midwest. Local government finance is also an utter mess.

  • Only with the consent of the state Legislature and the Congress. Article IV Sections 3 and 4

  • Where is Abraham Lincoln when you need him?

  • I agree that there seems to be impetus for possibly revolutionary changes in our union. I don’t discount the California secession movement; simply on demographics, their population is becoming more and more Latino, coupled with an aggressive *non* assimilation mentality. But the urban/rural-suburban tension is definitely causing many to reconsider old political orthodoxies. Like Glen Reynolds always comments, time to reconsider Baker v. Carr.

  • I like the “Land of Lincoln” remaining a state.
    Cook County could become the “District of Cook” — similar with San Fran, New York New York etc. A federal district- under the legal authority of the federated government (representatives of the actual states)
    😊🙃Would that disenfranchise them?

  • Like Glen Reynolds always comments, time to reconsider Baker v. Carr.

    Why? The problems from which state legislatures suffer include pointless bicameralism, gerrymandering, bad parliamentary rules (see New York), bad electoral calendars, and being hamstrung by court orders and federal funding. Providing more opportunities for obstructive veto-groups to work their will addresses none of that.

  • Because the case was wrongly decided. There is no constitutional basis for the court to require equipopulous districts.

  • “Providing more opportunities for obstructive veto-groups to work their will addresses none of that.”

    Prior to Baker v. Carr most legislatures were modeled on Congress, which struck a better balance between urban and rural populations. Additionally, of course, the whole one man, one vote concept, as set forth in Baker v. Carr, is complete rubbish and completely unconstitutional.

    Justice Frankfurter writing in dissent:

    “The notion that representation proportioned to the geographic spread of population is so universally accepted as a necessary element of equality between man and man that it must be taken to be the standard of a political equality preserved by the Fourteenth Amendment — that it is, in appellants’ words “the basic principle of representative government” — is, to put it bluntly, not true. However desirable and however desired by some among the great political thinkers and framers of our government, it has never been generally practiced, today or in the past. It was not the English system, it was not the colonial system, it was not the system chosen for the national government by the Constitution, it was not the system exclusively or even predominantly practiced by the States at the time of adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is not predominantly practiced by the States today. Unless judges, the judges of this Court, are to make their private views of political wisdom the measure of the Constitution — views which, in all honesty, cannot but give the appearance, if not reflect the reality, of
    involvement with the business of partisan politics so inescapably a part of apportionment controversies — the Fourteenth Amendment, “itself a historical product,” Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 260 U. S. 22, 260 U. S. 31, provides no guide for judicial oversight of the representation problem.”

  • Prior to Baker v. Carr most legislatures were modeled on Congress, which struck a better balance between urban and rural populations. Additionally, of course, the whole one man, one vote concept, as set forth in Baker v. Carr, is complete rubbish and completely unconstitutional.
    Because the case was wrongly decided. There is no constitutional basis for the court to require equipopulous districts.

    That’s nice. And let’s posit a future which expunges the decision? What is to be done? You can explore the question by a historical and sociological review, or you can quote specutative exercises in The Federalist or some judicial opinion.

    Multicameralism was a feature of medieval assemblies in a society of orders. We’re not a society of orders. New York’s colonial assembly had chambers functionally differentiated. The Philadelphia convention contrived a bicameral chamber as a compromise between competing principles of representation.

    As far as I’m aware, there is only one state (Tennessee) where traditional components command some sense of affiliation on the part of politicians or the public. State’s which are incongruous are so as a consequence of the evolution of settlement – which, in certain cases – leaves part of the state as a tributary of the other part. The sensible thing to do is to partition the province, not to render the provincial government dysfunctional by requiring concurrent majorities you only get when political professionals are contriving against the public.

    This is made all the more silly in our system as the interplay between the courts and elected officials has left the states with bicameral legislature wherein each chamber follows the same principle of representation and has the same functions (more or less). It might be differentiated (as it is in New York) by being gerrymandered differently.

    Now, we can fuss over Baker v. Carr (which has had perverse effects, especially the many stupid subsidiary decisions). I’m not terribly motivated to protest the intervention of judges into legislative discretion when the legislatures themselves were of questionable legitimacy. (See Bork’s reference to certain legislatures being in defiance of the guarantee clause of the federal constitution).

  • “That’s nice. And let’s posit a future which expunges the decision?”

    Why not? The Republic toddled along quite nicely until 1962, with the Supreme Court resisting for over a century cases in which it was asked to meddle with the makeup of state legislatures. It would be easy enough to bring about a direct challenge by having a legislature enact an amendment to the State Constitution giving each county, for instance, one state senator apiece.

    “The Philadelphia convention contrived a bicameral chamber as a compromise between competing principles of representation.”

    Yep and it still works well today, as it did on the state level until the intervention of our Platonic Guardians.

    “The sensible thing to do is to partition the province, not to render the provincial government dysfunctional by requiring concurrent majorities you only get when political professionals are contriving against the public.”

    Not at all Art. The states are supposed to be laboratories and they truly were in representation prior to Baker v. Carr. The idea that representation must be based on number of noses rather than the representation of geographic areas within a state is completely judge created mumbo jumbo. If the people of a state wish to do so, well and good. If they wish to erect a system that reflects what the Founding Fathers gave to us on the national level, that should be their right. Of course the very idea that the Feds may intervene in the structure of state government makes nonsense of our federal system.

  • “The sensible thing to do is to partition the province, not to render the provincial government dysfunctional by requiring concurrent majorities you only get when political professionals are contriving against the public.”

    Well, no, that is not sensible at all, unless ‘sensible’ is defined as segregating people. What is sensible about devising political systems where urban people have no interest in rural affairs? Or vice versa? No, extending “one man one vote” to the upper chambers of the state legislatures was a disaster in this regard, and realigning state borders to ‘fix’ the issue actually would make the problem worse.

    Government is dysfunctional? From what I see it is most dysfunctional when it passes laws too easily.

    Also, Art, it is very interesting that you switched from ‘state’ to ‘province’. In general, states are sovereign, provinces are not. Since the U.S. Federal system is based on sovereign states, your proposal and language would seem, well, in many situations subversive of our constitutional order. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, as Seinfeld used to say…but outside of the ivory tower such sentiments would seem costly.

  • Why not? The Republic toddled along quite nicely until 1962, with the Supreme Court resisting for over a century cases in which it was asked to meddle with the makeup of state legislatures.

    Well, the system ‘toddles along’ right now. If being able to toddle along is the performance standard, one should be indifferent between unicameralism, asymmetric bicameralism, symmetric bicameralism, parliamentary administrations, separation-of-powers, federalism, French centralism, British centralism, executive monarchy, ceremonial monarchy, and Vladimir Putin. They all toddle along somewhere.

    It would be easy enough to bring about a direct challenge by having a legislature enact an amendment to the State Constitution giving each county, for instance, one state senator apiece.

    You can contrive a challenge. The question is, what’s the end state you are seeking?

    “The Philadelphia convention contrived a bicameral chamber as a compromise between competing principles of representation.” Yep and it still works well today,

    Only according to the most idiosyncratic understanding of the term ‘works well’. The Congress we have has (more often than not) been incapable of provisioning the government by any means other than catch-all continuing resolutions. That’s just the first item on the list of dysfunctions to which Congress is prone.

    as it did on the state level until the intervention of our Platonic Guardians.
    Again, there is a distinction between ‘works well’ and merely abiding. There are also competing interests at stake. Unlike Tennessee, New York did not blatantly ignore constitutional provisions which required re-apportionment. However, it applied an apportionment method which enhanced the weight of a set of 35 Upstate counties to the tune of about 65%. IOW, they had a premium of 14 seats in the Assembly. In a body with 150 members, those 14 seats proved decisive. County boundaries in New York have been more-or-less fixed since 1825, but there’s nothing special about counties. They do not command any affective loyalty from the public. They might to a degree from politicians jealous of their turf (which would be curious in New York inasmuch as county politicians accept being utterly hamstrung by the state legislature in ways that might surprise you). Now, the settlement patterns in the state had changed a great deal since the counties were erected, as well as the lines along which publics and politicians were divided. Ultimately, that generates political pressure to which there was (and remains) no very satisfying solution.

    “The sensible thing to do is to partition the province, not to render the provincial government dysfunctional by requiring concurrent majorities you only get when political professionals are contriving against the public.” Not at all Art. The states are supposed to be laboratories and they truly were in representation prior to Baker v. Carr. The idea that representation must be based on number of noses rather than the representation of geographic areas within a state is completely judge created mumbo jumbo. If the people of a state wish to do so, well and good. If they wish to erect a system that reflects what the Founding Fathers gave to us on the national level, that should be their right. Of course the very idea that the Feds may intervene in the structure of state government makes nonsense of our federal system.
    This response of yours is terribly confused. That the states are ‘laboratories’ is largely a political just-so story. Even if they were, the apportionment of their legislatures is irrelevant to that except insofar as the apportionment provides weight to one set of interests or another. You have a seminal system of representation which tends over time to be advantageous to one set of interests or another (in ways not anticipated), and those interests tend to protect their turf. Can be kind of a problem if their means lack legitimacy. Your contention that representation according to population is ‘judge created mumbo jumbo’ is very strange. If you mean the notional that all legislative bodies must be apportioned per population, yes that is a contrivance of the Warren court. The question arises as to what body has the authority to constitute the legislature in a particular way.
    Your references to what the state wishes to do or does not wish to do beg the question. Robert Bork offered the view that a variety of formats for the state legislature are kosher so long as the constitution and re-constitution of the legislature was a consequence of majority discretion. That seems sensible. It is, however, a contrivance which contends with actual provisions in state constitutions (just one more congruent with local control).

    I should mention that Bork did identify constitutional provisions (e.g. the guarantee clause) with which the architecture of state government ought to be in compliance.

    Federalism as practiced today is an institutional mess which does not secure local discretion, It’s already nonsense. even if the courts compound the nonsense with more nonsense. We would benefit from institutional reforms which actually do secure decentralized decision-making. The creaky carpentry of state constitutions is not getting the work done.

    As for representing ‘geographic units’, I’m not seeing the point of that unless the units themselves are something that’s there for reasons of inertia. People’s identification is strongest with their ‘home town’, but what that is is variable according to the frame of reference applied. I don’t think it’s readily possible to contrive a representation scheme based on ‘home towns’.

  • “You can contrive a challenge. The question is, what’s the end state you are seeking?”

    Pre Baker v. Carr where the States were free to set up their legislatures as they wish.

    “The Congress we have has (more often than not) been incapable of provisioning the government by any means other than catch-all continuing resolutions. That’s just the first item on the list of dysfunctions to which Congress is prone.”

    Agreed and which has bupkis to do with representation in the Senate being by geography rather than by noses which is the subject under discussion.

    “There are also competing interests at stake.”

    Yes, and which should be fought out at the state level sans federal intervention. I have little faith in the wisdom of state governments to set wise policy. I have zero faith in federal judges to do so, particularly since that is not their job.

  • Well, no, that is not sensible at all, unless ‘sensible’ is defined as segregating people.

    Whenever you place a political boundary somewhere, you are segregating people. Unless you have an objection to regional or local government per se, that’s a vacuous complaint.

    What is sensible about devising political systems where urban people have no interest in rural affairs? Or vice versa?

    When you’re asking these rhetorical questions, you’re incorporating two (mis) conceptions: (1) that ‘have no interest in’ has a fixed and discernible meaning in this context and (2) that if it did the answer to that question would conclude the argument. No and no.

    No, extending “one man one vote” to the upper chambers of the state legislatures was a disaster in this regard,

    It was actually the lower chamber in New York that was the main point of contention. That aside, what is this ‘disaster’? How does one recognize it?

    and realigning state borders to ‘fix’ the issue actually would make the problem worse.

    Meet me half way and tell me what ‘the problem’ is.

  • Government is dysfunctional? From what I see it is most dysfunctional when it passes laws too easily.

    Your federal legislature cannot pass a budget and has left the Export-Import Bank in place for about 80 years now. Somehow, I suspect your concern is misplaced.

    Also, Art, it is very interesting that you switched from ‘state’ to ‘province’.

    ‘Province’ or ‘region’ is a generic, ‘state’ is particular.

    your proposal and language would seem, well, in many situations subversive of our constitutional order.

    [rolls eyes]

  • Art, you and Mussolini (of the trains running on time fame) can roll your eyes all you like.

  • Art, you and Mussolini

    At this juncture, you’re making irritable mental gestures. No clue why.

  • No clue? I’m irritated by one of the few people I know on the internet who knows mucho more facts than I do (namely you) engaging in sophistry and illogic that lead to administrative efficiency over liberty. On this thread you have denigrated nearly every feature of the American Experiment without introducing one positive idea in opposition. Not one.


    And your style of debate stinks. For example, we have this:
    “Whenever you place a political boundary somewhere, you are segregating people. Unless you have an objection to regional or local government per se, that’s a vacuous complaint.”
    That is hardly true. Nearly all of our state and county borders were set when populations were much lower and economically more alike (read agrarian) than they are today. Such borders were arbitrary and unimportant to the creation of different people with different political interests. So you then equate these 200 year old events with your idea to redraw such borders so that people with similar interests will be together? That is really completely different, and not equivalent at all despite your assertion to the contrary. Plus, you completely ignore my point that your proposal would lead to MORE conflict, not less.
    I could list plenty of other things you have posted on this thread that irritate me also. If you would like I could list them, but I think Don McC wouldn’t like the wasted space – I mean, you would just continue to raise nonsensical objections, like the one on segregation, right?

  • You’re complaining about ‘my style of argument’ having, in the course of this discussion, compared me to Mussolini and accused me of being ‘subversive of our constitutional order’. This is frankly bizarre. I cannot have much of a discussion with you if it consists of contending with the voices in your head.

    What government’s do is enact a regulatory architecture and provide services. The portfolio of useful services varies according to features of the territory in question. The idea appears to have entered your head that the only territorial boundaries which are legitimate are random ones. You’re viscerally attached to that idea. I’m not sure why, other than you fancy it will ‘create more conflict’ (details on layaway).

  • Folks, debate issues and not personalities. Let’s all tone it down.

Leave a Reply

PopeWatch: Audience

Thursday, June 22, AD 2017

 

The four dubia Cardinals drafted a request for an audience on April 25, 2017:

 

Most Holy Father,

It is with a certain trepidation that I address myself to Your Holiness, during these days of the Easter season. I do so on behalf of the Most Eminent Cardinals: Walter Brandmüller, Raymond L. Burke, Joachim Meisner, and myself.

We wish to begin by renewing our absolute dedication and our unconditional love for the Chair of Peter and for Your august person, in whom we recognize the Successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus: the “sweet Christ on earth,” as Saint Catherine of Siena was fond of saying. We do not share in the slightest the position of those who consider the See of Peter vacant, nor of those who want to attribute to others the indivisible responsibility of the Petrine munus. We are moved solely by the awareness of the grave responsibility arising from the munus of cardinals: to be advisers of the Successor of Peter in his sovereign ministry. And from the Sacrament of the Episcopate, which “has placed us as bishops to pasture the Church, which He has acquired with his blood” (Acts 20:28).

On September 19, 2016 we delivered to Your Holiness and to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith five dubia, asking You to resolve uncertainties and to bring clarity on some points of the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia.

Not having received any response from Your Holiness, we have reached the decision to ask You, respectfully and humbly, for an Audience, together if Your Holiness would like. We attach, as is the practice, an Audience Sheet in which we present the two points we wish to discuss with you.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to PopeWatch: Audience

  • The pope will promptly schedule the requested audience for the second Tuesday of next week.

  • Matthew 7:9 (“Or what man is there among you, of whom if his son shall ask bread, will
    he reach him a stone?”) somehow comes to mind. Cardinals Caffarra et. al. being dutiful
    sons asking for bread, and our Pope offering stone instead. His is the silence of a man
    who has nothing to say for himself.

  • So what happens next when after time it becomes apparent to all that the Pope will never respond and dialogue?

    What is he afraid of?

  • The reality is the pope cannot answer the dubia without exposing its inability to comply with the teachings of the faith as handed down by the Apostles. The question remains: what now? Will the cardinals sit quietly for the dissolution of Catholic doctrine and practice that has already begun? Will the Pope respond with punishment?(alter boys for the lot of them) Will he attempt to answer with more transparent ambiguity and unclarity? Will he admit to its confusion and clarify the errors? As they say, only God knows.

  • This quote from the Register says it all:
    “For many Catholics, it is incredible that the Pope is asking bishops to dialogue with those who think differently [i.e. non-Catholic Christians], but does not want first to face the cardinals who are his chief advisors,” Msgr. Bux says.

  • For pf it might be better to remain silent and be accused of heresies than to open one’s mouth and support the evidence.

    Trying my best to take the good and leave the rotton until his chapter ends. Good?
    Yes. There is some good.
    Like it or not….. he’s our Pope.
    Pray for him.

  • What I hope will happen if the Pope doesn’t respond is continued following in the example of St. Catherine of Siena’s loyalty to a difficult Holy Father.

  • I’m beginning to wonder if this Pope “thinks” that his election is proof that he (Francis) is now “authorized” by God to change what Christ taught on Marriage. Am I crazy for thinking that the Pope thinks this?

  • David WS; I too, think that Pope Francis believes that he is enabled to change the truth taught by Jesus Christ, the Healer.

  • Mundabor has an interesting perspective on this, and he doesn’t take kindly to what he calls the meowing of Cardinals:

    https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2017/06/20/four-cardinals-five-dubia-and-no-end-of-meowing/

  • Agree with Mundabor. “Please, dear Cardinals, stop meowing and grow a pair already. You are supposed to be Princes of the Church, not whining kitten.”

    What we are dealing with here is the reincarnation of Henry VII in the body of Pope Francis. What’s needed is another Thomas More. We we now have are pussy cats. Like in the time of Henry the Cardinals and Bishops are mostly caving in as nearly all Catholic will also.

    The persecution of orthodox Catholics is well on its way. Let his pray for divine intervention so that fewer souls will be lost.

Leave a Reply

Fortnight for Freedom: Saint Thomas More and Saint John Fisher

Thursday, June 22, AD 2017

 

A spot of blood and grease on the pages of English history.

Charles Dickens, referring to King Henry VIII

For English speaking Catholics, June 22 is a bright day on the calendar of the Saints.  It is appropriate that in the northern hemisphere it is also one of the longest days, when it is not the longest day, of the year, since no amount of sunshine is too much to celebrate the merits of Saint Thomas More and Saint John Fisher.  On this day we remember the two saints who stood against King Henry VIII, for the great principle that the State must never be allowed to control the Church.  Much that we Americans celebrate as freedom was born out of Church-State struggles down through the ages.  Sometimes those who stood against the State fell in the struggle, but the concept that the State is not absolute, that there are limits to its authority, is one of the great gifts of the Catholic Middle Ages to all of mankind.  It is only in modern times, since 1500, that the heresy that the State may exercise absolute authority has been a constant source of misery and strife in the history of the West.

When he ascended to the throne of England Henry VIII was popularly known as the Golden Hope of England.  His father Henry VII had never been loved by the people of England:  a miser and a distinctly unheroic figure no matter what Shakespeare would write in Richard III.  He had brought the end of the War of the Roses and peace to England, but that was about as much credit as his subjects would give the grasping, unlovable Henry Tudor.  His son by contrast looked like an Adonis when young, strong and athletic.  He had a sharp mind and had been well-educated, intended, ironically, for a career in the Church before the death of his elder brother Arthur.  He was reputed, correctly, to be pious.  He had considerable charisma in his youth and knew how to make himself loved with a well timed laugh or smile, and loved he was, by the nobles, commons, his wife Katherine, and the Church.  Few reigns started more auspiciously than that of Henry, eighth of that name.

By the end of his reign he was widely despised by most of his subjects.  Called a crowned monster behind his back, his reign had brought religious turmoil to England and domestic strife.  The best known symbols of his reign were the headman’s axe, the stake and the boiling pot in which he had some of the luckless individuals who roused his fury boiled to death.

It of course is small wonder for a Catholic to have little love for Henry VIII and his reign, but the distaste for Henry extends well beyond members of the Church.  Winston Churchill, the great English statesman and historian, in his magisterial History of the English Speaking Peoples, has this to say about the executions of Saint Thomas More and Saint John Fisher:

“The resistance of More and Fisher to the royal supremacy in Church government was a heroic stand.  They realised the defects of the existing Catholic system, but they hated and feared the aggressive nationalism which was destroying the unity of Christendom.  They saw that the break with Rome carried with it the risk of a despotism freed from every fetter.  More stood forth as the defender of all that was finest in the medieval outlook.  He represents to history its universality, its belief in spiritual values, and its instinctive sense of otherworldliness.  Henry VIII with cruel axe decapitated not only a wise and gifted counselor, but a system which, though it had failed to live up to its ideals in practice, had for long furnished mankind with its brightest dreams.”

 

Churchill himself was not noted for being a churchgoer.  When asked if he was a pillar of the Church of England, he quipped that perhaps he could be considered to be a flying buttress of the Church, supporting it from outside.  Perhaps this helped give him a certain objectivity regarding Henry VIII.  Here is part of his summing up of Henry’s reign:

“Henry’s rule saw many advances in the growth and the character of the English state, but it is a hideous blot upon his record that the reign should be widely remembered for its executions.  Two Queens, two of the King’s chief Ministers, a saintly bishop, numerous abbots, monks and many ordinary folk who dared to resist the royal will were put to death.  Almost every member of the nobility in whom royal blood ran perished on the scaffold at Henry’s command.  Roman Catholic and Calvinist alike were burnt for heresy and religious treason.  These persecutions, inflicted in solemn manner by officers of the law, perhaps in the presence of the Council or even the King himself, form a brutal sequel to the bright promise of the Renaissance.  The sufferings of devout men and women among the faggots, the use of torture, and the savage penalties imposed for even paltry crimes, stand in repellent contrast to the enlightened principles of humanism.” 

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Fortnight for Freedom: Saint Thomas More and Saint John Fisher

Leave a Reply

Fifty Million Plus Dollars Later

Wednesday, June 21, AD 2017

 

 

Republicans are now 4 for 4 in special House elections since Trump took office:

 

Republican Karen Handel has won Georgia’s record-breaking special congressional election, dashing hopes by Democrats to pull off an upset in the run-up to the 2018 midterm elections.

Seen as an early proxy for whether Democrats can flip certain Republican-leaning districts in the President Donald Trump era, Tuesday’s election drew national attention and record cash from around the country. Democrats have aimed to leverage Trump’s dismal approval rating and opposition to the Republican health-care bill into winning Republican seats and potentially taking control of the House in 2018.

The race for Georgia’s 6th District for the seat vacated by Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price pitted Handel, 55, the former Georgia secretary of state, against Democrat Jon Ossoff, a 30-year old former congressional aide. Fueled by a rush of donors from around the U.S., Ossoff pushed for an upset in the suburban Atlanta district that Price repeatedly won easily.

 

He came up short, as Handel won by about 5 percentage points, according to incomplete returns.

The two campaigns and outside groups supporting and opposing the candidates shelled out at least $36 million as of May 31, including more than $22 million from Ossoff’s campaign. The election easily set a record for spending in a House race, according to NBC News.

 

Continue reading...

18 Responses to Fifty Million Plus Dollars Later

  • I am glad the Dems lost again. I hope this continues.

    That said, I remained surprised that my company – a nuclear one which normally should favor Republicans – has management which openly despises Trump. I think I have figured out the reason. This company is home-based in a blue State which overwhelmingly voted for Hildebeast. And that State did a lot to oppose Trump’s executive orders on immigration. And young spoiled brat millennial whelps rioted and burned and looted in that State because they didn’t get their way in the last election. So guess what? That compnay isn’t going to get ANY DOE funding from Perry in the future because Perry works for Trump and Trump knows who loves him and who hates him. Realizing that subconsciously, and realizing Trump isn’t being suckered into the climate change fear mongering being used by nuclear and renewable advocates alike, management never misses an opportunity to say some snide remark, or let some ridicule loose.

    You freaking LOST, idiots! Get over it! We don’t want Democrats in power period, so change or shrivel up and die.

  • 50 million? Ah, the value of tribute money to the Godless has gone up in the last couple thousand years.

  • When will we see legislative victories?

  • Seriously?!? They ran a 30 year-old, wet behind the ears “congressional aid” against a former secretary of state and expected to win? Either the Dem bench is ridiculously shallow, or they were not all that serious.

  • Yet again the polls have been shown to be laughably inaccurate, and the
    pundits and presstitutes who gravely informed us that voters were turning
    away from Handel have been shown to be confusing their own wishful
    thinking for objective journalism.

    And it’s interesting that up until the election, we were breathlessly told
    that the Georgia 6th race represented a referendum on Trump, that a
    loss by Handel meant a rejection of Trump by the nation as a whole.
    But today? The Democrats this morning all sound like the old Saturday
    Night Live character Emily Litella: “Never mind!”

    https://youtu.be/OjYoNL4g5Vg

  • Here is what I have been told:

    “What scares me is that the ordinary American is a really dumb, ignorant fool. Trump was elected because he preyed on the uneducated and took them for a ride. Such people are so gullible that they wiillingly accept the fear mongering hat Trump disseminates. I love news headlines that even today read something similar to the following: ‘Trump’s core base still supports him!'”

    Most everyone in my company who is anyone believes exactly what you see written above. They despise Trump as an ignorant buffoon, and equally, they despise their fellow Americans who differ with them. And God help you if you are a Trump supporter.

    PS, I note with irony the fear mongering part. What the hell is the apocalypse of anthropogenic global warming but fear mongering incarnate?

  • Seriously?!? They ran a 30 year-old, wet behind the ears “congressional aid” against a former secretary of state and expected to win? Either the Dem bench is ridiculously shallow, or they were not all that serious.

    The Democratic cognoscenti in 2007 came up with the idea of running Barack Obama against Rudolph Giuliani / Mitt Romney / Mike Huckabee / John McCain / Ron Paul. Sometimes, it’s like selling Spam.

  • Did Ossoff have an ad featuring Scarlett Johanssen?

  • “When will we see legislative victories?”

    Beginning next week I suspect.

  • As was the case when a democratic supporter shot Republicans and now a Republican has won, the media very quickly moves on. The total opposite would had taken place if it had been a Republican shooter and a Democratic win. We would have heard about it endlessly with projections and fear mongering, on and on and on..
    Big Media ratings may be up, but I don’t think Big Media realizes how far their credibility sank into the toilet. No one, not even the most die hard progressive, seriously thinks Big Media is real news anymore, just entertainment, propaganda, but certainly not news. But I guess Big Media really doesn’t care about credibility anymore.

  • Stephen Miller: “The only thing Democrats won recently was the congressional baseball game, while the only way Democrat voters can seem to get Republicans out of Congress is by shooting them. And they can’t even do that right.”

    Instapundit: “Until the party can admit to itself that Barack Obama was the worst party leader perhaps ever, and that Hillary Clinton was the least-capable standard-bearer since Mike Dukakis, then they’re going to have to continue pinning the blame for their losses on racist, sexist, phobic American voters.”

  • First, I really like Clinton’s “presstitutes”.
    Next, David’s comment is so right: the ‘media’ has moved on, now that the GA 6th district decision didn’t fall their way—but also they were inordinately grateful to take their squirrel-length attention-span off of the fact that Steve Scalise is still in serious condition with scores of bullet fragments in his body, thanks to the James K. Hodgkinson (D) party.

    Now, the Hodgkinson Party, Nancy Pscyhosi, Bernie “the Red” Sanders, Elizabeth (“The Scream”, apologies to Edvard Munch) Warren, and Charles Sleazy Schumer, are all about the healthcare of the American populace, right? Imagine what $50 mil dumped into a 3rd-party administrator trust HSA administrated by the State of GA for its citizens, especially on a means-tested basis, could do for healthcare? Naw, it’s all about POWER!! What am I thinking…

    Also: Did anyone else note that the Hodkinson Party always says they understand women, and they especially targeted women voters supposedly in Fulton and DeKalb counties—by selecting supposedly an “eye-candy” (you cant argue he had any substance) candidate. So, when push encounters shove, it is always patronizing to its identity groups, even women. (“Let’s put Ossoff in there, they’ll be panting for him like we all were for James “Comely” Comey—another empty suit, and 6′ 8″ of it at that.)

  • As for why they picked Ossoff, have any of you heard him speak? His speaking style impersonates Obama. I kid you not. As if he were channeling him. I guarantee you those idiots believed themselves to be paving the way for the next Obama.
    ***
    Seriously, why else would all those Hollywood types go to Georgia to campaign on his behalf? it’s one thing to send a lot of money. It’s quite another thing to get personally involved.
    ***
    I’m telling you, I believe the left was infatuated with Ossoff on a near-Obama-like level. They viewed him as potentially the Democrats’ great Southern white hope.

  • See the look on the faces of the losers 😆
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DC1AjRGUIAASb9-?format=jpg&name=large
    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0REPLY REPORTJUNE 22, 2017 9:02AM

  • “…but I don’t think Big Media realizes how far their credibility sank into the toilet…”
    If they did they would have fired Martha Raddatz for her near breakdown as Trump racked up the electoral votes. The woman nearly broke out into tears than night, but hey, she’s a professional, right, not like those people exposing PP and thus deserving prosecution – oh wait: http://www.lifenews.com/2017/06/21/court-dismisses-bogus-charges-against-david-daleiden-for-exposing-planned-parenthood/

  • I apologize in advance.

    Seen on the net. “I’m laughing my ossoff.”

    Also, seen. An observation on the proclivity of brave, strong feminists to burst into tears.

    I am sincerely sorry.

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=987gjSJa7nI

    If you say so, Jay. What I notice is less the stylistic resemblance to BO than his affection for humbug (“about you”, “extraordinary community”, and that prog-trash staple “make a statement”).

    One thing I’d like to see is a constitutional amendment elaborated upon by statutory legislation which among its provisions the following: (1) candidates for supralocal public offices must be between the ages of 39 and 72 years of age on the day of the election or referendum in question; (2) positions in the judiciary subject to election or retention-in-office referenda shall carry a term of four years or a whole-number multiple of four years; all other positions shall carry a term of four years; (3) judicial positions excepted, no person shall hold an elected office for more than 10 years in any bloc of twelve, or stand for election should it be the case that he would reach this limit in the middle of his term; (5) all judges (elected or no) must retire by the close of the calendar year in which they reach the age of 76, with their term of office truncated accordingly; (6) any person in a tainted occupation standing for a seat on a conciiliar body (judicial panels excepted) must run with an understudy (listed on his petitions or nominated with him at caucuses and conventions) who is not tainted. Should the outcome of caucuses, conventions, primary elections, and petition campaigns leave a political party with a corps of candidates for a given concilar body of whom more than 20% are tainted, lots must be drawn to replace a sufficient number of tainted candidates with their respective understudies in order to bring the share of tainted candidates down to 20%. The tainted occupations are ‘member of the bar’ and ‘public employee (elected officials excepted)’. Should one hold a tainted occupation, one will retain the taint for a period of time after relinquishing said occupation. The time one retains the taint shall equal one month for every four months one held the occupation in question. (7) the foregoing applies to all elective offices and to federal offices without fail; however, any state may, via referendum, opt to follow different standards and practices for its own offices or for local office under its aegis. However, any such alternative must be reconfirmed in a referendum at least once every 30 years; if the option has not been considered in the previous 30 years, the standards and practices delineated above shall be re-instituted.

    I think if we did that, we’d see few candidates for Congress whose previous preparation for the position was a stint as a congressional aide.

  • ….Eyecandy? He looks like the Avengers’ Spider Man, but without the charm.
    Maybe going for a young, fresh face thing? Not like they’ve got a lot of mid-range folks….

    Saw a funny: Democrat demanding where all these rich, white guys who want to destroy America keep coming from, and a Marine I know commented “I don’t know, but another one lost to a strong, qualified woman last night.”

Leave a Reply