Killing People Won’t Help Matters

Monday, April 3, AD 2017

 

That quote comes from Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin, the lone dissenting vote in the House against declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbor.  A Republican from Montana, Rankin is an interesting figure.  The first woman elected to Congress, she served two terms.  In her first term she voted against declaring war on Germany in World War I and in her second term she voted against declaring war on Japan.  Both votes stemmed from her deep-seated pacifism, both votes were immensely unpopular and both votes effectively ended her political career at two different points in her life.  I give her the courage of her convictions.  However, her stance after Pearl Harbor illustrates the folly of pacifism as a national policy.  The sad truth is that in this vale of tears it is sometimes necessary to take up arms to avoid greater evils than war, and those peoples who forget that truth of the human condition will experience such evils sooner or later.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Killing People Won’t Help Matters

  • Seen elsewhere on the worldwide web, “The first sentence of almost any story can be improved if the second sentence is “And then the murders began.”

    There are two outcomes for appeasement: defeat/fundamental transformation or more devastating war.

  • Like Don said, full salute for convictions. But it strikes me that much of these debates between pacifism, or even the anti-death penalty and anti-war stances of today fundamentally revolve around 1 question: “Is there anything in this life worse than death?” One side says no, the other side says yes.

    It’s certainly not a pleasant question to consider nor an easy one to answer. Thus the debate goes on.

  • “Is there anything in this life worse than death?” One side says no, the other side says yes.”
    It is the love of neighbor; it is the love of the other that motivates us to take up arms. A person may turn his other cheek, but he is not allowed to turn his neighbor’s other cheek for the neighbor, as this is a violation of the man’s free will and freedom. Elected officials speak for their constituents, and may only speak according to the precepts of our Constitution delineated in The Preamble, the inscribed purpose of our Constitution. Peaceable assembly may be armed forces directed to secure the Liberty of innocent people.
    Jeanette Rankin voted her reality. Rankin did the right thing for herself. She was outvoted by her fellow Congressmen who voted” to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our (Constitutional) Posterity.” The Preamble

  • Nate. With one exception. The side that pretends to say “no,” to your question happens to support the demise of countless lives via abortion on demand. The ones who answered yes appreciate the fact that this life is only a chapter in the book. The death of the soul is of course worse than the death of the body.
    As you said; “the debate goes on.”

  • It’s damn easy to be a pacifist when it isn’t your neighborhood being invaded. Are there things worse than death? Eternal damnation comes to mind. Do does submission to a totalitarian state.
    Pacifism…. bah, humbug.

  • With one exception. The side that pretends to say “no,” to your question happens to support the demise of countless lives via abortion on demand.

    Philip, I will be fair and say that there are a fair number who remain anti-abortion (yes, even Mark Shea) though yes, I’ve thought it weird too those who believe life is most important… and are pro-choice.

    Are there things worse than death? Eternal damnation comes to mind.

    Pengiuns Fan, note that I said in the question “in this life” which would exclude the damnation of Hell. Obviously there are some who believe in that and thus think life should be preserved in an effort to “run out the clock” so to say and give people the maximum chances they can to avoid the fate. But then I say that reasoning is what leads to the conclusion that no, nothing is worse than death since it is the gateway to the worst fate of all. Regardless, it is still shifting things to the first and most important question.

    Do does submission to a totalitarian state.

    I assume the first word should be “so” and on this, we agree. It certainly seems that the soul can suffer and die long before the body does.

  • There is a scene in the movie, “Friendly Persuasion”, after the battle with confederate cavalry, a dying man tells his Quaker friend (played by Gary Cooper) “I’m glad you didn’t join the battle, and held out for a better way.” Like the dying man, while I don’t agree with the Quakers or Rep. Rankin, something in me admires their “holding out for a better way”.
    Someone earlier asked, “Is there anything worse than death”. That’s not really the question. It’s: “Is there anything worse than killing your fellow man.” I think very little is worse, though it may be sometimes necessary. It changes the person doing the killing, and not in a good way. Something in the normal human being rebels against it, even in war, that’s way the training is so rigorous in “harding the hearts” of recruits. That’s why we reserve capital punishment for those killers who have so hardened their hearts in killing that they’re no longer human, but the form of monster who takes joy in killing their fellow human beings.
    I dont think there’s any such thing as a “good war” or “good kill” when it’s against fellow human beings. Their are necessary and unnecessary wars and killing. I pray we always seek the counsel of our Lord, to know the difference.
    Happy Palm Sunday to everyone!

  • BPS: There is a just war. 1 Samuel 15:33 “As your sword has made women childless. so shall your mother be childless among women.” Then he cut Agag down before the Lord in Gilgal. (NAB)

PopeWatch: Missed This One

Monday, April 3, AD 2017

Apparently a new papal exhortation was issued on April 1:

Pope Francis issued an unexpected apostolic exhortation today titled Merdae Cumulus. The exhortation may be the most momentous action coming from the Seat of Peter in recorded history.

Beginning with Church appointments and new canonizations; after the Holy See’s most recent debacle with the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, Pope Francis decided to remove Albrecht Freiherr von Boeselager from his position as Grand Chancellor of the Order in favor of Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, who Francis referred to as “a true warrior, a worthy heir for a position occupied by great Christian knights of old.” In addition to this appointment, Francis revealed the future pronouncement that Joel Olsteen is to be declared a Doctor of the Church upon his death, and that the seat of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston will be relocated to Lakewood Church, known for it’s awe inspiring architectural style and it’s past function as the home of the Houston Rockets.

The bulk of the exhortation is composed of a string of admissions, concessions, apologies, and affirmations composed by the Holy Father. Perhaps the most exciting is an admission of the superiority of the Protestant movement started in the 16th century by the newly canonized Martin Luther. In the document, Francis states: “Saint Martin Luther was correct in stating that the holy fathers have erred, that the apostles have erred, that the magisterium has erred, and that the whole church has often erred. That error ends now. The saying that the Protestant churches are where heresy goes to thrive is false; it is actually the case that the opposite is true.” In the same vein was a statement regaling that Thomas More died for nothing, and that King Henry VIII was completely justified in his legal actions and formation of the Church of England. In the same spirit of humility and unity, Francis made full concessions of past Roman Catholic assertions regarding theological differences and papal authority to all Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs; this was quickly followed by Francis’ submission to all the demands of the Society of Saint Pius X, and the return of their status to full communion with the Roman See. Both the Orthodox churches and the Society of Saint Pius X have yet to respond to our requests for comment.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to PopeWatch: Missed This One

  • Haha…Lol.

    There’s only one thing stranger than a clown mass…a clown wedding.

    I’m so happy that he stated; “That error ends now.” It’s about time!
    Now we can invest in drive-thru communion service operations.
    In and Out…..It not just burgers anymore.
    Or.
    McJesus. Serving over a billion.

  • The devil cannot stand being ridiculed. Good job.

  • “Merdae cumulus” , if my vague recolection of Latin is serving me well, means – “a pile of poo”.
    Better translated in the vernacular as – a load of b***s**t. A very accurate assessment of what is happening in our Church today. I’d better not say any more – what more can be said?

  • Ecclesia Mellow
    Guy McClung
    Catholic Lane 4/4/2017
    Go and sin, sin on more.
    Mercy, my mercy, sin galore!
    The joy of love, not the sword,
    No division, praise me lord!
    An eye offends? That’s OK,
    Look again, not away.
    Fire everlasting not forever.
    Eternal damning, never, never.
    “Yes is yes” hurts so much.
    “No is no” is out of touch.
    No dog vomits, none returns.
    No sow wallows, no one burns.
    A rigid cross so unreal,
    Good news logic, feel, feel, feel.
    I need a church so I can sin, no hell;
    A mercy church, so all is well.
    Go and sin, sin on more.
    Mercy, my mercy, sin galore!

    Guy McClung, San Antonio TX

  • Ecclesia Mellow.

    Nice work Guy McClung.
    😐

April 2, 1917: Wilson Asks Congress to Declare War on Germany

Sunday, April 2, AD 2017

Gentlemen of the Congress:

I have called the Congress into extraordinary session because there are serious, very serious, choices of policy to be made, and made immediately, which it was neither right nor constitutionally permissible that I should assume the responsibility of making.

On the 3d of February last I officially laid before you the extraordinary announcement of the Imperial German Government that on and after the 1st day of February it was its purpose to put aside all restraints of law or of humanity and use its submarines to sink every vessel that sought to approach either the ports of Great Britain and Ireland or the western coasts of Europe or any of the ports controlled by the enemies of Germany within the Mediterranean. That had seemed to be the object of the German submarine warfare earlier in the war, but since April of last year the Imperial Government had somewhat restrained the commanders of its undersea craft in conformity with its promise then given to us that passenger boats should not be sunk and that due warning would be given to all other vessels which its submarines might seek to destroy, when no resistance was offered or escape attempted, and care taken that their crews were given at least a fair chance to save their lives in their open boats. The precautions taken were meagre and haphazard enough, as was proved in distressing instance after instance in the progress of the cruel and unmanly business, but a certain degree of restraint was observed The new policy has swept every restriction aside. Vessels of every kind, whatever their flag, their character, their cargo, their destination, their errand, have been ruthlessly sent to the bottom without warning and without thought of help or mercy for those on board, the vessels of friendly neutrals along with those of belligerents. Even hospital ships and ships carrying relief to the sorely bereaved and stricken people of Belgium, though the latter were provided with safe-conduct through the proscribed areas by the German Government itself and were distinguished by unmistakable marks of identity, have been sunk with the same reckless lack of compassion or of principle.

I was for a little while unable to believe that such things would in fact be done by any government that had hitherto subscribed to the humane practices of civilized nations. International law had its origin in the at tempt to set up some law which would be respected and observed upon the seas, where no nation had right of dominion and where lay the free highways of the world. By painful stage after stage has that law been built up, with meagre enough results, indeed, after all was accomplished that could be accomplished, but always with a clear view, at least, of what the heart and conscience of mankind demanded. This minimum of right the German Government has swept aside under the plea of retaliation and necessity and because it had no weapons which it could use at sea except these which it is impossible to employ as it is employing them without throwing to the winds all scruples of humanity or of respect for the understandings that were supposed to underlie the intercourse of the world. I am not now thinking of the loss of property involved, immense and serious as that is, but only of the wanton and wholesale destruction of the lives of noncombatants, men, women, and children, engaged in pursuits which have always, even in the darkest periods of modern history, been deemed innocent and legitimate. Property can be paid for; the lives of peaceful and innocent people can not be. The present German submarine warfare against commerce is a warfare against mankind.

It is a war against all nations. American ships have been sunk, American lives taken, in ways which it has stirred us very deeply to learn of, but the ships and people of other neutral and friendly nations have been sunk and overwhelmed in the waters in the same way. There has been no discrimination. The challenge is to all mankind. Each nation must decide for itself how it will meet it. The choice we make for ourselves must be made with a moderation of counsel and a temperateness of judgment befitting our character and our motives as a nation. We must put excited feeling away. Our motive will not be revenge or the victorious assertion of the physical might of the nation, but only the vindication of right, of human right, of which we are only a single champion.

When I addressed the Congress on the 26th of February last, I thought that it would suffice to assert our neutral rights with arms, our right to use the seas against unlawful interference, our right to keep our people safe against unlawful violence. But armed neutrality, it now appears, is impracticable. Because submarines are in effect outlaws when used as the German submarines have been used against merchant shipping, it is impossible to defend ships against their attacks as the law of nations has assumed that merchantmen would defend themselves against privateers or cruisers, visible craft giving chase upon the open sea. It is common prudence in such circumstances, grim necessity indeed, to endeavour to destroy them before they have shown their own intention. They must be dealt with upon sight, if dealt with at all. The German Government denies the right of neutrals to use arms at all within the areas of the sea which it has proscribed, even in the defense of rights which no modern publicist has ever before questioned their right to defend. The intimation is conveyed that the armed guards which we have placed on our merchant ships will be treated as beyond the pale of law and subject to be dealt with as pirates would be. Armed neutrality is ineffectual enough at best; in such circumstances and in the face of such pretensions it is worse than ineffectual; it is likely only to produce what it was meant to prevent; it is practically certain to draw us into the war without either the rights or the effectiveness of belligerents. There is one choice we can not make, we are incapable of making: we will not choose the path of submission and suffer the most sacred rights of our nation and our people to be ignored or violated. The wrongs against which we now array ourselves are no common wrongs; they cut to the very roots of human life.

With a profound sense of the solemn and even tragical character of the step I am taking and of the grave responsibilities which it involves, but in unhesitating obedience to what I deem my constitutional duty, I advise that the Congress declare the recent course of the Imperial German Government to be in fact nothing less than war against the Government and people of the United States; that it formally accept the status of belligerent which has thus been thrust upon it, and that it take immediate steps not only to put the country in a more thorough state of defense but also to exert all its power and employ all its resources to bring the Government of the German Empire to terms and end the war.

Continue reading...

32 Responses to April 2, 1917: Wilson Asks Congress to Declare War on Germany

  • My point of view is that Germany is responsible for both world wars. We know the other factors and other parties involved, who voted the first shots of the ward, but Germany jumped in anyway.

  • Well, this ex-Rangers Devils fan has a different and somewhat revisionist view, and will start with what some would consider an outrageous premise; the wrong side won the Great War!
    Now, Germany was responsible for ‘II,’ but certainly not for ‘I.’ To make this long, convoluted story short, let’s just look at three things. One; though the pretend Kaiser, to paraphrase Q.Victoria, was a petulant child, we must ask, did he ever follow through on any of his bombastic demands? No! In one crisis after another, if I remember correctly, he backed down, as in Morroco, and even after equally bombastic threats from T.Roosevelt about Samoa. Second, the assassination of the pro-Slav Franz Ferdinand was planned in Belgrade, which got its backbone from the aggrandizing pan-Slavism of Tsar Nicholas, pushed by the French to get involved in defending ‘poor Servia,’ a sponsor of political terrorism in the guise of Slavic nationalism, from which all of the other mobilizations stemmed. Third, that lying bigot Wilson, like all ‘progressives,’ believed in honest brokering and negotiation, except when he didn’t, like refusing to treat with the crowned heads of the Central Powers, destroying political legitimacy directly paving the way for Hitler. Yes, reasoning individuals can lay blame for the calamity caused by Versailles directly at the feet of Woodrow Wilson; you know, the guy who brought segregation to the federal bureaucracy and encouraged Jim Crow, and forced Hoover to deny food to Hungary if they allowed (real) Kaiser Karl to assume his rightful throne as King there.
    Over simplified, yes; and though I had relatives fighting in King George’s service, to (control laughter) “make the world safe for democracy,” the Allies victory because of American money and manpower, with Wilson’s duplicitous conduct and the political turmoil that resulted, made a second war, if not inevitable, at least a definite possibility.
    One of my great uncles saw in Eastern Europe that all men had the right to vote in all those constitutional monarchies that made up the Central Powers…well, except Turkey, while he, because he hadn’t owned a home, could not vote, but could spill his blood for those who could. He was the first of my relatives to leave Britain without a look back; something that did not sink in until I read history years later, and had a girlfriend/wife of Hungarian descent who had more distant relatives who fought for the ‘other side.’ This altered my views of the ‘victor’s narrative when studying that last bastion of catholic culture and responsible, benevolent, catholic-inspired governing, Austria-Hungary. Not perfect to be sure, but, how’s it working here???
    Almost sorry for that….OK, let the games begin….

  • “we must ask, did he ever follow through on any of his bombastic demands?”

    Yes, the blank check he gave Austria against Serbia.

    “Second, the assassination of the pro-Slav Franz Ferdinand was planned in Belgrade, which got its backbone from the aggrandizing pan-Slavism of Tsar Nicholas”

    Elements in the military were involved, but not the Serbian civilian government. In any case beginning a general European War over it was a horrendous overreaction.

    “Third, that lying bigot Wilson, like all ‘progressives,’ believed in honest brokering and negotiation, except when he didn’t, like refusing to treat with the crowned heads of the Central Powers”

    Wilson had called for negotiations since the beginning of the War. Neither side was interested.

    “One of my great uncles saw in Eastern Europe that all men had the right to vote in all those constitutional monarchies that made up the Central Powers…”

    Assuming your great uncle was a Brit, universal male suffrage was granted in 1918 for men over 21 and women over 30. In regard to Germany, the Reichstag had little say over foreign policy and the making of wars. Hitler’s rule by emergency decree was pioneered in Germany in World War I.

  • I will never understand how civilized/cultured Europe permitted itself to be immolated in the insane violence of WWI.

    America took sides early on. Of course, “neutral” America didn’t sell/ship foodstuffs and munitions to Austria and Germany because the elites/establishment “knew” the British would stop/seize neutral American ships on the high seas. But, the bosses sold to Britain and France. It was commerce not belligerency/personal – See “The Godfather.” So, in April 1917, the casus belli was, among other casi belli, German submarines torpedoing US ships carrying war supplies/munitions to Rule Britannia and the umpty-umphth French Republic. “I see.” said the blind man. Easy solution and alternative to war: ship munitions and war supplies in British/French vessels. No good. The fix was in.

    Here is one explanation for my first paragraph quandary. Consider the likelihood that most nations are led by imbeciles. It took the idiots running America until 1917 to get into the war. And, then the too-powerful, incompetent “geniuses” fouled up the peace sowing the seeds of a more bitter conflagration in 1939.

    FYI – Britain and France never paid for much of that stuff. Of $10 billion in allies’ war debts, the US eventually collected about $2.75 billion. And, the loss was greater because the interest collected was far below the agreed-upon amounts. FYI FYI – The US government and private financiers “financed” much of the British/French war efforts – mostly they didn’t pay cash.

    Only tiny Finland repaid according to terms. But, that debt was different.

  • Consider the likelihood that most nations are led by imbeciles.

    I’m not. It’s a stupid thought.

  • “So, in April 1917, the casus belli was, among other casi belli, German submarines torpedoing US ships”

    The German policy was to sink all neutral shipping, without warning, including passenger liners, no matter what they were carrying. Then we have the little matter of Imperial Germany attempting to incite war between the US and Mexico with several states as bait. The US had ample reason to declare war on Germany and like Theodore Roosevelt I regret that it took the US such a long time to do so. American intervention in 1915 might well have led to Allied victory prior to the Bolsheviks seizing power in Russia in November 1917.

  • I apologize in advance.

    It seems many don’t believe in God, but believe in unlimited government (to solve problems), In fact, unlimited government can lead to unlimited sorrows.

    Art, Not so “stupid thought.” I can name a number of apocalyptic, ticking time-bombs the Bushes, Clintons, Obama (not to mention Wilson, Hoover, Coolidge, FDR, HST, JFK ) inflicted on America.

    Don, more evidence that Imperial Germany was run by idiots. And, Imperial Brit Naval policy was to stop/seize all shipping to Germany. Did all the neutral nations also declare war on Imperial Germany?

    My real-world experiences are with (low-level) military and financial matters. The more you know, the more you understand (I think Aristotle wrote that, too) that it is little that you “know.” Go figure. Right? The arrogant people running the place never listen to guys like me. Your loss.

    Art, a reading recommendation. It’s not just me. It seems it’s also Henry Kaufman, PhD.

    3 April 2017 Barron’s: “Dr. Doom’s Diagnosis” by Randall W. Forsyth: Henry Kaufman new book, Tectonic Shifts in Financial Markets: People, Policies, and Institutions. N.B. Anybody younger than 35 years-old only has experienced disinflation and falling interest rates.

    The foolishness of policy-makers and market participants led to the recent financial crisis and its long-running aftermath. Einstein’s definition of insanity: “the Fed has attained an unprecedented prominence – precisely because of its past policy failures.” Greenspan and Bernanke failed to note deep changes in financial markets – securitization; repeal of Glass-Steagall; increased concentration of markets – handful of megabanks dominate. Dodd-Frank worsened the concentration of financial risks – far more fragile financial system and more dependent on the idiotic Fed. Without the slightest understanding of the real world, just a slavish devotion to their theoretical models.

    The next financial markets catastrophe is festering, while the Fed, Congress, UST, etc. are not only clueless, but (infallibly ignorant) they are making it worse.

  • Don, I disagree with your spin, but it’s understandable as that’s what we were taught way back when. I mentioned Kaiser Bill not following through on his threats prior to 1914, and you respond with the comment about giving the real Kaiser a blank check. That does not follow, but we can agree to disagree. In any case what about honoring its commitment to Austria-Hungary against the Tsar’s mobilization? No matter what Germany did, Austria was justified in seeking redress against Serbia. We can debate that the smarter course for KFJ would have been to accept Serbia’s positive response to all but one of his demands. However, there is no proof that the civilian government was not complicit in the assassination, as they had been actively fomenting trouble in Bosnia since the bloody coup in Belgrade in 1903 against the ruling house which had been Austria’s ally; such friendship was not something Serbian nationalism could abide. And, starting a war was not something Vienna did lightly, needing Germany’s guarantee of help in anticipation of Russia’s aggrandizing meddling. As I said, the smarter course, in hindsight, was not taken as they felt the threat would only continue.
    Your comment about Wilson’s unheeded call for negotiations is flat out wrong. Kaiser Karl tried to broker peace status quo ante on at least two occasions beginning with his accession to his throne, while Wilson ran his campaign on “he kept us out of war,” which sentiments ended quite soon after the election, though obviously made all the easier by Germany’s desperate blunders. You forgot about Karl’s cause for sainthood?
    I see you didn’t respond to my comments about Wilson’s racism….
    I did say my veteran great uncle left Britain, so yes, he was a Brit. As for the extension of the franchise, that was December, 1917, a month after the armistice; so again, he fought for the King without having the right to vote.
    You also ignored my mentioning the catholicity of Austria-Hungary, but that makes it easier to see that country and Imperial Germany as the collective source of all 20th century woes….
    Your comments about the Weimar Reichstag and Chancellor Hitler’s rule by decree have no bearing at all on the Wilhelmine assembly of the same name, which in fact did have “…say over foreign policy and making wars.” They just had a lot of trouble contending with a dope of a head of state. “…(P)ioneered in World War I,” could be, should be, changed to ‘…in Versailles.’
    Thanks for this venue!

  • oops, December, 1918!!!

  • “Don, I disagree with your spin, but it’s understandable as that’s what we were taught way back when. I”

    My “spin” Jim is called historical facts.

    “I mentioned Kaiser Bill not following through on his threats prior to 1914, and you respond with the comment about giving the real Kaiser a blank check.”

    No, you posited that the Kaiser was a paper tiger because he backed down in regard to some foreign crises prior to 1914 and I pointed out the historical fact that in 1914 the Kaiser gave a blank check to Austria Hungary in making war against Serbia and that he did not back down from that disastrous decision. That monumental blunder of course turned a crisis in the Balkans into World War I.

    “No matter what Germany did, Austria was justified in seeking redress against Serbia.”

    Without the blank check of the Kaiser that redress would never have included War. Serbia in its response to the Austrian ultimatum went very far to appease Austria, as far as a nation could go and still remain independent:

    https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Serbian_Response_to_the_Austro-Hungarian_Ultimatum_(English_translation)

    “Your comment about Wilson’s unheeded call for negotiations is flat out wrong. Kaiser Karl tried to broker peace status quo ante on at least two occasions beginning with his accession to his throne, while Wilson ran his campaign on “he kept us out of war,” which sentiments ended quite soon after the election, though obviously made all the easier by Germany’s desperate blunders. You forgot about Karl’s cause for sainthood?”

    Once again Jim, historical facts are stubborn things. Go to the link below to read about the American peace initiatives to end the War through negotiations.

    http://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/peace_initiatives

    “I see you didn’t respond to my comments about Wilson’s racism…”

    I’ve written about Wilson’s racism before on this blog several times. I didn’t respond because Wilson was a racist and it had bupkis to do with the foreign policies he pursued in regard to World War I.

    “As for the extension of the franchise, that was December, 1917, a month after the armistice; so again, he fought for the King without having the right to vote.”

    Yes, and the right to vote was extended universally primarily as a thank you to the Brits who fought in World War I.

    “You also ignored my mentioning the catholicity of Austria-Hungary, but that makes it easier to see that country and Imperial Germany as the collective source of all 20th century woes….”

    Not all the woes, but a heaping helping of blame for starting World War I. Once again historical fact is historical fact.

    “Your comments about the Weimar Reichstag and Chancellor Hitler’s rule by decree have no bearing at all on the Wilhelmine assembly of the same name, which in fact did have “…say over foreign policy and making wars.””

    No they did not. The Reichstag did not even appoint the government, that being the prerogative of the Kaiser. Imperial Germany was a far cry from being anything like a democracy and it became progressively less so as World War I went on. By 1916 Germany was effectively a military dictatorship with the Kaiser reduced to a figurehead.

    http://karmak.org/archive/2003/01/history/silentdict.html

  • OK, lots in there, many unequivocal remarks which just repeat the standard “victors’ narrative” certainly open to other interpretations….
    No, you posited that the Kaiser was a paper tiger because he backed down in regard to some foreign crises prior to 1914 and I pointed out the historical fact that in 1914 the Kaiser gave a blank check to Austria Hungary in making war against Serbia and that he did not back down from that disastrous decision. That monumental blunder of course turned a crisis in the Balkans into World War I.
    To repeat, I stated that prior to 1914, KW did not follow through on his threats. The Aug.’14 guarantee to AH was not a public threat. Come on; you can’t see the inaccuracy of your characterization?
    The link to the Serbian response, with which anyone who studies Eastern European history is familiar, proves nothing. It was standard, diplomatic ‘plausible deniability’ which any gov’t would provide in similar circumstances.
    Once again Jim, historical facts are stubborn things. Go to the link below to read about the American peace initiatives to end the War through negotiations.
    You did read that link, no? Does it not mention KK’s peace initiative of 1916? I never denied that Wilson attempted to negotiate peace, I merely disputed your unequivocal statement that no other powers were interested.
    I partly concede your points re: Wilson’s bigotry. However, his anti-monarchist views did affect his later actions leading up to Versailles, but only against the Central Powers and not the monarchies with which he was allied.
    Yes, and the right to vote was extended universally primarily as a thank you to the Brits who fought in World War I.
    How does that refute what I asserted? Really…well, I’ll just leave it at that….
    No they did not. The Reichstag did not even appoint the government, that being the prerogative of the Kaiser. Imperial Germany was a far cry from being anything like a democracy and it became progressively less so as World War I went on. By 1916 Germany was effectively a military dictatorship with the Kaiser reduced to a figurehead.
    A lot in there too. I ask, does our Congress ‘appoint the gov’t?’ That is the prerogative of the President, no? Many educated people are unfamiliar with the confederation of constitutional monarchies and free cities which comprised, their official term, “The Associated Governments of the German Empire. Imperial Germany WAS NOT a ‘far cry….’ The fact that martial law was declared during the war doesn’t change the state of affairs prior to bungling their way into it. I seem to remember we may have had some martial law here some 150 years ago….I agree that the Kaiser became a figurehead, and the Reichstag a mere rubber stamp for the military gov’t. But that doesn’t change the fact that Imperial Germany was a technically a democratic polity, though we can debate the extent of such democracy.

  • Jim, nothing you say can change my mind. Long time readers of this blog know I frequently blather about things Polish.

    The Germans were nasty and brutal to the Polish who lived under German rule. So were the Russians, but that’s a different discussion. Kaiser Bill referred to Poles as dogs who should just die.

    No, the wrong side did not win. No, Wilson was not wrong to join the war on the side of the British and French. The Germans have a history of being nasty to their neighbors before and after World War I. If anybody needed to have their rear ends handed to them it was the Germans.

    The time for empires was coming to an end. Much loved by radtrads, the Hapsburgs ruled over people who longed to be rid of their rule.

    The Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Poles and Lithuanians regained their right of self rule after World War I. They lost it due to the Germans putting Hitler in power – a deed of their own choosing, and the Germans in WWI backing Lenin to overthrow the Czar with a communist dictatorship.

    I have German ancestry. I’m not proud of it.

  • Hey Fan,
    I obviously don’t expect to change minds directly, but just to push them to see a different perspective. Now, my main thrust was in favor of Austria-Hungary, and basically stated that Imperial Germany was not responsible for the war. You mentioned how terribly the Germans treated Poles, and mentioned some diatribe attributed to KW. Is it actually true? I did read that many, many years ago, but I believe it’s on the same vein as “let them eat cake’ falsely attributed to Marie Antoinette. I ask, when exactly did this alleged persecution occur? After the failed 1830 revolt against Tsar Nick I when Poles sought and received refuge in Prussia? I am no apologist for protestant Prussia, but too many of the Junkers were of Polish blood for me to believe, in the absence of evidence, any widespread anti-Polish persecutions. You say Germans have a history of being nasty; which Germans? Before 1866, there were about 40 independent polities in “Germany.” Now Prussia did maneuver two wars to gain suzerainty over what later became the one Germany over all the other Germanies, but can you enlighten me as to this nastiness you refer too? Hey, I don’t have all the answers….
    You said the time for empires was coming to an end…just the monarchical ones? The standard view post-Great War is just as you characterized, and what we were taught in public school. However, the sentiments calling for breaking up the Habsburg empire were no where near as widespread as we’re spoon fed. All the people in eastern Europe did not long for the end of Habsburg rule. Some did of course. But, even Freud was a supporter of the Habsburgs(but how that serves my point I…?). If you’re familiar with Hungarian history, you’ll know that it was an independent nation which shared a head of state and national defense with Austria. However, that independent nation would not grant autonomy to the Slavs in its borders, to the consternation of Franz Ferdinand, and an issue Franz Josef didn’t want to press in fear of upsetting the Ausgleich.
    As for the Germans putting Hitler in power, yeah they did, just like we put Obama in power.
    But it should be remembered that Wilson delegitimized the various governments of the German states, leaving a power vacuum the Weimar construct could not fill. We could argue other points about Hitler’s campaign for seats in the Reichstag, but that’s a bit away from my original premise….
    There is much to loathe and laud about Germans and Germany, much like any other
    people. That Holocaust thing does cause pause though…! All any nationality can do is go forward with Christian/CATHOLIC virtue, forgive sins of the past, but not forget how easy it is to fall….
    Thanks PenFan; my oldest son is one like you…I might root for them again like last year given how well my team has done…again. Cheers!

  • “To repeat, I stated that prior to 1914, KW did not follow through on his threats. The Aug.’14 guarantee to AH was not a public threat. Come on; you can’t see the inaccuracy of your characterization?”

    Not at all. Absent the Kaiser’s blank check to Austria Hungary, and his constant prodding for Austria to attack Serbia, Austria would not have dared to declare war on Serbia. What is irrelevant is your citing foreign policy crises where the Kaiser backed down in reference to the 1914 crisis in which he did not.

    “The link to the Serbian response, with which anyone who studies Eastern European history is familiar, proves nothing.”

    No, it amply demonstrates that Serbia was going the extra mile to satisfy Austria. Absent a declaration that the Serbians would be henceforth slaves of Austria, I don’t know what more the Serbian government could have done and retain its independence.

    “I merely disputed your unequivocal statement that no other powers were interested.”

    Oh Germany was interested if a negotiated peace meant that they could retain their conquests in the East and/or their conquests in the West. The Allies were never going to agree to that,

    “How does that refute what I asserted? Really…well, I’ll just leave it at that….”

    The Allies contended that they were fighting a war for democracy against an autocratic power seeking to dominate Europe. Making the franchise universal in Great Britain for men certainly went along with that war aim.

    “I ask, does our Congress ‘appoint the gov’t?’ That is the prerogative of the President, no?”

    Who is elected by the people. The Imperial German government had no such Democratic base but were rather appointees of the Kaiser.

    “The fact that martial law was declared during the war doesn’t change the state of affairs prior to bungling their way into it.”

    What happened in Imperial Germany in World War I was not martial law but rather martial rule.

    Good debate Jim! As faithful readers of this blog know, I live for good debates on historical topics.

  • It’s a reasonable judgment that the Wilson Administration was foolish to promote the disestablishment of the German monarchies, but the political landscape had turned to quicksand and it’s a reasonable wager they’d have evaporated anyway. The National People’s Party was the only inter-war configuration which was monarchist in outlook. The National People’s Party was good for about 20% of the vote during its heyday, so you cannot say there was strong public revulsion contra republican institutions. As for the Hapsburg Monarchy, it fell to pieces rapidly and spontaneously, and Hungary’s monarchists explicitly ruled out a Hapsburg restoration.

    All the participants in the 1st World War counted as constitutional states in 1914. Russian and Ottoman institutions were fledgling and weak and neither Russian nor Ottoman political practice was impressive. Different business in Germany and the Hapsburg dominions.

  • Good debate Jim! As faithful readers of this blog know, I live for good debates on historical topics.
    Indeed! But, with all due respect, we should get the history right, no? Or maybe acknowledge that another vantage point that refutes the propaganda history is valid? Repeating the misrepresentations which we were subjected to in grade school do not suffice. “Not at all. Absent the Kaiser’s blank check to Austria Hungary, and his constant prodding for Austria to attack Serbia, Austria would not have dared to declare war on Serbia. What is irrelevant is your citing foreign policy crises where the Kaiser backed down in reference to the 1914 crisis in which he did not.”
    Don, you have that backwards. It was Russia’s interference which gave Vienna pause (though the veterans of the Serbian Army should have as well!) and the necessity of German support in case the Tsar mobilized before they did, which is what happened. I cited Bill’s empty threats and capitulations to illustrate that Germany’s so-called quest for domination is a chimera. Do you honestly think that any supposed prodding to resist Serbia was the dominating feature of the Triple Alliance? You’re again repeating the same misrepresentations. Berlin knew that any outright aggressive action against Serbia would involve Russia, and thence them; something they did not want as it would then result in a general war that both Vienna and Berlin knew they could not win if their initial military moves were unsuccessful. They were deathly afraid of what they called the ‘materiel schlact.’ Russia’s meddling confirmed the need for Germany to back Austria.
    “No, it amply demonstrates that Serbia was going the extra mile to satisfy Austria. Absent a declaration that the Serbians would be henceforth slaves of Austria, I don’t know what more the Serbian government could have done and retain its independence.”
    Again, a distorted view of Austria’s Balkan policy. They did not want more nationalists in their supranational confederation; only relief from nationalist agitation. Yes, those war mongers were at the last given pride of place by a tired Franz Josef, who did not trust that Serbia would really do anything to those responsible as they permeated the Serbian gov’t, something I referred to previously. I agree that Serbia acceded to all they could, and Austria would have been wiser to accept that and avoid a conflict their intransigence ensured. Russia’s mobilization guaranteed a wider war.
    “Oh Germany was interested if a negotiated peace meant that they could retain their conquests in the East and/or their conquests in the West. The Allies were never going to agree to that,”
    Again, Kaiser Karl wanted status quo ante; something you continually ignore as it disproves your initial comment. As for this one quoted here, you seem to forget that Allied war aims, especially perfidious Italy’s, was more responsible for putting an end to possible negotiations. As I mentioned, try to present the whole history. Yes, the German military was committed to justifying its expense in manpower and resources, just as the Allies were. Bad actors on both sides, to the exclusion of Austria-Hungary, which abandoned any war aims and was the only honest ‘player’ from 1916 on.
    “The Allies contended that they were fighting a war for democracy against an autocratic power seeking to dominate Europe. Making the franchise universal in Great Britain for men certainly went along with that war aim.”
    Come on, that is disingenuous. The Allies’ propaganda war aim doesn’t make that in any way true. Germany and Austria-Hungary were constitutional monarchies with universal, secret suffrage. Britain was not until Dec, 1918. I don’t know how you justify propaganda that contradicts well-known facts; well, known to everyone outside Britain, Canada, and the USA….
    “Who is elected by the people. The Imperial German government had no such Democratic base but were rather appointees of the Kaiser.”
    How many times must I repeat that every country in Europe which was not a republic was a constitutional monarchy. You don’t have to believe that ‘world safe for democracy LIE!!! Even the Tsar accepted such in 1908 with the establishment of the Duma. Was that also not democratic? Really, it was only in 1911 that Commons asserted ‘overlordship’ of Lords. Man…I don’t know what about universal (male) suffrage electing parliaments advising and consenting to expenditures you think constitutes tyranny of the Kaiser. Just because a head of state is not elected does not mean that the rest of the popularly elected gov’t exercising such powers is not an example of some sort of democracy. You forget that the Kaiser had the other crowned heads, represented in the Bundesrat, to deal with. Yes, he had executive control, but he had constraints on action; too bad there were none on his mouth….
    “What happened in Imperial Germany in World War I was not martial law but rather martial rule.”
    Mainly semantics, but I certainly don’t dispute that the ‘rule’ assumed by the Prussian General Staff was as you stated, which controlled all aspects of life because of the privations of war that were only equaled in Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria, and not by the Allies; though it got close in Britain until the convoy system was begun.
    Art Deco’s post is one you should consider as well. I would only posit that political legitimacy is something that cannot be easily regained once the existing regime is forced out. Just look at how Iraq turned out. Anyway, I’m not so sure that the various monarchies of the German states would have evaporated that easily. Despite the propaganda, those monarchs were ‘popular’ with their subjects. What happened in Vienna was more complicated, and not easily explained because there was no homogeneity in population, and as was indicated, Wilson refused to negotiate with any crowned head.
    Don, many thanks again for your venue. It’s exceedingly nice of you to allow all of us would-be pundits to share your stage show!!!

  • “Berlin knew that any outright aggressive action against Serbia would involve Russia, and thence them; something they did not want as it would then result in a general war that both Vienna and Berlin knew they could not win if their initial military moves were unsuccessful. They were deathly afraid of what they called the ‘materiel schlact.’ Russia’s meddling confirmed the need for Germany to back Austria.”

    Kaiser Bill personally gave Austria the blank check on July 5, 1914.

    http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-gives-austria-hungary-blank-check-assurance

    Along with his continual prodding of Austria to get on with it and attack Serbia, the Kaiser’s blank check guaranteed war with Russia and France.

    “Again, Kaiser Karl wanted status quo ante; something you continually ignore as it disproves your initial comment.”

    That poor, hapless dilettante had nothing to say about meaningful peace negotiations. Germany was in control of their alliance and Austria only maintained its existence courtesy of the Imperial Germany Army. Whatever his private virtues, Kaiser Karl, who came to throne in November of 1916 was a disaster as a monarch. His secret peace overture was revealed and he lied about his involvement. Clemenceau published letters showing his involvement. After that, nothing more was attempted by him until October 14, 1918 when Germany was about to toss in the towel in any case. His destiny was to lead Austria to defeat and the dissolution of the empire, and he fulfilled that destiny. The admiration that some Catholics have for Karl as a public figure eludes me, since as the leader of a nation he was a complete failure, albeit he inherited a very bad situation.

    “Germany and Austria-Hungary were constitutional monarchies with universal, secret suffrage.”

    Austria-Hungary was a prison house of nations that wanted independence from the dual monarchy, except for the two nations in the saddle, the Austrians and the Hungarians. Germany had a weak Reichstag that had no control over government policy as demonstrated during the War. German rule over Belgium and Occupied France set standards for abuse of civilian populations that those more innocent times were rightly shocked by. They were not much by the standards of sheer horror set by the Third Reich two decades later, but rule of enemy populations under the Prussian Eagle was grim enough.

    “How many times must I repeat that every country in Europe which was not a republic was a constitutional monarchy.”

    When most Americans think of a constitutional monarchy they think of Great Britain where the monarch is a figure head. That was not the case in Imperial Germany except, ironically, during the latter half of World War I when the Kaiser was reduced to being a figure head. If the Reichstag had established the government in 1914, along the lines of Parliament in Great Britain, I doubt if there would have been a World War since I can’t imagine any civilian government set up through the Reichstag having given Austria a blank check.

    “Don, many thanks again for your venue. It’s exceedingly nice of you to allow all of us would-be pundits to share your stage show!!!”

    Thank you Jim. That is why my favorite part of this blog are the comboxes.

  • I have a piece of History in form of a 1915 2 Dinar Serbian coin. I received it from my father (RIP). I had believed (Cyrillic letters) it was a czarist Russian coin,, except face is not Czar Nicholas. I “googled” it. It is a king (?) named Peter I, who bears some resemblance to Stalin. It is 10 grams of .835 silver and (melt value) worth $4.81, possibly about $20 to a collector.

    I also have (from Dad) a 1917 Lee Enfield Mark II .303 caliber, which kicks like a mule, and a box of shells. I was to find a bayonet, but . . .

  • Austria-Hungary was a prison house of nations that wanted independence from the dual monarchy, except for the two nations in the saddle, the Austrians and the Hungarians.

    In the general elections held prior to the war, ethnic particularist parties cadged about 10% of the vote in Hungary and 17% in the rest of the Empire. They weren’t politically separatist in an unambiguous way, either. The situation in 1918-19 was quite protean and events took a course that would have been scarcely imaginable a decade earlier in either the Hapsburg or Hohenzollern realms.
    Germany had a weak Reichstag that had no control over government policy as demonstrated during the War.

    It’s very strange to characterize a country’s political order by what goes on in brief time periods when it’s under a general mobilization.

    That aside, you had prevalent shortcomings in a number of the European powers and their dependencies. France was damaged by hyper-centralization and a contrived and abusive secularism. In the United States, you had the Southern caste system and urban patron-client politics which had no analogue in Britain. In the Mediterranean states, parliamentary institutions were corrupted in various ways. In Russia, electoral institutions were novel on the supralocal scale and not venerable in the realm of local government, either (and the general elections held prior to the war manipulated). The political order in most components of Europe in 1907 compared favorably to what it was 30 years later.

  • When most Americans think of a constitutional monarchy they think of Great Britain where the monarch is a figure head. That was not the case in Imperial Germany except, i

    I doubt the institutional differences between the British monarchy and the German monarchies were contextually all that important. As for what the Bethmann-Hollweg ministry might have done had it be responsible to the legislature, that’s tough to say without a really granular knowledge of German parliamentary politics of the period. The political culture in European countries was radically different. Spain, France, and Italy invested over 15 years in subduing the Maghreb in the era. It’s difficult to imagine any occidental country today having that kind of attention span or willing to do something so incongruent with commodious living. Establishing dependencies in Syria and Morocco wasn”t some hobbyist’s project in France. There was vigorous sentiment in favor of it among politically attentive populations if not the public at large. Clemenceau was unusual among working politicians in France for thinking the collection of dependencies abroad a waste of resources and attention.

  • “I doubt the institutional differences between the British monarchy and the German monarchies were contextually all that important.”

    In Great Britain Parliament controlled the government and in Imperial Germany the Reichstag had no say as to the government, the government and the Reichstag being completely separate institutions.

    “As for what the Bethmann-Hollweg ministry might have done had it be responsible to the legislature, that’s tough to say without a really granular knowledge of German parliamentary politics of the period.”

    For the 1914 crisis it might well be irrelevant since the Imperial constitution gave the Kaiser control over foreign policy and he was the one who decided to give a blank check to Austria.

  • “In the general elections held prior to the war, ethnic particularist parties cadged about 10% of the vote in Hungary and 17% in the rest of the Empire. They weren’t politically separatist in an unambiguous way, either. The situation in 1918-19 was quite protean and events took a course that would have been scarcely imaginable a decade earlier in either the Hapsburg or Hohenzollern realms.”

    It was quite imaginable Art with nationalist groups looking for more and more autonomy since the middle of the nineteenth century. It was a miracle that the polyglot empire survived until 1914, and with the advent of the Great War, the empire was fresh out of miracles.

  • Just a side comment from a German-American whose family left the country during Kulturkampf. WW I essentially began because few of the participants thought they could be defeated. It was clear in 1915 that this was not the case. Yet the war continued because there was fear that governments would fall if it were stopped on any basis other than victory. Most of the comments here regarding the state of conditions in Europe are largely correct. It was a 20th century continent in many ways but shackled to 18th century style governments. Even when the war ended on 11 Nov, the countries were determined to act in large measure as before. Little wonder than most historians regard the 1914-1945 period much the same as the Thirty Years War of three centuries earlier.

  • In Great Britain Parliament controlled the government and in Imperial Germany the Reichstag had no say as to the government, the government and the Reichstag being completely separate institutions.
    The cabinet in Britain is notionally responsible to the parliament. I’m not sure you could find an example of a ministry being ejected from office by a no confidence vote at any time since 1902. There are British prime ministers and party chieftains who’ve run afoul of their party caucus and faced leadership crises (Austen Chamberlain, Ramsey MacDonald, Edward Heath, Margaret Thatcher, and Ian Duncan-Smith). It’s a skill for a British PM to ‘be a Westminster politician and not a Whitehall politician”. Still, you do not have the sort of discipline of the executive that the French or Italian Chamber have exercised, and that’s a good thing by and large. ‘Cabinet responsibility’ in Britain governs the composition of the ministry, not really the balance of power between the cabinet and the legislature. As for Wilhelmine Germany, the ministry still has to work with the legislature (though there was a consequential incident in Prussia ca. 1862 when Bismarck ordered tax collections in defiance of the legislature).

    For the 1914 crisis it might well be irrelevant since the Imperial constitution gave the Kaiser control over foreign policy and he was the one who decided to give a blank check to Austria.

    The Kaisar made decisions in a given matrix. Your counterfactual is that had someone like Friedrich Ebert had been sitting in the Chancellor’s chair, there would have been no war. That’s conceivable, but that’s really more a function of the policy dispositions of the German political class, not of a structural factor.

    It was quite imaginable Art with nationalist groups looking for more and more autonomy since the middle of the nineteenth century. It was a miracle that the polyglot empire survived until 1914, and with the advent of the Great War, the empire was fresh out of miracles.

    Again, political separatism in the Dual Monarchy was in 1910 fairly weak. It’s rather florid to call the place a ‘prison house’ that being the case. It was a rather cumbersome and suboptimal arrangement, but that’s a different problem.

  • It was a 20th century continent in many ways but shackled to 18th century style governments.

    What are you talking about? Monarchical absolutism was the order of the day in 18th century Europe everywhere but in Britain, Switzerland, and a few coastal merchant republics. There wasn’t a single example of monarchical absolutism left in Europe in 1914. Russia bore the closest resemblance to monarchical absolutism. You’d be hard put to find a European county of any size in 1750 that was as equalitarian and liberal-democratic as Stolypin’s Russia.

  • “The cabinet in Britain is notionally responsible to the parliament. I’m not sure you could find an example of a ministry being ejected from office by a no confidence vote at any time since 1902.”

    Twice in 1924 and once in 1979. Of course knowing this could happen often exerts a restraint upon a government for policies hard to explain to parliament.

  • Twice in 1924 and once in 1979. Of course knowing this could happen often exerts a restraint upon a government for policies hard to explain to parliament.

    The Labour Party in 1979 had lost control of parliament through attrition and by-elections over the previous 4 years. The no-confidence vote cut short the life of parliament by just 5 months. The party system was in flux from 1916 to 1939 and at its most unstable right around 1924 as the Labour Party was displacing the various LIberal Parties. It was during that era when the British party landscape most resembled a continental landscape, with the qualification that Britain’s never been hospitable soil for red parties or brown parties (as France, Italy, Portugal, Greece, Czchoslovakia, Hungary, and Roumania have at times been).

  • I appreciate your response, Jim.

    There is a YouTube video, produced in Poland with English subtitles, that is a docu-drama about the retaking of Greater Poland (western Poland) by the Polish from the Germans after WWII. Before the war ended, when Lenin seized Russia, he quit the war and withdrew the Russian Army to Russia proper. After the war, Austria withdrew from Galicia (southern Poland and western Ukraine). The Germans had no intention of withdrawing from the Polish territory they seized in the Partitions. It is from this video that i got my historical background, along with the quote from the Kaiser. A patchwork of Polish militias attacked German army bases and political installations in Greater Poland until the Germans withdrew.
    (After that they fought and beat the Red Army but that’s another story).

    The Hapsburgs had to give in to the Hungarians in the 19th century to hold the whole thing together. From a practical point, Galicia, which was at least able to be Catholic, was the poorest of partitioned Poland.

    I still find myself faulting the Germans, at least their government. They gave Lenin free passage from Switzerland and gave him money and other help to overthrow the czar in order to get Russia out of the war. They were allies with the Ottomans, who committed genocide against the Armenians. Their quest for their “place in the sun” cast a long shadow over Europe and led to the rise of the Nazis and Communists. They never really had any chance to win either war, as both times the severely underestimated the United States.

    Dzien dobry.

  • I read all this last evening and considered making no more ‘additions’ to this debate. However, that comment about a “hapless dilettante” changed my mind. That obtuse comment reminded me of something I read years ago by some typical dopey English secularist about Karl’s beatification; pure drivel if I remember correctly. Don, you continually repeat the same opinions and half-truths to support the established historical paradigm, which is most definitely anti-catholic when it comes to Austria-Hungary, and just plain wrong when it comes to that ‘blank check’ nonsense, again more of the same oft-repeated opinions which become fact by repetition. All European foreign policy was driven by the ‘alliance system.’ Now, you’ve chosen to believe the victors’ premise that Serbia’s active support for terrorist acts in Bosnia didn’t constitute an act of war. To keep Russia (possibly) out if it, Austria needed German support…again. You ignore the fact that France gave Russia a blank check, but notice how that is not in the so-called histories you continually cite links to.
    As to Karl lying about his peace overtures, the edited letters indicated he was open to a separate peace agreeing to all the Allied war aims; that is what he denied. He never denied making an attempt to open active negotiations, and wanted the Wilhelm’s support. That is an important fact that also fits not into the victor’s narrative. Were you aware that Wilson’s reaction to the Pope’s peace appeal was: “What’s he butting in for?” No Don, your impertinent characterization is just wrong. I no longer assume you’d even take a second look at that entire exercise in futility, and refuse to recognize that Allied war aims were governed by the secret treaty with Italy, and the assurance of victory America’s involvement guaranteed.
    Art Deco is doing a better job than I in refuting your claims about that great paragon of democracy in action known as the British Parliament. You forget that that so-called august institution has always acted at the whim of the moneyed classes. Our arguments about the extent of democracy, or its elements in Germany is becoming pointless. The fact that Imperial Germany was a federation of independent states with their own law-making assemblies again doesn’t fit the popular narrative. Yes, the Reichstag had limited powers to control the Kaiser and his ministers, and thence foreign policy; but they had control over Imperial expenditures, and even passed a peace bill, which unfortunately meant nothing under martial law.
    For the record, how much control did our congress have over a lawless tyrannical dilettante
    of a president we had for the past eight years? Since we’re making comparisons, how is the use of poison gas in Syria a direct threat to the USA necessitating military action without a war declaration? We don’t even know if the rebels got hold of some of that stuff do we? I mean, we can trust the “intelligence” community right? Hey they had that Iran ayatollah and Iraq atom bomb thing all figured out, right? Thank another hapless head of state named Jimmy Carter for emasculating our Intelligence apparatus….But I drigress….
    And for the record, there was NO German IMPERIAL ARMY, though many who’ve written on the subject and should know better have made such reference. The only Imperial German military establishment from 1871 to 1918 was the navy.
    I don’t like to argue political ‘science’ as it’s not really taught within the confines of history, or so I believe. Your characterizations about Parliament ignore the fact that it’s power over the crown resulted from a long process, based on anti-catholicism and union of church and state. That the Imperial assembly of Germany developed in a different way in deference to the respective monarchs involved doesn’t make it less democratic. Hell, do we ‘popularly’ elect our head of state? No, we don’t; and thank the Founding Fathers for that!
    I guess enough of that….
    Art Deco refuted your ‘prison house…’ better than I could.
    Don, it’s your show and you can vilify my opinions, but you have only repeated the same old have-truths as facts. I’d like to point out that many authors of like mind write books with footnotes citing each other’s books, thereby establishing each as ‘factual.’ That’s exactly what we have when it comes to the start of the Great War. Repeating a lie does make it truth, though we all must admit to more than one side to a story!
    Pen Fan, I must admit my only familiarity with the combat post-war between the Poles and the German Freikorps concerns the German naval aviators and their planes fighting there. O appreciate your point of view on that. I can only add; what is history but a record of settling scores??? Right and wrong are not always clear either….
    As to Lenin, I must add that Kaiser Karl was against fomenting revolution in Russia and refused to let the ‘sealed train’ enter his countries. So much for a “hapless dilettante” as someone said….
    Cheerio!

  • Man, poor editing…please forgive my numerous typo’s!

  • You forget that that so-called august institution has always acted at the whim of the moneyed classes.

    I don’t think David Lloyd George, Andrew Bonar Law, Ramsay MacDonald, or anyone in the leadership stratum of the Labour party prior to 1935 would qualify as manifestations of ‘the moneyed classes’. The King and the Liberal / Labour / Irish ministries co-operated in a successful effort to geld the House of Lords in 1911, btw. (While we’re at it, Stanley Baldwin, the Chamberlain brothers, Winston Churchill, Harold MacMillan, Lord Home, William Hague, and David Cameron were the issue of the ‘moneyed classes’. No other British PM or opposition leader of the last century merits the designation; only Lord Home and Churchill derived from the peerage or the gentry).

  • I was referring to the time period of the discussion and prior….A belated Happy Easter to all!

Saints of Lent: The POW Servant of God

Sunday, April 2, AD 2017

Lent is a grand time to confront evil, both that evil which stains our souls, and the evil external to us.  Throughout the history of the Church there have been saints who risked all to bravely confront the popular evils of their time.  This Lent on each Sunday we will be looking at some of those saints.  We began with Saint Athanasius.  Go here to read about him.  Next we looked at Saint John Fisher.  Go here to read about him. Next we looked at the life of Saint Oliver Plunket.  Go here to read about him.  Last week we turned to the Lion of Munster.  Go here to read about him.  For this final Sunday before Holy Week we look at the man I have designated the POW Servant of God.

kapaun

In the midst of a World War, Emil Kapaun was born in peaceful Pilsen, Kansas on August 20, 1916.  His parents were Czech immigrants and virtually everyone in the area spoke Czech.  From an early age Emil knew that he wanted to be a priest and would play mass with his younger brother.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Saints of Lent: The POW Servant of God

4 Responses to The Korean War: It Was Worth It

  • This is an amazing image, juxtaposed with Victor Davis Hanson’s thoughts.

    Someone should do the same with the southern tip of Florida v. Cuba.

  • I have not served in the Armed Forces. I would not approve of my sons joining the Armed Forces if a schmuck such as Clinton or Obama were to be President. Having said that, one regret is that the North Koreans were not pushed back to China to end the war. It may not have been possible without further escalation. The poor Koreans stuck in the North, like the Cubans, have beencondemned to live under the worst form of government ever since.

  • We now know [cf. The Fifty Years’ War] that Stalin was planning on starting WW3 (an invasion of Europe) in 1952, and that he stopped Kim from invading South Korea in 1949 because he wanted his own nuclear weapons first. Thanks to our access to Soviet records in the early 1990’s we know that Stalin saw the Korean War as a test of Western resolve, as was surprised when Truman saw it the same way. WW3 got pushed off to 1954 at the earliest, Stalin died in 1953, and the new Soviet leadership then shelved the idea. Was it worth it? You bet it was, though perhaps not every detail was (PF, we successfully pushed back the Communists to Pyongyang. We might have been able to stay there had we negotiated a truce then and there and recognized Red China)

    Vietnam would have been worth it also, had not the basic strategy been so flawed and the resulting tactics so ineffectual.

  • Those lights in the area of South Korea seen in the photo and the darkness of North Korea are due in certain measure to the difference between each country’s nuclear policies. South Korea eschews the use of nuclear weapons, but has an active nuclear energy program. It generates 20.5 GWe from 23 nuclear reactors which supply between 22 and 29% of the country’s total electric consumption, operating at a capacity factor of 95%. Its home-grown pressurized water reactor design by KEPCO – the APR-1400 which is a modified Combustion Engineering System 80+ design – has been marketed around the world. South Korea is now building four of these behemoths at Barakah in the United Arab Emirates. In fact, I was offered a job at Barakah several years ago.

    Now North Korea’s nuclear policy is simple: it uses a small modified Russian RBMK (the kind of reactor at Chernobyl – graphite moderated, light water cooled) as a plutonium-239 weapons breeder. Most of its electricity comes from burning dirty brown coal imported from China. That electricity in turn is used in large measure for the military. It has no peaceful nuclear energy program. Its atheist communist leadership would rather the citizens starve to death in the cold and dark than to be prosperous like the south.

    Atheists and communists can never be trusted with the power of the atom, nor can their close cousins: liberals, progressives and feminists.

Theodore Roosevelt, the Rough Riders Corps and the Great War

Saturday, April 1, AD 2017

I make no pretense to accuracy. I shall be quite content if the sensibilities of no one are wounded by anything I may reduce to type.

Recollections of Thomas R. Marshall:  A Hoosier Salad (1925)

 

 

Something for the weekend:  Onward Christian Soldiers by Mahalia Jackson.  This stirring hymn was the campaign song of the Bull Moose Party in 1912 and was the unofficial anthem of the Rough Riders Corps that Major General Theodore Roosevelt led in the Great War.  We are almost a century away from the day when the US intervened in that War, and it is a good time to look at the controversial role that our 26th President played in that conflict.

In March of 1917 Congress passed a bill allowing Roosevelt to raise four divisions of volunteers, similar in nature to the Rough Rider regiment he raised and led in the Spanish American War.  It is said that President Wilson opposed this move.  There was certainly no love lost between Wilson and Roosevelt, Roosevelt having been the harshest critic of Wilson.  However, the stroke that killed President Wilson on April 1, 1917 rendered any such opposition moot, except to historians or writers of alternate history.  Vice President Thomas R. Marshall who now became President had no personal animosity towards Roosevelt, rather the reverse, and after his call for a declaration of war on Germany appeared at the White House with Roosevelt and former President Taft, the three men urging that now there were no Republicans and no Democrats, but only Americans united for victory.  After this there was no way that Marshall could probably have kept Roosevelt out of the War if he had wanted to, and he did not attempt to do so.

One other man could have stopped Roosevelt, however, if he had wished to, the commander appointed by President Marshall to lead the American Expeditionary Forces in France.  General John J.Pershing was a friend of Theodore Roosevelt who he had served with at the battle of San Juan Hill when Pershing was a thirty-eight year old First Lieutenant, and whose career Roosevelt had jump started when he was President by promoting him from Captain to Brigadier General, over the heads of 835 officers more senior to Pershing.  Pershing had every reason to be grateful to Roosevelt, and he was, but he was also concerned with a military amateur commanding a corps in the American Expeditionary Forces that he was to lead onto the deadly battlefields of France.  Going to visit Roosevelt at Oyster Bay, he was quickly relieved by their talk, which he discussed in his Pulitzer Prize winning memoir, My Experiences in the World War:  

“President  Roosevelt demonstrated that he had been keeping up with military developments in the Great War and was intrigued with the coordination of artillery and infantry with the newfangled air power and tanks.  He told me that he was willing to serve as a private in the force he was raising, and that as far as he was concerned no man would have a commission for any officer rank in the Rough Riders without my permission.  Touched by his self-less patriotism, I suggested that he serve as second in command of the Rough Riders with General Adelbert Cronkhite, currently in command of artillery in the Canal Zone, appointed as commander.  A worried frown passed over his face:  “The Rough Riders are not going to spend the War guarding the Canal Zone are they?”  I laughed.  “No Mr. President, I will need the best troops available with me on the Western Front, and, as was the case in Cuba, I suspect the Rough Riders in this War will be second to none.”  We shook hands and parted, still friends.”

Roosevelt made it known that he was seeking men for the Rough Riders with this advertisement he placed in all major newspapers.

Rough Riders are being recruited by Theodore Roosevelt for service in France.  Roosevelt expects that he and his Rough Riders will be constantly in the forefront of the fighting and their casualties will likely be extreme.  Only fighters with courage need apply.   Regional recruiting offices are being established at the following locations:

Roosevelt’s recruiters were quickly besieged by endless lines of volunteers.  Estimates are that some three million men filled out applications for the 100,000 slots in the four divisions of the Rough Rdiers.  Roosevelt, as with his original Rough Riders, favored men from dangerous out door occupations, men with prior military experience, athletes, and those from unusual backgrounds, like the troupe of circus clowns he allowed to enlist as a group.  Cowboys with nothing in this world except the shirts on their backs, as in the original Rough Riders, rubbed shoulders with the scions of families of great wealth.  Roosevelt made it clear that no man without prior military experience would be commissioned in the Rough Riders, and all other commissions would be earned in battle in France.  Regular Army officers looked askance at all this and referred to the Rough Riders as Teddy’s Wild West Show and by less printable terms.  Pershing assigned a number of junior officers to the Rough Riders to help bring order out of chaos, giving them the temporary rank of full Colonel.  Among them were Douglas MacArthur, George Patton, George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower.

As in the original Rough Riders, Latinos and Indians from the West served.  A group of black regular officers, headed by Colonel Charles Young, wrote a letter to Roosevelt requesting to serve in the Rough Riders.  Although not wholly free from the racial prejudice of his day, Roosevelt got the approval of Pershing for these officers to serve on detached status with the Rough Riders, and enlisted two black regiments to serve in one of his divisions.  When a group of white Rough Rider officers protested this decision, Roosevelt had the complaining officers immediately cashiered from the Rough Riders.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Theodore Roosevelt, the Rough Riders Corps and the Great War

National Atheist Day 2017

Saturday, April 1, AD 2017

Another April 1 rolls around, and it is time again to observe National Atheist Day and salute those atheists who, as part of the herd of independent atheist thinkers, bravely assert that, yes, matter and energy did arise ex nihilo without God, and that belief in God is too silly for a person of intelligence.  (Sorry Saint Augustine and  Saint Thomas Aquinas!  Sir Isaac Newton you simply lacked the intellectual heft to embrace belief in non-theism.)

 

In honor of the day, I think Sir Francis Bacon’s essay Of Atheism from 1601 might be appropriate: 

Continue reading...

12 Responses to National Atheist Day 2017

  • About your precious, special atheistic jerks: How can they be perpetually so outraged about someone the they KNOW does not exists?

    Wow! 2011. The UCONN women’s B-Ball team lost to Miss State last night.

    ‘MMMMM’ bacon!

  • Well said, Donald. Let’s just get to the heart of the issue. The Law of Conservation of Matter, to which atheists give credence, states that matter is neither created nor destroyed, it is merely converted. So, to quote Ted Knight’s character from CaddyShack: “Well, we’re waiting.” Crickets. They have no answer. They do have evasion as your post makes clear.

  • Frankly, I don’t believe in atheists…..

  • Internet atheists should be locked up in a Steel Cage Texas Death Match with Internet fundamentalist anti-Catholics. There are no groups of people more obnoxious on the Internet than these two casts of characters.

  • “The Law of Conservation of Matter, to which atheists give credence, states that matter is neither created nor destroyed, it is merely converted. So, to quote Ted Knight’s character from CaddyShack: “Well, we’re waiting.” Crickets. They have no answer. They do have evasion as your post makes clear.”

    Our scientists have decided that matter is indeed created & destroyed during the slotting of an atom. The parts of a split atom has less mass than an atom before it is split. At least that is the last I knew of the matter.

  • PS. I was always taught it was called the “Law of Conservation of Mass & Energy.”

  • “Our scientists have decided that matter is indeed created & destroyed during the slotting of an atom. The parts of a split atom has less mass than an atom before it is split. At least that is the last I knew of the matter.”

    Forgive my spelling error, please. That should have been “splitting” of an atom.

  • Christian Teacher, you are correct that it is the Law of Conservation of Mass. That said, in a closed system, the mass before and after is the same. In other words, a “split atom” may have less mass than before, but the total mass still exists within the closed system. Moreover, no scientist has created something out of nothing, ie: “created mass.”

  • Christian Teacher, you are correct. It is the Law of Conservation of Mass. However, in a closed system, the total mass is the same before and after, even when discussing the splitting of atoms. Mass is not created as no scientist has ever created something out of nothing.

  • “Internet atheists should be locked up in a Steel Cage Texas Death Match with Internet fundamentalist anti-Catholics. There are no groups of people more obnoxious on the Internet than these two casts of characters.”
    PF, is that why we have a problem with Mark Shea? “He’s an SOB, but he’s our SOB” who belongs with these other clowns?

  • “However, in a closed system, the total mass is the same before and after, even when discussing the splitting of atoms”. I’m sorry, but this is not correct. Christian Teacher gave the correct formulation.

    “Mass is not created as no scientist has ever created something out of nothing.” Yes, this is correct, and it is correct because energy is not nothing, it has mass equivalence.

  • “WE, THE PEOPLE” HAVE A CIVIL RIGHT TO OUR INNATE HUMAN RIGHTS
    “We, the people” have a civil right to our innate human rights defined in THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE ratified by every state and redefined away as non-existent by Supreme Court.
    “We, the people” have a civil right to our Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The Ninth Amendment of our Constitution.
    “We, the people” have a civil right to THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE with its reliance on the support of divine Providence.
    “We, the people” have a civil right to THE PREAMBLE to THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA with THE PREAMBLE’S purpose of “securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our (Constitutional) Posterity; all future generations.
    “We, the people” have a civil right to each and every public place bought and paid for by our tax money for every peaceable assembly.
    “We, the people” have a civil right to all free lands and waterways in America taken from us by Executive Orders.
    “We, the people” have a civil right to all public domain, as “We, the people”, have a civil right to be “the public”.
    “We, the people” have a civil right to acknowledge our “Creator” in the privacy of our innermost being as sovereign persons in the public square.
    “We, the people” have a civil right to be secure in our personal privacy against assault and invasion and violation.
    “We, the people” have a civil right to “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”
    “We, the people” have a civil right to our Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

PopeWatch: Diplomatic Jesus

Saturday, April 1, AD 2017

 

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

Cincinnati, OH––Catholic book publisher and distributer St. Clare Press announced today that their new non-confrontational translation of the Bible will be released sometime this September. St. Clare executive Roger Hammond told the press this week that he hopes the new translation helps to appease the minds of critics that have long called the Bible violent and judgmental. “It took close to a decade to complete this ambitious translation, and we’re confident it’ll help people better understand the all-encompassing compassion contained within the scriptures. Hammond goes on to explain one of the most riveting scenes in the New Testament where Jesus, after having overturned the tables of the money changers, goes back to help clean up, apologizing profusely as he does so. Another scene in which the compassion and kindness of Jesus shines forth is Matthew 16:23 where, after having been asked by Peter to not enter Jerusalem and eventually into the hands of the Pharisees, Jesus asks Peter to “hold that thought for a moment,” before addressing Satan; “Satan, if you wouldn’t moving just a tad bit behind me? I’d really like to get this little point across to Peter. I feel so rude asking you this, but…I mean don’t go out of your way or anything…” Hammond went on to tell reporters that the project has become a kind of therapy for all those involved in the project. One employee of St. Clare Press, Beverly Tomas, said that seeing Christ in a new, more tender, and compassionate way helped her get over years of abuse she suffered by “strict and judgmental nuns.” “I remember sitting back just a year ago and reading a newly translated verse in which the old Christ would’ve said something like “Woe to you, Pharisees, you hypocrites,” but now he gently places a hand on the shoulder of a Pharisee, pleadingly, and says,”Come on guys…I was gonna call you a whited-washed sepulchers, but honestly, I don’t think you’re a bad person…I just think maybe you’re hurting,” and lightly tapping the Pharisee on the chest, Jesus said unto him, “Hey, guy…you wanna know what I think? I think you’re hurting inside…hurting right there in that big ol’ heart of yours. Is that’s why you’re acting like this? Wanna talk about it?”

 

Continue reading...

One Response to PopeWatch: Diplomatic Jesus

  • I like the new interpretation where Jesus is telling the woman at the well; “Hey it’s okay….One, four, FIVE husband’s..It doesn’t matter…As long as your happy.”

    Happiness and good well water.
    What else is there?

Pence Drives the Left Bonkers

Friday, March 31, AD 2017

 

 

Vice President Mike Pence has a talent for bringing out the crazy, admittedly never far beneath the surface, on the left in this nation.  They are trying to make hay out of Pence’s statement in 2002 that he never dines alone with a non-related woman not his wife.  Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts gives us the details:

Who in the world would have a problem with this? Apparently a few hellbent on looking stupid.  This is Washington, and this is Pence, a man who tries to live by his faith and thus his reputation will be target number one for those who wish to destroy him. That’s the common sense in politics part.

On the common sense in life part, neither do I. I know of few if any married men who do go out to dinner with other women one on one. Business or otherwise.  Not a single man I’ve worked for, and not a single woman I’ve worked with for that matter, does that I’m aware of.   At least ones in good marriages. That’s just common freaking sense marriage 101. It’s not really a ‘Billy Graham rule.’  Graham made it famous for pastors back in the day when clergy held a certain star status, but he didn’t pioneer the advice.  It goes back long before Graham, and generally has been followed by most men and women I know who had happy marriages.

If people do go out together with others one on one, when they’re otherwise married, that’s up to them. I wouldn’t judge one way or another.  But to make this basic common sense advice, since forever, into some scandal? I thought it was an Onion piece or SNL skit when I first heard about it. I’ll count this as almost the most stupid thing I’ve heard in a year. An actual year of stupid, and this is near the top.  And reading what the “critics” were actually saying made it worse.

Kudos to Slate for the most ‘out the arse asinine stupid’ take on this non-story.    Because the only place I can learn how much a woman has to offer is alone at dinner, not in any other setting at all.

And the “Make Walter Sobchak seem like Einstein”award goes to Philip Sherburn for comparing this principle to Sharia Law in his tweet about Pence’s choice.

I mean, the dumb has taken over the extreme left on this day in March, 2017.  Mourn or apologize or rejoice as you see fit.

Continue reading...

20 Responses to Pence Drives the Left Bonkers

  • The left are incredibly stupid and shallow, not to mention forgetful of their hero slut Bill Clinton. Cigar connoisseur wee Willie wanker.

    I do not wish for Trumps demise.
    That said, VP Pence would make an excellent replacement if ever our President was incapable of holding office.

  • I asked someone over there who was blaming Mike, “What if his wife asked it of him?”

    Their answer: “Then his wife is a suspicious fool.”

    That’s where we are now. Common sense and knowledge about human nature is now called foolish.

    They mock wisdom, and wonder how in the world they keep looking stupid.

  • When I first saw this, I thought “Oh, he’s kind of strict, like Mrs Jones at school.” And then I thought nothing more of it until today when I got an email regarding this so-called scandal.
    .
    If this is the worst the Left can throw, they are truly scrapping the bottom to find an issue, any issue, to stir up trouble. Total non issue.
    .
    My husband and I don’t follow this policy, but I must confess I don’t know the details of this policy either. Are we talking fancy restaurant (with suitable menu/prices), dim lighting, semi private booths/tables? Or the Wednesday lunch Pizza Bro’s day, when the usual posse (and the rest of the local financial district ) is almost always there, but only Peter and Helen make it, because Paul, Catherine, Luke, and Mary are trapped at work? Peter and Helen deciding to dine at Cafe Chez Vous is definitely sketchy, but sitting apart from each other at Pizza Bro’s seems odd. They are no longer following a predictable, established pattern.
    .
    I’ve had lunch with other men in public places (and my husband knows about it). And my husband has been seen eating lunch with other women. On the other hand, my husband and I have a table at a local establishment (where there is zero privacy-less than Pizza Bro’s at Wednesday noon hour) I wouldn’t dream of having a drink with anybody but him. And I’d be hurt if he took a female friend/co-worker there.
    .
    (Apologies to any establishment named Cafe Chez Vous or Pizza Bro’s-I meant them as pseudonyms)

  • I cannot recall even once in the past 40 years of my nuclear power career when I have ever had to go out to lunch or dinner alone with a woman not my wife.

    Now I have had woman bosses and we have had closed office door discussions at work about work related issues. And I have had closed door discussions with woman inspectors from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, again all about work.

    But not once have I had to go to lunch or dinner alone with anyone that was a woman. Not once.

  • About my Karen [going on 43 plus years now]:

    Rockport Pilot Newspaper; Rockport, Texas
    Letters to Editor: published March 7, 2012

    I’m here, she’s dear, get used to us- Out of the monogamy closet.
    Dear Editor:
    As the dark ages of heterophobia are waning, our society is evolving, for the good, to the point where it can now accept me and my ilk. I cannot deny it any longer-I am coming out of the monogamy closet. Yes! I am faithful to my wife and I always have been since the day we were married over 38 years ago. I have always felt different around those who, with absolutist certainty, preached: self-fulfillment, freedom, liberty, self-worth, if-it-feels-good-do-it, I-gotta-be-me, do-it-my-way, grab-for-all-the-gusto-you-can, grab [another partner]-now, do-not-judge, my-morality-is-good-as-yours, and I-choose-my-morality. Why they want to impose this on me I do not know.
    I knew deep in my heart and in my soul I was different. This is something I can turn on and off, it is a matter of my choice, my free will. It is innate in me. This is the way I was made by God and so I have come to believe it cannot be bad. I knew I was free to choose, it felt so natural. And I chose – over and over, again and again – to love my wife, and only my wife.
    I know many will heap opprobrium on me, and some will even condemn me. So, I would like to begin a dialogue with those who are not like me, even though the grip of monagaphobia for some is overwhelming and the response from some monogaphobes is often shrill, scary, and even violent. Hopefully such a dialogue will spawn a movement to have the right to monogamy recognized legally and, if necessary, enforced by the government with concomitant retroactive compensation for past injustice, with future preferential treatment.
    If it comes to legal action, no doubt many judges, fine judicial legislators, on courts at all levels and on the U.S. Supreme Court, will easily discover the Right to Monogamy hidden in the interstices of the Commerce Clause and in the penumbras of the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, buried there long ago by our Founding Parents. I anticipate City Councils across our land will pass hate speech legislation so I and those like me will no longer be assaulted with “one-wifer!”
    I look forward to Monogamy History Month – surprisingly there were monogamists who played major roles in our nation’s storied birth and growth, although this included relatively few politicians and journalists. Monogamy Challenged parking places will facilitate my visits to Wal-Mart. I relish the thought of the educational materials to be produced by organizations funded with my tax money for kindergartners that will portray monogamy in a tender, welcoming, accepting light and provide instruction, in graphic detail, about the mechanics of monogamy. I cannot wait for “Tommy Has One Mother and One Father,” “See How Happy Sally Is With Her [One] Mommy and [One] Daddy,” and “The Illustrated Joy of Monogamous Sex.”
    Monogamy has become the love that dare not be mentioned, for some a stifling, dirty thing. But, in private, I have quietly reveled in it, glorying in the love of my one wife while keeping my mouth shut for fear of reprisal. I can no longer be silent. Now I dare … I’m here, she’s dear, get used to us.
    Guy McClung

  • In my parents circle of friends, some husbands and some wives were congenial about husband from couple A having lunch or a drink with wife from couple B, but it was atypical. Succeeding generations simply do not have the social graces that one did, so it’s inadvisable for anyone else. In my old office, there was a pair who generally had lunch together (man born in 1955, woman in 1966). It always looked odd, but the reputation of the man was such and the proximity of the husband of the woman was such that I think people figured there was nothing going on there.

  • Driving to distraction the left is an extremely short drive, as in backing out of the drive-way. The dogs bark while the caravan moves on.

  • When I was in grad school and still fairly newly married, and I knew that I would be spending an inordinate amount of time with another grad student (same advisor, same interests, same seminars etc.), I made sure she and my wife got to be friends first.

  • Pingback: Canon212 Update: Francis and His Friends Run Like Gleeful, Thrilled Rats Through the Halls of Our Vatican – The Stumbling Block
  • The odd thing is, I imagined this would be a freebie for my more liberal visitors. Sort of a ‘we’re with you on this crazy thing Dave’ opportunity. Nope. It can only be misogyny, Sharia Law, and who knows, Nazis? I heard Mark Shea and Deacon Steve Graydanus discuss this. While they said some of the reactions were overblown, they also said they could understand women saying it’s not fair to them if the man would also have dinner one on one with another man. Did I miss something? Is this Church position now? When I entered the work force c. 1990 it was basic, secular advice to beware getting into compromising situations with female coworkers. Furthermore, a situation where I insisted the only way to my company’s top tier was by a one on one dinner with me would have been attacked by my liberal counterparts back in the day. What happened? I admit I’m not high up in the corporate world today, but is this common now that the only path to success is through one on one dinner meetings?

  • I saw that podcast, Dave and was wondering if you listened to it.

    Did Mark or Steve at least say something positive about Pence or express understanding from his point of view? I mean, ok, some of the secular folks I can understand but the Christians? Those whom should know the verse, “if your right arm causes you to sin…”? What did Mark used to say…

    What would you think of a friend (let’s call him “Bill Clinton”) who is constantly e-mailing you to ask just how far he can go with the hot secretary without it actually crossing the line into, you know, “adultery” (he always puts the word in scare quotes, as though there isn’t really such a thing, and he’s certainly not guilty of it).

    I guess nowadays it’s wrong to try and flee from sin?

  • It is nice to see this sound piece of advice getting some play. It is one I have followed throughout my adult life. Even when dating, maybe especially when dating, I have done so. It seems wise and good and proper and it is nice to hear other married people asserating the value of the policy.

  • And, thank you, Guy McClung, for that thoroughly enjoyable Letter to the Editor.

  • Nate, I noticed that. I mean, like my wife said, she remembers when if it was discovered that a woman had to have a one on one dinner with a man to get ahead, that would be the cause for outrage. Now it’s not only apparently OK, but anyone who chooses not to go out with women other than his wife is suspect? Mark and Steve suggested it was a case of misplaced scrupulousness. Which was odd, because Mark admitted that it would be wrong to share a hotel room with a woman if on a business trip. So clearly there is *something* there regarding common sense. I wonder why the sudden difference? I mean, it was the secularists and women’s groups who would have screamed at the idea that a woman had to dine with a man to get ahead. But should representatives of the Church even budge on such obvious politicizing of a situation? Not to mention the notion of avoiding the near occasion of sin. That is supposed to be somewhere in basic Christian teaching. I don’t think they trashed Pence or anything, I just was taken by the fact that they were clearly trying to walk that line of saying there’s really no reason to call this Sharia Law redux, while clearly not wanting to give Pence the obvious support any believer should give him in this case.

  • Leftists getting into a twist something that is none of their damned business. What else is new?

  • Good stuff, GREG M. All indicators point to the next eight years will be nauseatingly repetitive. The Einstein definition of insanity is on display. our perpetually outraged left (apparently including Mark-who?) is patently stupid or simply insane. You decide.

    Its’ all sound and fury akin to a wind chime in a hurricane.

  • Here I think is good support for Pence. This is from one of the blog sites I visit. I like the man’s writings on marriage and family. He isn’t Catholic, so there are things that probably won’t sit too well with the learned orthodox of our faith, but surely this is the support that Mark Shea and Deacon Steve should have given Pence?
    .
    http://www.kevinathompson.com/mimic-dont-mock-mike-pence/

  • So the same folks that have made it so that I cannot be alone with an single other individual are having fits about…normal manners?

    How often do you have restaurant meals with only one person, anyways? If it’s a group of friends, or of co-workers, and it’s a group.

    Reminds me of that mini-outrage about that football player for San Diego– Mr. Rivers hit the news about three years ago because he had “so many” kids…with his WIFE. ***AFTER*** they were married! (Just checked– now at 8. Just welcomed a new little girl.)

    DJH- If I remember right, one of the angles of attack on Pence is that he left the Church.
    While I’m not a big fan of the guy, I remember getting the impression that he got the same kind of post-Vatican-II religious education that I got… ie, he was taught that the Church wasn’t the Church anymore, by those who were supposed to officially teach him. I might be confusing him with one of the others in the pack, though.

  • Boy, the libs are really digging deep. Before my husband’s first deployment after we were married he said to me that we should never put ourselves in any situation that would give cause for scandal and I agreed. The squadron detted out in fours aboard destroyers so there were always a few “sea wives” at squadron parties. Everyone behaved. However there was a group of young sea wives who went to the BOQ bar for dancing on DJ night. Bad idea. Two divorces ensued from that. Regarding work: I was a Flag Secretary at the time and on a couple of occasions had to travel with the admiral as a sub for the male Flag Lieutenant. For overnights the admiral had a suite and I had a room elsewhere in the BOQ. If the Flag LT were along he probably would have stayed in the suite’s second bedroom. If the admiral and I went to dinner we usually wore our uniforms. On one occasional we were in civvies and the hostess seated us side by side. We were both uncomfortable. The admiral immediately explained that this was a business dinner and asked her to change the place settings. Good rule is how would my spouse feel about this situation? If one lives in a fish bowl one has to be aware that there are always malicious gossips who have nothing better to do than spread lies no matter that the situation is innocent.

  • “If one lives in a fish bowl one has to be aware that there are always malicious gossips who have nothing better to do than spread lies no matter that the situation is innocent.”

    You can underline that CAM!

Elections Have Consequences

Friday, March 31, AD 2017

 

The next time someone tells you there is no difference between the parties on abortion, look them in the eye and call them a liar:

 

With a rare tie-breaking vote from Vice President Mike Pence, the Senate on Thursday sent a bill to President Donald Trump’s desk giving states permission to withhold federal family planning funds from Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

Pence and Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson, who is recovering from back surgery and used a walker inside the chamber, were dramatically summoned to the Capitol to help pass the measure by a razor-thin margin.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Elections Have Consequences

  • “Mark Shea hardest hit.”

    I don’t know how he can now argue that he is not in proximate, material cooperation with evil as a strong supporter of the Democratic Party.

  • There is a difference between the parties on this issue. It’s why, despite everything, I will continue to vote Republican until there is a better choice. However, the party of death will never be the better choice.

  • Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, the nauseating GOP Alaska Senator who claims to be Catholic but is a bought and sold stooge for Planned Parenthood, certainly voted against the measure. Murkowski is almost as bad a Barbara Milkulski, the former Maryland Senator. People with Polish surnames who support Planned Parenthood, whose founder saw Slavs as subhuman, deserve the paddle on the rear end that Foghorn Leghorn gave the barnyard dog in the Looney Tunes cartoons.

  • Here in Texas, Planned Parenthood of Houston opened the largest abortion facility
    in the nation– a 78,000 square-foot behemoth. The Houston Democrats chose
    that venue for their annual Christmas party. I kid you not. I believe that speaks
    volumes about the Democrats. Planned Parenthood is merely the baby-killing arm
    of the Democrat Party.

PopeWatch: Judas and the Beggar

Friday, March 31, AD 2017

 

An interesting difference between the Pope and a Bishop.

 

A month after Pope Francis endorsed giving money to panhandlers, the Roman Catholic bishop in Rhode Island has posted three reasons not to.

Pope Francis was asked last month by an Italian magazine for the homeless “if it is right to give alms to people who ask for help on the street,” according to a transcript of the interview posted on the Vatican website. He replied that there are many arguments to justify not giving money, such as being concerned the person will go buy himself wine. But, Francis said, “Help is always right.”

He added that when people give, they should do so not by throwing coins, but by looking the person in the eye and touching their hands.

Bishop Thomas Tobin, who has previously criticized Francis, posted a Facebook message Tuesday entitled “Three Reasons Not to Give to Panhandlers.” Tobin’s spokeswoman said the post was prompted by recent local debate on the panhandling issue, not in response to anything Pope Francis has said.

Tobin said it can be a safety hazard if someone standing on a curb or roadway is asking for help, and said the practice enables dishonest people to prey upon others’ compassion when they do not have legitimate needs. He also said throwing loose change at a panhandler is demeaning to that person’s dignity.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to PopeWatch: Judas and the Beggar

  • That is an interesting tale (Judas tossing money absent-mindedly?) since it was his addictive thirst for money that may have cost him paradise.
    I often have the same feeling of doubt (about where the charity money is going) when a “Bishop’s collection” is asking.

  • In Biblical times, beggars were blind, crippled, or otherwise incapable of making “a living.” Today, not so much.

    True story: A panhandler would stand outside a NYC breakfast café asking for money. One morning, a co-worker, who grew up in Minnesota, went inside, bought a buttered roll, and gave it to the man. The man told him he didn’t want it. My friend was shocked. Better to put money in the Church poor box, or send a check to St. Vincent de Paul Society. That being said, I used to give to panhandlers as an act of penance.

    Each Lent, I “try” to read all the Gospels. Of course, I note the four evangelists’ treatments of well-known Gospel themes. It is often noteworthy how some are related in all four and some only one Gospel. (I have a Catholic HS textbook which cross-references the Gospel chapters and verses) Regarding the woman at Bethany who anointed Our Lord with expensive perfume; three Gospels (Luke doesn’t have it) have it and teach the vital lesson is that the woman will be remembered for what she did (the Spiritual charity) for Jesus. A lesser theme is that the money (from selling the perfume) could have been given to the poor (who will always be with you) but it was appropriate to anoint Our Lord. St. Matthew states that disciples were angry. St. Mark states that some of the people were angry. St. John (12:4- 6) names Judas as the complainant. St. John also states Judas didn’t care about the poor, but was helping himself with coins from the Apostolic purse, which he controlled. Was Judas looking for a Worldly messiah? Was Judas more concerned for money (30 pieces of silver, the price of a man) than the Kingdom of God? How could a man who walked and talked with Our Lord betray him?

  • “In Biblical times, beggars were blind, crippled, or otherwise incapable of making “a living.””

    Or faking it. Professional beggars are as old as Sumer.

  • T.Shaw, I try to do much like your friend and give food to beggers. More than once I’ve handed over a doggie bag I had brought from a restaurant and I’m trying to figure out some “cookie project” thing where I get a dessert or treat from a place (usually cookies) and hand those to the first needy person I see.

    But I know it’s not enough. I was listening to this podcast and the guy talking on it made it a really excellent point: most of what today’s poor are in need of is social capital, not monetary capital. And despite being free, it’s so much harder to give that to people.

  • When a panhandler approaches me on the street for a handout, I ask if I can bring him to the AA meeting to which I am about to go where there is hot coffee and fresh (well, maybe not so fresh) cookies. The answer is always NO. End of story.

    NO FREE HANDOUTS! That was one of the unspoken rules my 2nd 12 step sponsor gave me some 30 years ago. “Bring him to a meeting,” he would always say. But never any money. And his sponsor, a Franciscan priest at the Greymoor Monestary in Putnam County, NY, and my priest confessor, would always agree with him.

    NO FREE HANDOUTS!

  • We lived outside of Boston in the early 90s so my husband would take the T into the city for classes. At the entrance to the T station downtown
    there was a fella living in a refrigerator box. My husband went to hand him some money and he said no; he just wanted something to eat so my husband handed over his bag lunch. From then on I made two sandwiches for his lunch. Sometimes the homeless man was there; sometimes he was not. The number of homeless showing up in Braintree increased dramatically when the town became the last stop on the T. The local priest told us he often had men showing up at the rectory asking for money. He refused to give them money but always had $5 gift certificates to the McDonalds down the street. For awhile in one city there was a group of men and women show up in a shopping center parking lot with cards printed in English asking for money. They appeared to be Central Asian/Mid-eastern. It was closing time at the local coffee shop so I asked waitress for the day’s leftovers. She gave me two big bags of rolls and pastries. When I handed them to the woman she gave the breads back to me and said, “We want money.” In rather good English at that. That said it is hard to see someone apparently in need and not hand them a dollar bill.

  • I generally give money to anyone who asks. But am never sure I am doing the right thing.

  • Saint Mary of Mercy Parish in downtown Pittsburgh has, for many years, operated the Red Door Program. There is a red door at the back of the church building along the Boulevard of the Allies. Every day except Sunday a bagged lunch is offered to anyone who comes to the door and asks. I have contributed to this program through the United Way for I don’t know how many years. Inside the church there is a sign asking those attending Mass or going to Confession or the rosary that they NOT give money to panhandlers, who frequently congregate at the front door of the church. I have followed that advice. Through a reputable charity, I will give money to help poor and homeless people. I won’t give cash to someone asking for it so he can go to the liquor store on Liberty Avenue or go buy illegal drugs. These people know where they can go to get a hot meal or clothing or other assistance. I can’t make them accept that help.

    Inside one of the office buildings leased by my employer is a public area with a food court. There is a cafe and bake shop that donates the unsold inventory at the end of each day to nearby charities so none of it goes to waste.

  • The last time I gave a beggar money I told him the truth, that I was nearly broke myself, and I asked him to pray for me. Besides my need for prayer, perhaps he needed the motivation. A win-win moment?

Chesty Puller and Catholic Chaplains

Thursday, March 30, AD 2017

(I first ran this back in 2011.  It has proven to be one of the most popular posts I have written for TAC.  Time to run it again.)

 

 

Some men become legends after their deaths and others become legends while they are alive.  Lewis Burwell Puller, forever known as “Chesty”, was in the latter category.  Enlisting in the Marine Corps in 1918 he would serve until 1955, rising in rank from private to lieutenant general.  Throughout his career he led from the front, never asking his men to go where he would not go.  For his courage he was five times awarded the Navy Cross,  a Silver Star,  a Distinguished Service Cross, and a Bronze Star with a V for Valor, along with numerous other decorations.  In World War II and Korea he became a symbol of the courage that Marines amply displayed in  both conflicts.

His fourth Navy Cross citation details why the Marines under his command would have followed him in an attack on Hades if he had decided to lead them there:

“For extraordinary heroism as Executive Officer of the Seventh Marines, First Marine Division, serving with the Sixth United States Army, in combat against enemy Japanese forces at Cape Gloucester, New Britain, from 26 December 1943 to 19 January 1944. Assigned temporary command of the Third Battalion, Seventh Marines, from 4 to 9 January, Lieutenant Colonel Puller quickly reorganized and advanced his unit, effecting the seizure of the objective without delay. Assuming additional duty in command of the Third Battalion, Fifth Marines, from 7 to 8 January, after the commanding officer and executive officer had been wounded, Lieutenant Colonel Puller unhesitatingly exposed himself to rifle, machine-gun and mortar fire from strongly entrenched Japanese positions to move from company to company in his front lines, reorganizing and maintaining a critical position along a fire-swept ridge. His forceful leadership and gallant fighting spirit under the most hazardous conditions were contributing factors in the defeat of the enemy during this campaign and in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.”

Stories began to cluster about him.  When he was first shown a flame thrower he supposedly asked, “Where do you mount the bayonet?”    Advised that his unit was surrounded he replied:  “All right, they’re on our left, they’re on our right, they’re in front of us, they’re behind us…they can’t get away this time.”  On an inspection tour of a Marine unit he became exasperated at the lack of spirit he saw and finally said,“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the real Marines!”  During the Chosin campaign in Korea when the Marines were fighting their way to the coast through several Communist Chinese corps he captured the tactical situation succinctly:  “We’ve been looking for the enemy for some time now. We’ve finally found him. We’re surrounded. That simplifies things.”  Little surprise that Marine Drill Instructors at Parris Island still have their boots sing good night to Chesty Puller some four decades after his death.

Puller was an Episcopalian.  However he made no secret that he greatly admired Navy Catholic chaplains who served with the Marines, and had little use, with certain honorable exceptions, for the Navy Protestant chaplains sent to the Corps.  His reasons were simple.  The Catholic chaplains were without fear, always wanted to be with the troops in combat, and the men idolized them for their courage and their willingness, even eagerness, to stand with them during their hour of trial.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Chesty Puller and Catholic Chaplains

Nap Time

Thursday, March 30, AD 2017

 

From LarryD at Acts of the Apostasy:

 

SLEEPY HOLLOW – Three-year-old Remy Nodderson took full advantage of the gospel at Sunday’s Mass, as the priest read the long form rather than omitting the bracketed sections, allowing him to get what he called “the best nap I’ve had in weeks”.

“I was all prepared to throw a Category 6 tantrum,” Remy told AoftheA News. “It welled up inside me during the Responsorial Psalm, and I felt it cresting during the second reading. But when Father went long form for the Gospel? It was lights out, baby.”

Remy’s nap on the cushioned, soft-as-a-cloud pew bench, his head supported by his dad’s comfortably weathered leather jacket, lasted until the Sign of Peace, when his older sister Corma stepped on his face as she reached out to hug her mother.

“Yeah, if she hadn’t shoved her Florsheim up my nose, I would’ve slumbered like a baby through Holy Communion, nestled safely against daddy’s shoulder. I thought about screaming like a stuck pig for maybe half a second, but damn, that nap was soooo good. I really couldn’t care less.”

Remy yawned, stretched his little limbs, and cracked his knuckles. “Sure, my parents are grateful now. Wait til it’s 2 in the morning, and they’re still trying to make me go to bed.”

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Nap Time

  • I love Pope Benedict XVI, napping and awake.

  • That 27 hour visit to Malta occurred in April 2010. His Holiness’ catnap on the altar was not mentioned by the Times of Malta. The real news on that trip was that Benedict arranged a prayerful meeting with victims of clerical abuse, and that he praised citizens of Malta for their devotions to the faith. Abortion and divorce are illegal in Malta and he praised the citizens for their continued respect for life and marriage . Pope Benedict will 90 years old April 16th. Who knows what meds he was or is prescribed that might induce drowsiness.
    He needs our prayers even in retirement.

  • Thanks for the link, Don!

  • Thanks Larry for giving me a smile so many times with your articles!

March 30, 1842: First Use of Ether in Surgery

Thursday, March 30, AD 2017

Surgery took a giant leap forward one hundred and seventy-five years ago thanks to Doctor Crawford W. Long.  On that date in Jefferson, Georgia he used ether on James M. Venable before removing a tumor from his neck.  The procedure was a success and Long used ether for surgeries and in his obstetrics practice.  He published the results of his use of ether in 1849 in The Southern Medical and Surgery Journal.  Dentist William T. G. Morton had demonstrated the use of ether before an audience of physicians on October 16, 1846 in the operating theater of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.  His publication of this event in December 1846 alerted Long to the claim of Morton to be the discoverer of the use of ether in surgery.  Long wrote of the controversy in his 1849 article:

A controversy soon ensued between Messrs. Jackson, Morton and Wells, in regard to who was entitled to the honor of being the discoverer of the anaesthetic powers of ether, and a considerable time elapsed before I was able to ascertain the exact period when their first operations were performed. Ascertaining this fact, through negligence I have now permitted a much longer time to elapse than I designed, or than my professional friends with whom I consulted advised; but as no account has been published, (so far as I have been able to ascertain), of the inhalation of ether being used to prevent pain in surgical operations as early as March, 1842. My friends think I would be doing myself injustice, not to notify my brethren of the medical profession of my priority of the use of ether by inhalation in surgical practice.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to March 30, 1842: First Use of Ether in Surgery

PopeWatch: They Have the Buildings, We Have the Faith

Thursday, March 30, AD 2017

 

As this Pontificate winds on its merry way my fondness for Saint Athanasius grows.  In writing to Catholics dismayed because Arian heretics had been placed in control of the Church in the Eastern Empire, Saint Athanasius wrote:

May God comfort you. I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you, but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence, you are meanwhile cast out from your places. For they hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true Faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you. Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith? Good indeed is the place, when the Apostolic Faith is preached there, holy is it if the Holy One dwell there. (After a little:) But ye are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from Apostolic tradition, and frequently has accursed envy wished to unsettle it, but has not been able. On the contrary, they have rather been cut off by their attempts to do so. For this is it that is written, ‘Thou art the Son of the Living God,’ Peter confessing it by revelation of the Father, and being told, ‘Blessed art thou Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood did not reveal it to thee,’ but ‘My Father Who is in heaven,’ and the rest. No one therefore will ever prevail against your Faith, most beloved brethren. For if ever God shall give back the churches (for we think He will) yet without such restoration of the churches the Faith is sufficient for us. And lest, speaking without the Scriptures, I should [seem to] speak too strongly, it is well to bring you to the testimony of Scriptures, for recollect that the Temple indeed was at Jerusalem; the Temple was not deserted, aliens had invaded it, whence also the Temple being at Jerusalem, those exiles went down to Babylon by the judgment of God, who was proving, or rather correcting them; while manifesting to them in their ignorance punishment [by means] of blood-thirsty enemies. And aliens indeed had held the Place, but knew not the Lord of the Place, while in that He neither gave answer nor spoke, they were deserted by the truth. What profit then is the Place to them?

For behold they that hold the Place are charged by them that love God with making it a den of thieves, and with madly making the Holy Place a house of merchandise, and a house of judicial business for themselves to whom it was unlawful to enter there. For this and worse than this is what we have heard, most beloved, from those who are come from thence. However really, then, they seem to hold the church, so much the more truly are they cast out. And they think themselves to be within the truth, but are exiled, and in captivity, and [gain] no advantage by the church alone. For the truth of things is judged…

Continue reading...

15 Responses to PopeWatch: They Have the Buildings, We Have the Faith

  • Thank you, Donald McClarey. I love St. Athanasius, for he writes beautifully about the Catholic Faith. The translation however suffers. “For behold they that hold the Place are charged by them that love God with making it a den of thieves, …” must be: “For behold they WHO hold the Place are charged by them WHO love God with making it a den of thieves, …” Even the devil is a person WHO has forfeit his sovereignty over himself to say “NO” to God. Later on in the piece the person is referred to as “WHO”. “WHO” denotes the PERSON.

  • The One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church ABS was born into in 1948 no longer exists outside the Caves of Covadonga; SSPX, FSSP, ICK etc.

    One prays that in those caves many Pelayos are being formed who will go to war against the revolutionaries who control the Hierarchy to such an extent that putative courageous cardinals quail at the idea of publicly confronting Franciscus.

    They could start slowly and identify how his praxis is perplexing before, slowly, spiritually rounding that up to heresy.

  • But if any are tied in any way to the false church by written agreements with compromises, how can they consider themselves to not be in THEIR buildings and to be in the caves? They have not been kicked out but are indeed united to it.

  • Pingback: Canon212 Update: St. Athanasius, Save Us From These Pro-Death FrancisFiends! – The Stumbling Block
  • Very encouraging in these times! We need to hear this! Thank You!

  • Thank you, Donald McClarey. I love St. Athanasius, for he writes beautifully about the Catholic Faith. The translation however suffers. “For behold they that hold the Place are charged by them that love God with making it a den of thieves, …” must be: “For behold they WHO hold the Place are charged by them WHO love God with making it a den of thieves, …” Even the devil is a person WHO has forfeit his sovereignty over himself to say “NO” to God. Later on in the piece the person is referred to as “WHO”. “WHO” denotes the PERSON.

    In the olden says “that” could be used for both people and objects; hence in the BCP translation of the Lord’s Prayer, it has “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive THEM that trespass against us.”

  • “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive THEM that trespass against us.” “…as we forgive them WHO trespass against us.” Who is the Holy Spirit. “That” refers to the physical while objectifying the spiritual. People are WHOs because of the image and likeness of God in WHOM people are created. God’s Name is “I AM WHO I AM” and “I AM WHO IS” Some outside the Catholic Bible refer to God as a “that” and a “which”. Some refer to other people as “that” and “which” . Would refers to yourself as “that” and “which” instead of WHO? All the little WHOS in Whoville will miss you for WHObilation. I do not know what the BCP translation is? I do know that all sovereign persons are referred to as WHO.

  • Correction: Would you refer to yourself as “that” and “which” instead of WHO?

  • That same “who” or “what” issue crops us so many times and I always react to it as you do Mary De Vie
    I also love the strength and feisty faith of Athanasius.
    He says ‘For if ever God shall give back the churches (for we think He will) yet without such restoration of the churches the Faith is sufficient for us.’
    The only problem that wears at me is that the “us’ suffers decimation in the meanwhile. Maybe not the “us” but many souls who do not know any better.

  • Good point Donald. Who needs the building anyway when they stand for nothing or even worse than nothing? Let us hold to the true faith and worship God within us.

  • “….But the Faith within you.”

    You are the Holy Catholic Church to everyone you meet. Especially the unchurched. The wanderer who has chosen to go it alone.

    “The Faith is sufficient for us.”

    Each of us has the privilege and responsibility to be the reflection of the true light, just as the moon reflects the brilliance of the sun. Those that know you know that you are a beacon of light.
    That is why they ask you for prayers.

    Indeed, the Faith within you is sufficient and extraordinary as it can nurture the sanctification of your soul and then the help in the sanctification of your neighbors soul.

    Sanctifying grace is a sharing in God’s work and continues on as long as we don’t get in His way. John 3:30 ..”He must increase and I must decrease.”

    If you received Jesus from the hands of a poor Priest who is suffering in unrepentant sins or from a humble Priest that just received reconciliation a hour before Mass…You are still receiving Jesus… Fully.

    Praise God.

  • RIGHTEOUS
    THUNDER

    Five times banished
    Exiled seventeen
    Excommunicated champions
    God puts at each scene.

    Saint Athanasius,
    Feast day of worth
    On the second of May
    The month of great mirth.

    Out in the deserts –
    As history has charted –
    You preserved the true Mass
    Great lion-hearted.

    Now Lefebvre
    And the sixties egalitarians
    Like Athanasius,
    His time his Arians.

    For He who abolished
    Death by death
    Sent him to absolve
    Sin width and breadth.

    And yes the same moon
    The same sun we’re all under…
    We venal rain – but Lefebvre

    Righteous thunder!!

    RIGHTEOUS
    THUNDER

    Five times banished
    Exiled seventeen
    Excommunicated champions
    God puts at each scene.

    Saint Athanasius,
    Feast day of worth
    On the second of May
    The month of great mirth.

    Out in the deserts –
    As history has charted –
    You preserved the true Mass
    Great lion-hearted.

    Now Lefebvre
    And the sixties egalitarians
    Like Athanasius,
    His time his Arians.

    For He who abolished
    Death by death
    Sent him to absolve
    Sin width and breadth.

    And yes the same moon
    The same sun we’re all under…
    We venal rain – but Lefebvre

    Righteous thunder!!

  • If the Supreme Sovereign Being’s name is “I AM WHO I AM”(there can be ony one Supreme Sovereign Being) and man is made in the image of The Supreme Sovereign Being (as all men are created equal but are unique persons), man must be referred to as “WHO”. “That”and “What” are insults and referring to The Supreme Sovereign Being as a thing is blasphemy.

  • …because all things are finite. All physical things are created finite, created with a beginning and with an end. The rational human soul, made in the image of God, has a beginning and is immortal, that is, the rational human soul has no physical matter to corrupt. The human soul is created and is therefore not infinite, that is, without beginning and without end.
    Only The Supreme Sovereign Being is infinite, that is, without beginning and without end. God’s name is “I AM WHO I AM”, and “I AM WHO IS.”
    The breath of life in man, man’s rational, immortal soul made in the image of God must be referred to as “WHO”.
    Anzlyne. Frightening for me to hear at Mass is : ” For all the FAITHFUL here assembled.” Jesus , I trust in you.

Do It

Wednesday, March 29, AD 2017

 

Representative Morris Brooks Jr. (R.Al.) has a simple solution to ObamaCare:

 

“Effective as of Dec. 31, 2017, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.”

 

The mistake of Speaker Paul Ryan in regard to the fiasco over a replacement to ObamaCare was not repealing it first.  If he has any brains, a debatable proposition at this point I am afraid, he will ram this through the House and toss it to the Senate.  Grass roots pressure will be hard for the Republicans in the Senate to ignore to put a stake in this misbegotten exercise in government by wishful thinking.  What comes next?  I would suggest mandatory a la carte insurance policies being offered, no mandated coverage of any conditions and allowance of health insurance policies being offered nationally.

Continue reading...

29 Responses to Do It

  • I agree that it is a good idea to push this right over to the Senators. At the same time I say that I do think Paul Ryan has plenty of brains and does learn from life experience. Being antagonistic to other republicans is not a good idea. I think Reagan said something about that- not speaking I’ll if each other. Republicans can not be. So fractious at a time such as this, but need to pull in the same harness. Difficult, I know in that “big tent” the republicans have.

  • “I think Reagan said something about that- not speaking I’ll if each other.”

    Not one of Reagan’s more apt quotes, especially considering all the ill he rightfully said against Jerry Ford when he almost seized the nomination from him back in 1976. In regard to brains, Ryan certainly did not display any in regard to the repeal of ObamaCare, unless he deliberately wanted to sabotage the effort to get rid of it, and I am not Machiavellian enough to suspect that, yet. What I do know is that Ryan has a bad relationship with a good many House conservatives, and he has done bupkis to heal the breach which is why he could not pass his ObamaCare lite bill.

  • 🙂 I know from personal experience that these wonderful maxims are easier to say than to do!
    I see the republican fractiousness as one of the democrats best tools.
    Perhaps the art of the possible, and half a loaf better than none…

  • Possibly, we have the worst political class in History. Ryan arguably is a RINO, a fake liberal. Ryan may be the worst speaker for this GOP Congress. Review his accomplishments as speaker while Obama was wrecking America. He was no better than Pelosi. Ryan gave Obama all he ever wanted.

    When the left fabricated the fake health care crisis, the polls showed 80%+ Americans were content with their health care and insurance arrangements. ACA simply was a boondoggle to wreck private health insurance/care and eventually replace it with single payer. When you realize that, it all makes sense.

    ACA made health care unaffordable. It destroyed the health care system with sky-high Obamacare health insurance premium increases and it will bankrupt states with hugely expanded Medicaid costs. Another ticking time bomb for President Trump – Obama overloaded, and will bust, states’ social programs with tens of millions of illegal immigrants.

    The failed RyanCare bill was almost as bad as ACA. Health insurance premiums would continue to skyrocket. It did not repeal most of the costly mandates and insurance regulations driving up premiums and deductibles. It replaced Obamacare’s subsidy scheme with a new costly federal entitlement in the form of a refundable tax credit. It left significant portions of the ruinous and expensive Medicaid expansion intact by delaying the freeze on Medicaid enrollment, maintaining the expansion of the program to the able-bodied, and providing a pathway for non-expansion states to accept enhanced federal dollars.

    To repeat your “money” quote:

    “Effective as of Dec. 31, 2017, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.”

  • The problem, really, is that constructing a sustainable system of financing medical care which incorporates universal coverage and the possibility of efficiencies in service delivery is going to require disposing of first-dollar coverage of medical expenses. It’s doubtful the Capitol Hill GOP is willing to attempt to institute a piece of legislation that does that, the Democratic Party would engage in a lallapalooza of demagogery if they did, the predictable glitches in implementation would provoke severe public discontent, and making transparent costs which were previously opaque would promote more discontent. It’s also doubtful that Ryan has much of a grasp of the issue at hand. The whole episode does reveal he really had no plan to speak of. Robert Stacy McCain has been saying for some time that the Capitol Hill GOP is a donation collecting machine and its members despise their base. Cannot argue against that.

  • People who don’t contribute to the betterment of the Republic are addicted to suckling from the public treasury. Once that happens, Obamacare can never be repealed. The howl will be too great.

  • https://reason.com/blog/2017/03/29/turns-out-congressional-republicans-dont

    Paul Ryan, AM McConnell, and the Capitol Hill GOP: a study in delusions of adequacy.

  • People who don’t contribute to the betterment of the Republic are addicted to suckling from the public treasury. Once that happens, Obamacare can never be repealed. The howl will be too great.

    The marginal increment of beneficiaries derived from Obamacare does not carry much demographic weight. In any case, you cannot really treat medical care and long-term care they way you’d treat consumer durables. Thomas Sowell has suggeted a fee-for-service cum donation economy might be reconstructed. The trouble is, it’s not really worked that way n long-term care since the late 19th century (if not earlier), medical care is a much larger share of household consumption bundles than it was during the period Sowell has made reference to (ca. 1948), and medical care is more salient in determining outcomes than it was 70 years ago.

  • “Paul Ryan in regard to the fiasco over a replacement to ObamaCare was not repealing it first. If he has any brains, a debatable proposition at this point…”

    While Ryan certainly deserves blame, the buck here stops with President Trump. At best, it demonstrates that Trump’s skills as a negotiator are a piece of fiction. At this point, the more likely result of the collapse of Obamacare will be single payer. I seem to be one of the few people who remember what Trump said during the primary debates. One of those things was about how well single payer worked in Canada and Scotland. Never mind the fact that they are clearly abysmal failures. He also said, on MSNBC of all places, how he could work with Schumer and Pelosi while trashing Ted Cruz.

    If things go the way they are going now, Trump’s approval numbers cratering and all, democrats will take back both the House and Senate in 2018 midterms . Then Trump will go to Schumer and Pelosi hat in hand and they will gladly lead him where he probably wanted to go all along.

  • “While Ryan certainly deserves blame, the buck here stops with President Trump.”

    Not at all. From start to finish the ObamaCare replacement was Ryan’s project. Trump supported Ryan down the line and Ryan was unable to deliver the votes. As for 2018, absent nuclear war, the Republicans will add to their majorities in both houses assuming the same rate of economic growth we are currently experiencing.

    http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/22/investing/trump-economy-gdp/

    As for ObamaCare it is manifestly dying no matter what Congress does or does not do.

    http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/15/news/economy/aetna-obamacare-death-spiral/

  • Trump ran hard on repeal and replace. If he was serious about replacing Obamacare with something market based or anything close, he would not have not gone along with Ryan’s proposal, he would not have threatened to primary conservatives who refused to go along with it. Then he takes to Twitter accusing the Freedom Caucus, Heritage Foundation, and Club for Growth with siding with Obamacare and the dems. This was Trump’s baby. Ryan is just a political prostitute and Trump is no his pimp.

  • I meant to say Trump is now his pimp.

  • Here in NZ we have a state healthcare system with state hospitals run by district health boards which are taxpayer funded by govt., and in tandem with that, private insurance and private hospitals, and it all works great. Why can’t the US Govt simply make legal all and any private health insurance companies to offer health insurance, to run in tandem with Obummercare until it collapses?

  • I guess that system might be too simple – us out here on the fringes of civilisation don’t do complexity very well. 😉

  • Don, depends on how you define “works great.” From stories and things I’ve heard, a lot of europeans and oceanic people put up with things in their health care that americans will not tolerate.

    And given the recent IRS scandal, I have my doubts about any nation adopting single-payer and still hanging onto their freedoms after that.

  • “Ryan is just a political prostitute and Trump is no his pimp.”

    No, Ryan is Speaker of the House and Trump is President of the United States. Trump assumed that Ryan knew what he was doing and had or could get the votes for his plan. I doubt if Trump will make that mistake again. If conservatives in the House put a proposal on the Table and seem to have the votes to pass it, Trump will support it. The problem of course is that the Republicans in Congress do not yet understand that Trump will work with them, but he is not going to intervene in their internecine strife until he is sure that one side has the votes. Conservatives in Congress who expect Trump to do the heavy lifting for them are delusional. Trump is an outsider and he will be happy to sign any GOP bill that gets through Congress, but he has no loyalty to any faction of the GOP nor any great following among any of the factions. It is up to the GOP Congress critters to do their job and pass bills for him to sign.

  • We should rather not see something passed without its making the working middle-classes whole again. There are people paying far more for less and of whom it may be said, they have health insurance in name only.

  • Mar 30 What god is mortal? The god of relativism is mortal. The god of relativism dies every time the moral value changes and imposes a finite truth.
    Human sacrifice was abolished by God on Mount Moriah when Isaac became the first human sacrifice to be physically prevented and outlawed by God. The Chosen People carry the Law of the Triune God from Father Abraham to Moses to the promised Son of Man.
    The Democratic Party named for people, murder as many individual persons as they can and make U. S. citizen pay taxes to enable their treachery against the people. The Democratic Party rejects God, Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, The Unanimous Declaration of Independence. The U. S. Constitution, Scientific DNA, ultrasound images of human development and Dr. Seuss, who said that “A person is a person, no matter how small.”
    The Democratic Party rejects that the immortal human soul made in the image of God with free will and unalienable human rights infused at fertilization of the human egg by the human sperm forms the human body to become whoever the human soul is…formed by “their Creator”. The name given us by the Democratic Party is “NAUGHTS”, non-human beings, subhuman taxpayers. If “We, the people” are “NAUGHTS”, then who in heaven’s name are Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party, but non-members of “We, the people…”. The Democratic Party has disenfranchised its members from our Citizenship in the United States of America. Mary De Voe

  • It is up to the GOP Congress critters to do their job and pass bills for him to sign.

    (A) You have to get rid of the filibuster and (B) You have to craft a worthwhile plan which creatures such as Susan Collins (R – Me) and Lisa Murkowski (R – Her Daddy) won’t try to scuttle. Fat chance.

  • Maybe not Art. Reports today are that the Gop in the House are going to have another vote soon on the replacement bill. Even the dimmest Rino in Congress will have to glimpse that their will be hell to pay in the primaries if they go into 2018 having accomplished zilch.

  • The Ryan bill was so disappointing. It was my understanding that various Republicans, in and out of Congress, had drafted health care plan proposals way before the election. Newt Gingrich was one and he seems to have disappeared after the election. So what happened?
    Why did Ryan let the media and Democrats pressure him to unveil the bill before it was ready? The Democrats are not bi-partisan, not your friend. When are Ryan and the Congressional RINOs going to wake up. Did Nancy Pelosi care what Republicans wanted when she was speaker of the House, hell no.

  • Mar 20 What god is mortal? is to be posted on Abortion and the Catholic Democrat. Bear with me. I will learn this computer.

  • Yes, Ryan is Speaker of the House and Trump is President. But the former is still a political prostitute (just look at the way he did Boehner’s bidding when during his tenure as Speaker) and the latter is his pimp.

    If Trump wasn’t the driving force behind the Ryan bill and doesn’t want to involve himself in inter party squabbles, then why did he react in such a caustic way to conservative push back on it? He threatened those who opposed it with primary challenges and lumped them in with Obama and the dems. If Trump will sign any bill the GOP congress puts before him that means he is not interested in leading. It is the President who drives the agenda bus, especially when his party controls Congress. And that is another thing Trump campaigned on, that he is a strong leader.

    Trump will work with conservatives? I guess nothing says “I will work with you.” better than threats to your political future and lumping you in with the worst elements of the of the other party.

    And this BS about Trump being an outsider is just that, BS! Donald, you yourself called Trump the ultimate insider portraying himself as the outsider some time ago. You were right then.

  • Two observations: One, the current political class, elites, and media possibly are the worst in Human History. Two, look at the records of serial, deep economic crises, look at the increases in poverty and misery; look at the sharp decreases in real median family incomes; etc.

    If the Federal government set out to reform the Sahara Desert, in five years there would be shortages of sand.

    Get the government out of our lives.

  • Nate – please don’t confuse us with Australia – it’s like calling a Scotsman and Englishman, or a Canadian an American. 😉
    Not really – but the NZ system has been improved immensely over the past 20 years and is way better than the Australian one. I lived in Oz 30 years ago, so have and inkling of the differences.

  • “If Trump wasn’t the driving force behind the Ryan bill and doesn’t want to involve himself in inter party squabbles, then why did he react in such a caustic way to conservative push back on it?”

    Because he wants to pass something on ObamaCare and move on. If conservatives in Congress want Trump’s support they need to show they can pass something. Trump is not going to get into a losing fight over ideology that he does not share.

    “It is the President who drives the agenda bus, especially when his party controls Congress.”

    Not this President. Trump in effect ran as an independent. He simply does not have the type of loyalty among members of Congress that most presidents have as a result of party ties and the President controlling the party apparatus.

    The GOP in Congress can do a lot with Trump but they have to understand him first. If they view him as a conventional President they are barking up not the wrong tree, but the wrong Kingdom.

    “Trump will work with conservatives?”

    Sure, if it gets him where he wants to go as he will work with any group, and that is the essence of deal maker Trump.

    “And this BS about Trump being an outsider”

    That is precisely what he is when it comes to the two political parties. Trump in effect is the first independent elected to the White House since the development of the party system.

  • “Nate – please don’t confuse us with Australia – it’s like calling a Scotsman and Englishman, or a Canadian an American. 😉
    Not really – but the NZ system has been improved immensely over the past 20 years and is way better than the Australian one. I lived in Oz 30 years ago, so have and inkling of the differences.”

    We don’t want your socialized medicine here in the US in any form or combination. Period!

  • We don’t want your socialized medicine here in the US in any form or combination. Period!

    That’s nice. Socialized long-term care has been extant since the 19th century. Socialized medicine has been present since 1965. No, I don’t think you’re going to persuade politicians or the general public to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid because you personally do not ‘want’ this thing called ‘socialized medicine’. While we’re at it, private risk-pooling is also a means of socializing costs.

PopeWatch: Ban the Bomb

Wednesday, March 29, AD 2017

 

 

Pope Francis has called for banning all nukes:

 

ROME – Pope Francis has called for a “collective and concerted” multilateral effort to eliminate nuclear weapons, telling a United Nations conference working on a treaty to prohibit such weapons that international peace and stability “cannot be based on a false sense of security, on the threat of mutual destruction or total annihilation, or on simply maintaining a balance of power.”

The conference took place March 27 in New York, after the UN General Assembly voted in December to negotiate a legally binding treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons, with the aim of working toward their total elimination.

Such a treaty would make explicit what is implied in the 1970 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which calls on declared nuclear powers to aim for complete nuclear disarmament.

The talks seemed doomed from the start, since every state with nuclear weapons – including the five veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council – boycotted the congress.

Nikki Haley, the U.S. representative to the UN, said she “would love to have a ban on nuclear weapons, but in this day and time we can’t honestly say we can protect our people by allowing bad actors to have them and those of us that are good trying to keep peace and safety not to have them,” specifically mentioning the threat of nuclear-armed North Korea.

The pontiff answered these objections directly in a letter to the congress, noting the current “unstable climate of conflict” might not seem the best time to approach the “demanding and forward looking goal” of nuclear non-proliferation, and even nuclear disarmament.

However, the pope said nuclear deterrence is ineffective against the principal threats in the twenty-first century, mentioning in particular terrorism, asymmetrical conflicts, cybersecurity, environmental problems, and poverty.

“These concerns are even greater when we consider the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences that would follow from any use of nuclear weapons, with devastating, indiscriminate and uncontainable effects, over time and space,” Francis writes, adding “we need also to ask ourselves how sustainable is a stability based on fear, when it actually increases fear and undermines relationships of trust between peoples.”

The pope said the world needs to go beyond nuclear deterrence: “The international community is called upon to adopt forward-looking strategies to promote the goal of peace and stability and to avoid short-sighted approaches to the problems surrounding national and international security.”

Continue reading...

15 Responses to PopeWatch: Ban the Bomb

  • MAD doesn’t work?

    His Holiness assumes much not in evidence.

  • I notice, Donald, you wrote you had a “few” questions. I’m certain your list could be much longer. But really, let’s just get to the heart of the problem. Why didn’t the Pope just propose a ban on mean people? That way, even if nuclear weapons existed, there would be no worries. Everyone would be nice. He’s just the man to propose something that will truly benefit all mankind. Thank God for Pope Francis.

  • It is not as if President Trump needs another reason to defund the UN.

    Mutually assured destruction worked in the Cold War. Chamberlain-style appeasement, and the so-called League of Nations’ arms restrictions on Germany, didn’t work in the first half of the 20th century, when cold reality crushed sunny theory and unicorn farts.

    There are only two outcomes of appeasement: surrender or war. The reality is that there are lunatics (Hitler, Stalin, Kim) that will never honestly respond to a generous gesture.

    Here we have a secular humanist (globalist elite) essay about perfecting the World, which is the only World we have, and which we must feverishly work to make better.

  • “Why didn’t the Pope just propose a ban on mean people?”

    Comment of the week F7!

    Take ‘er away Sam!

  • Very hard to imagine a situation in which use of such weapons could be done in a morally licit way. Yet the situation is such that many bad actors have these weapons, and the most plausible way of deterring their use is our own arsenal. Not an ideal situation, but until and unless the bad guys get rid of them in a verifiable way, our continued possession of them must continue as a deterrence.

    The Pope is merely stating the obvious, that the existence of these weapons is a tragedy, since even one use of a modern warhead would have devastating consequences on innocent noncombatants. I don’t think opposing the existence and maintenance of these wretched weapons is some kind of pacifist, tree-hugging, “librul” position, it’s the consistent Catholic position since the time they were developed. If they could be gotten rid of, it would be a net moral gain for humanity.

  • “The Pope is merely stating the obvious, that the existence of these weapons is a tragedy,”

    Nope, he is calling for their elimination without caring a fig about the practical difficulties that prevent such a policy from having an ending that does not involve the use of nuclear weapons by some very bad actors. Good intentions are never a substitute for intelligence.

  • The Pope’s remarks ever remind one of recycled opinion journalism, like he had a mind which consisted of back issues of The Nation (with a few copies of Commonweal tossed in).

  • Clerics have have spent not a single day aboard a nuclear submarine or in a Trident missile silo should shut their freaking mouths about nuclear weapons. They do NOT get to have an opinion. We gave this Argentinian Marxist Peronist the freedom he abuses to spout froth his liberal progressive feminist nonsense.

    I despise the Church of Jorge Bergoglio.

  • Can Death, War, Famine and Pestilence ever be eradicated?

  • Pingback: Canon212 Update: Open Your Heart and Your Brain to the Faithless FrancisGospel – The Stumbling Block
  • FYI, due to a lack of berthing space on a 688 class submarine, I slept next to one of these in the torpedo room.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUM-44_SUBROC

    I was a junior reactor operator back aft in Engineering, and as such had no choice where I berthed. Nevertheless, death from below was a real deterrent. However, my real hope wasn’t that we would never have to use these, but that as we did angles and dangles, the metallic straps securing the weapon would not let loose and pancake me beneath a metal tube containing solid rocket fuel, plutonium-239 and deuterium-tritium.

  • Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus: I have always held your great sacrifice in high esteem. Thank you for your service. I know it was not easy. God bless and keep you always.

  • Pope needs to advocate prayer not pie in the sky pieties.

  • The BOMB?

    This is the BOMB our pontiff should be concerned about;

    http://us14.campaign-archive1.com/?u=665e622d4e99881d09713e0a9&id=439e1c51c5&e=e5be2aae9c

    This insidious weapon kills body and soul.

  • Philip Nachazel: Thank you for the link. Forty three years and sixty million human souls later, the civil right of “We, the people” to our constitutional Posterity is the eternal truth.

    In atheistic communism, “We, the people” must follow the dictates of the Party. “We, the people” have no right to think, to say or to do what the human soul in search of God indicates. “We, the people must disenfranchise ourselves of our conscience, our civil rights and our freedom. “We, the people” must do what the Party dictates.
    Michael Dowd: My exact thought, “with a reliance on the support of divine Providence.” (Declaration)