6 Responses to Waa!

  • I am unaware of a more conceited, selfish, obnoxious, nauseating woman of no consequence or significant accomplishments that Hildebeast. I could get elected as a Democrat in New York if I lied half as good as the Clintons.

  • Hillary Clinton is her own troll

  • If one understands Hillary’s lust for power, her spending the rest of her life knowing she will not be president is such a great punishment that to “lock her up” wouldn’t make any real difference. Her post election behavior confirms that.

    In fairness, Trump would have behaved in much the same way if he had lost. His behavior during the campaign, bitching about the “rigged” system confirms that too.

  • Listening to Hillary lie for thirteen minutes is equivalent to how many years in Purgatory?

  • After 10 minutes of Waa I turned off the sound. Then I looked at photos of Baroness Margaret Thatcher and listened to clips of her speeches. I thought that’s the difference between Hillary and the Iron Lady…Hillary tries to be one of the guys, dresses in pantsuits, shrilly shouts and has no message but Me, Me, Me. On the other hand, Margaret Thatcher was not afraid to be feminine, wearing skirt suits and dresses. She had a modulated voice; was genuine and highly accomplished. Most important was her message of saving her beloved country from socialism.
    Prime Minister Thatcher, President Reagan and Pope John Paul II tore down the Berlin wall.
    Hillary had Benghazi. Nuff said.

June 2, 1919: Anarchist Bombings

Friday, June 2, AD 2017

 

Americans who think that terrorism is a new feature of American history are sadly mistaken.  On  the evening of June 2, 1919 followers of Italian anarchist Luigi Galleani, who advocated the violent overthrow of capitalist society, set off bombs simultaneously in eight American cities.  The bombs consisted of sticks of dynamite surrounded by lead slugs to act as shrapnel.  The bombs did a lot of property damage but remarkably only two people were killed:  Carlo Valdinochi, the former editor of an anarchist paper who blew himself up as he blew up the house of Attorney General Palmer in Washington DC, and New York City night watchman William Boehner.

Targets consisted of the homes of politicians and judges with the odd exception of Our Lady of Victory Church in Philadelphia.

Each of the bombs was accompanied by notes which carried a declaration of war:

War, Class war, and you were the first to wage it under the cover of the powerful institutions you call order, in the darkness of your laws. There will have to be bloodshed; we will not dodge; there will have to be murder: we will kill, because it is necessary; there will have to be destruction; we will destroy to rid the world of your tyrannical institutions

One Response to June 2, 1919: Anarchist Bombings

  • Imbecile Kathy Griffin is the tip of the liberal violence iceberg.

    The 2017 NYC Puerto Rican Day parade was to have as it grand marshal a “political” leader of the PR FALN (Armed Forces of National Liberation) whom Barry Soetoro had freed after 35 years in jail. FALN was responsible for hundreds of violent attacks and bombings – one: killed four in a bomb attack on Fraunce’s Tavern.

    If you walk east from Broad Street on the south side of Wall Street, NYC you can see pock marks the slugs made on a building’s walls.

PopeWatch: Carlo Cardinal Caffarra

Friday, June 2, AD 2017

 

It is easy to be gloomy about the Faith when viewing the antics of the current powers that be in the Vatican.  However they are a mere aberration in the history of the Church.  The power and glory of Catholicism has survived worse than them over the past 20 centuries.  In a speech given last month Carlo Cardinal Caffarra, Archbishop Emeritus of Bologna, gave us a reminder of the battle we are currently engaged in:

 

There is a book in Holy Scripture, the last, the Apocalypse, which describes the final confrontation between the two kingdoms. In this book, the attraction of Christ takes the form of triumph over enemy powers commanded by Satan. It is a triumph which comes after lengthy combat. The first fruits of the victory are the martyrs. “The great Dragon, serpent of the primal age, he whom we call the devil, or Satan, seducer of the whole world, was flung down to earth… But they [= the martyrs] overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of the testimony of their martyrdom” [cfr. Ap. 12, 9.11].

  1. In this second section, I would like to respond to the following question: in our Western culture, are there developments which reveal with particular clarity the confrontation between the attraction exerted over man by the Crucified-Risen One, and the culture of the lie constructed by Satan? My response is affirmative, and there are two developments in particular.
  • The first development is the transformation of a crime [termed by Vatican Council II nefandum crimen], abortion, into a right. Note well. I am not speaking of abortion as an act perpetrated by one person. I am speaking of the broader legitimation which can be perpetrated by a judicial system in a single act: to subsume it into the category of the subjective right, which is an ethical category. This signifies calling what is good, evil, what is light, shadow. “When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies”. This is an attempt to produce an “anti-Revelation”.

What in fact is the logic which presides over the ennoblement of abortion? Firstly, it is the profoundest negation of the truth of man. As soon as Noah left the floodwaters, God said: “Whoever sheds the blood of a man, by a man shall that person’s blood be shed, for in his own image God made man” [Gen. 9, 6]. The reason why man should not shed the blood of man is that man is the image of God. Through man, God dwells in His creation. This creation is the temple of the Lord, because man inhabits it. To violate the intangibility of the human person is a sacrilegious act against the Sanctity of God. It is the Satanic attempt to generate an “anti-creation”. By ennobling the killing of humans, Satan has laid the foundations for his “creation”: to remove from creation the image of God, to obscure his presence therein.

St Ambrose writes: “The creation of the world was completed with formation of the masterpiece which is man, which… is in fact the culmination of creation, the supreme beauty of every created being” [Exam., Sixth day, Disc 9, 10.75; BA I, page 417]. At the moment at which the right of man to order the life and the death of another man is affirmed, God is expelled from his creation, because his original presence is denied, and his original dwelling-place within creation – the human person – is desecrated

  • The second development is the ennoblement of homosexuality. This in fact denies entirely the truth of marriage, the mind of God the Creator with regard to marriage.

The Divine Revelation has told us how God thinks of marriage: the lawful union of a man and woman, the source of life. In the mind of God, marriage has a permanent structure, based on the duality of the human mode of being: femininity and masculinity. Not two opposite poles, but the one with and for the other. Only thus does man escape his original solitude.

One of the fundamental laws through which God governs the universe is that He does not act alone. This is the law of human cooperation with the divine governance. The union between a man and woman, who become one flesh, is human cooperation in the creative act of God: every human person is created by God and begotten by its parents. God celebrates the liturgy of his creative act in the holy temple of conjugal love.

In summary. There are two pillars of creation: the human person in its irreducibility to the material universe, and the conjugal union between a man and woman, the place in which God creates new human persons “in His image and likeness”. The axiological elevation of abortion to a subjective right is the demolition of the first pillar. The ennoblement of a homosexual relationship, when equated to marriage, is the destruction of the second pillar.

At the root of this is the work of Satan, who wants to build an actual anti-creation. This is the ultimate and terrible challenge which Satan is hurling at God. “I am demonstrating to you that I am capable of constructing an alternative to your creation. And man will say: it is better in the alternative creation than in your creation”.

2 Responses to PopeWatch: Carlo Cardinal Caffarra

  • Addiction to sodomy and the vice of lust by two individuals who cannot unite, procreate or perform the marital act is irreverence for the human being made in the image of God in free will, rational soul and immortal. Destruction of man’s original innocence and the moral virtue of Justice is the imposition of atheism on the people by those who serve the public.

  • “The truth of Christ will prevail no matter of all the lies deployed by the Father of Lies and his minions, so be of good cheer.”

    Seems to me that common sense –a God given quality–would eventually win the day as people would decide there is a distinct competitive and survival advantage to having children in the face of a rapidly declining population brought about by abortion, homosexuality and contraception.

Mark Shea v. Mark Shea

Thursday, June 1, AD 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2011:

As you probably know, I’m skeptical of the Global Warming hype, not least because its marketers and packagers keep changing the name. First, it was “Global Warming,” then “Climate Change” (as if climate does anything besides change) and lately it’s “Global Climate Disruption.” I’m also skeptical that it is man made, and I think the dishonesty of some of the scientists in the field, not to mention the packagers and marketers, leaves me cold (clever pun, eh?). So, for instance, when I see evidence of rising sea levels that doesn’t always refer me back to the same remote island nobody knows anything about except that it might be a case of erosion and not rising sea levels, I will begin to take our melting ice caps more seriously.

Go here to read the rest.

 

June 1, 2017:

 

American Right Wing Id Monster joins Nicaragua and Syria in rejecting Climate Accord–just for spite.

And just days after Francis gave him a copy of Laudato Si, begged him to listen, and Trump lied that he would read it. (It’s longer than 140 characters and Trump’s name is not in it anywhere. Boring.)

Me: I boringly think wisdom lies with listening to the Holy Father. But of course, the kneejerk response of the revanchist Trumpified Catholic is “Francis is not speaking infallibly, you know! We’re talking about Prudential Judgment! You can ignore him on climate change! It’s not like he’s a climate expert!”

Go here to read the rest.

25 Responses to Mark Shea v. Mark Shea

  • Anyhow, it’s all virtue signal and no truth.

    That (Mark who vs. Mark who) sounds like a battle of wits wherein both antagonists enter the field unarmed.

    FYI – The climate models consistently have been wrong. In 2008, Algore shrieked, “The entire North polarized’ cap will DISAPPEAR in five years.” That would have been four years ago in 2013. FYI up there it is still frozen.

    Recent headlines on the net.

    8 May 2017: New study finds Earth has not warmed for the past 19 years.

    4 May 2017: Top physicist says, “‘Climate Change’ is no more credible than magic.” After studying 15 years of the lack of it, so-called climate scientists are more convinced than ever of global warming. because it’s religion not science.

    20 April 2017: Save Mother Earth! Screw The Middle Class. Instapundit: “Expensive power and gasoline disproportionately hurts poorer families and other lower-income groups since the poor tend to spend a higher proportion of their incomes on “basic needs” like power.

    “When essential goods like electricity or gasoline becomes more expensive, the cost of producing goods and services that use electricity increases, effectively raising the price of almost everything. The higher prices are ultimately paid for by consumers, not industries.”

  • Mark Shea v. Mark Shea: The epic Battle of the Blowhards!

  • Mark Shea is a nice cautionary tale. He is one iteration of what you can become when truth no longer matters.

  • Comment of the week F7! Take ‘er away Sam!

  • I’ve often said that I would buy tickets to a debate between Mark Shea c. 2005 and Mark Shea today.

  • I’ve often said that I would buy tickets to a debate between Mark Shea c. 2005 and Mark Shea today.

    Promoted by Vince McMahon.

  • Mark Shea is a nice cautionary tale. He is one iteration of what you can become when truth no longer matters.

    I don’t think so. A dozen years ago, I’d have told you he was a satisfactory producer of magazine journalism when he had Brian St. Paul editing his work. Unmediated, he often said very ill-considered things, something Amy Welborn did not do. Shea’s more a cautionary tale about what happens to a man when his inner life has crucial features in common with Rosie O’Donnell’s. My mother used to say what happens to you as you age is that you turn into a caricature of yourself. Shea, like Rod Dreher, is an ’emotions-based’ writer. It’s just that his most salient emotion is rage rather than social anxiety. No clue what he’s so angry about at age 60.

  • He’s a sad guy who needs prayers. Totally muddled thinking, name-calling, and as this post points out, extremely inconsistent and often contradictory in his positions, Mark would have benefitted greatly from an education that taught him *how* to think, argue, and persuade.

  • Speaking of Mark, could someone please interpret this post for me:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2017/06/words-gop-favors-death-panels.html

    I pulled up the referenced doc, and couldn’t find what the tweet was referring to. Plus, I saw nothing in the tweet or the doc that suggested anything about race. If it was anyone other than Mark, I’d assume I’m missing something. But I still want to make sure.

  • Its in the March scoring footnote F:

    https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/americanhealthcareact.pdf

    “f. Consists mainly of the effects of changes in taxable compensation on revenues. CBO also estimates that outlays for Social Security benefits would decrease by about $3 billion over the 2017-2026 period.”

    I assume lower social security benefits would be due to fewer baby boomers. I am 60 and in 26 I would be 69. A lot of boomers will have trooped off behind the Grim Reaper by that time. Of course none of this has to do with race and how Shea interprets this as the bill killing people off is beyond me.

  • Of course none of this has to do with race and how Shea interpret this as the bill killing people off is beyond me.

    You do wonder if he’s blotto when he writes some of this stuff.

  • Ah, footnote. I didn’t notice that in the tweet that it was a footnote. Knowing Mark’s disdain for people who get hung up over things like footnotes when it comes to Amoris laetitia, I didn’t think to look there. As for the gist of it, I have no clue where the WaPo reporter or Mark came up with the spin. That has got to be one of the most false and meanest interpretations one could come up with.

  • Art: Many people are angry with God for creating them.

  • How does Mark think there’s ever going to be any kind of socialized healthcare without death panels? Money isn’t infinite. One quickly gets the impression he was never much of a math major.

  • How does Mark think there’s ever going to be any kind of socialized healthcare without death panels? Money isn’t infinite. One quickly gets the impression he was never much of a math major.

    I think you mean econ. Scarcity and cost are economic concepts. AFAIK, the biographical blurbs on Mr. Shea’s books are opaque about how he earns a living or ever earned a living and about what he’s studied over the years. Others who write vocationally or avocationally (under their own name) tend to be more transparent about that.

  • “Art: Many people are angry with God for creating them.”

    Yep, and for giving them free will.

  • Mark has now answered apparently. The popes did it.

  • I am surprised he acknowledged that he changed his mind because for Mark the past tends not to extend much beyond his last post on any subject. The idea that the opinion of a Pope on a scientific question is of any great significance is foreign to Catholicism. Mark appeals, with his reference to the discredited 97% of all scientists agree on global warming, to a scientific consensus that simply does not in reality exist:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/#4cef5267485d

    The most alarming aspect of the global warming/climate change movement is that it has all the attributes of a religion in that any facts which tend to argue against it are simply ignored or shouted down. The term “global warming denier” is meant to shut down debate and apes the term “Holocaust denier” thus implying that those who dispute Global Warming are to be treated with the same contempt as those who deny the Holocaust deservedly receive. The mantra that “the science is settled” is particularly disturbing since science is never settled being ever open to modification as our knowledge grows. Such aspects of the global warming/climate change movement are not the methods of science but rather the mode of heresy hunters, both religious and political, down through the ages. In regard to his comments about the withdrawal from the Paris Accords, that is precisely how Mark is sounding.

  • Mark from August 2014:

    Back before it was called “global climate disruption”, “global climate change”, or even “global warming” it was called the greenhouse effect and we were all assured 2000 was going to inaugurate the environmental Judgment Day:

    The conclusion, conveyed with great authority by several big-league climatologists from government and private research organizations, is terrible: by the year 2000, the atmosphere and weather will grow warmer by several degrees and life – animal, plant, human – will be threatened. The experts say that melting ice caps, flooded cities, droughts in the corn belt and famine in the third world could result if the earth’s mean temperature rises by a mere two or three degrees.

    I am constantly struck by how the climate change argument perpetually arrays itself in the language of faith and not science. Priests in white lab coat vestments utter prophecies “with great authority”. Apocalyptic language abounds. People perpetually speak of their belief and disbelief in global warming. Indulgences called carbon credits are offered. As somebody who knows little of the science but something of the language of faith, I find it fascinating. Nobody ever asks me if I believe in hydraulics or jet propulsion

    https://quinersdiner.com/2014/08/19/climate-apocalypse-forecast-in-1986/

    Mark now holds as heretics the people who hold the same views on global warming that he held less than three years ago.

  • The most alarming aspect of the global warming/climate change movement is that it has all the attributes of a religion

    Disagree. It has all the attributes of fashions among teenagers, like a great many things on the progressive laundry list. It defines in-groups and out-groups among a certain sort of bourgeois.

    I have no doubt there are serious scientists who think the data says this is a problem. The trouble is, academic is a social monoculture and among everyone they know it’s a mark of being low-class to dissent. Dissenters are people so prominent in their field other academics can’t touch ’em (Richard Lindzen), or are tarred by the media as oil-industry stooges (Willie Soon), or decide to leave academe (Judith Curry), or work in industry (Steve McIntyre). You’d think the scandals out of the University of East Anglia would give people pause, but they do not.

    Here’s an interesting question: who is paying Michael Mann’s legal bills? Very few people would ever file a defamation suit against an opinion journalist in response to a random insult. E. Howard Hunt once said after his one experience with a defamation suit, he would never get involved with another one no matter what someone said about him. My wager is that some portion of the sorosphere is bankrolling Mann’s lawyers for essentially political reasons.

  • As a left coaster and an eco-wacker, does Mark Shea support carbon free nuclear? He cannot even say or write the word! The only thing he merits is being ignored as an ignoramus.

  • The most alarming aspect of the global warming/climate change movement is that it has all the attributes of a religion

    Disagree. It has all the attributes of fashions among teenagers, like a great many things on the progressive laundry list. It defines in-groups and out-groups among a certain sort of bourgeois.

    I don’t know that your two points are mutually exclusive, Don & Art. Religions can be fashionable.

  • My problem with the ‘consensus of good people’ argument is that, aside from sniffing of unchristian teaching, it defies common sense. I’m supposed to believe that all of the scientists who accept MMGW are pure of heart, while all who question it are necessarily rotten to the core? That’s just stupid. Who would believe that? Other than almost everyone who argues for MMGW, Mark, and, IIRC, Pope Francis. That, to me, is a problem.

  • “The idea that the opinion of a Pope on a scientific question is of any great significance is foreign to Catholicism.”

    True, but all too common amongst many Catholics today.

Trump Pulls Out of Paris Accords

Thursday, June 1, AD 2017

 

Trump kept a campaign promise and pulled out of the Paris Climate Change Accords.  The reaction on the left in this country was apocalyptic and amusing to watch.  The biggest humbug on the planet today is global warming.  Among global elites the belief in climate change is one part religious faith to two parts cynicism.  A minority embrace climate change with a religious fervor.  The cynics find it useful for fund raising, to enlist foot soldiers in political crusades, and to engage in Eco-profiteering, Al Gore serving as the model for this.

The Paris Accords allowed global elites to be on the side of the green angels while committing their nations to nothing.  The US under Obama, waging war against its domestic coal industry, was one of the few nations taking this tripe seriously.  For the junk science of global warming Americans were to lose jobs while India was allowed to double its emissions and China had to do nothing at all until 2030.  No wonder this agreement was never submitted to the Senate where it would have been voted down overwhelmingly.

Donald Trump, to his everlasting credit, refused to go along with this nonsense.  What he did was the green equivalent of spitting in the Holy Water for a Catholic, and Trump was obviously having a good time while doing it.   Pope Francis hardest hit. Well played Mr. President, well played!

14 Responses to Trump Pulls Out of Paris Accords

  • Bravo President Trump!

  • I’m pleased that the President did this, for multiple reasons. Of course,
    I’m pleased that we’re no longer tied to an agreement that would be bad
    for our economy, all in the name of some very dubious “science”. And
    Trump is seen to have kept a campaign promise despite the opposition of
    our own political and cultural elites.

    One other reason I’m glad this agreement has been binned is that, no
    matter what Obama called it, this was a treaty, and it undermines the
    prerogative, the duty of the Senate to vote on its ratification when
    a president is allowed to deem a treaty an “agreement” simply to avoid
    submitting it to a Senate vote as required by the Constitution. Shame on
    both sides of the Senate aisle for rolling over and letting Obama do that.

    So yes, today was a very good day in DC, for several reasons. Bravo
    President Trump!

  • I was impressed by his speech, which articulated, in words that normal Americans understand, what a sham the “treaty” was. He articulated the hamstringing of our own energy production while allowing China DN India to increase. He articulated the environmental disaster China would be allowed to continue while we suffered. He articulated what a loss of industry would be forthcoming. Steel, paper, concrete, all too expensive to make here, and the downstream effects would be devastating.

    It isn’t hard to hear him and believe he means it. That he means our country and our people deserve to be first to our elected leaders.

  • And while the eyes of the nation were focused on the withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, Moody’s used the occasion today to drop the State of Illinois’ bond rating yet again (8 times in 8 years, now Baa3 rating, one level above junk) .

    The state owes $14.5 billion in past due IOU’S and will owe $300 million in interest and fees on the unpaid IOU’S by June 30th, deadline to negotiate a new budget.

  • Bravo to Donald Trump for removing the hoax of global weather/whatever from the Liberal pantheon of false gods. Wouldn’t it be delightful if Pope Francis had as much guts and insight.

  • Global warming is crap. Even Trump knows it.

  • I was interested in the Vatican response. Sadly I have concluded that many there think of the Church as a kind of NGO, or at best imbued with the mysticism of Teililhard De Chardin.

  • A strange thing. Everyone seems shocked when we all know he said this is what he would do. It reminds me of something someone told me on my blog. The debate was somehow about gay rights or the other. At one point it came down to bigots being against gay marriage. Someone – maybe me? – asked why Obama wasn’t called a homophobic bigot in 2008 when he said he wouldn’t support gay marriage. One of the commenters said it’s because they assumed he was lying. I’ve thought about that since then. Was a time when thinking our politicians were liars was a downer. This person seemed almost ecstatic about the thought that Obama was lying. Perhaps that’s the shock. Media elites and others not just assume, but hope, pols are lying. When one keeps his promise, it’s like a foreign language.

  • Heard on the news this morning that a group of various groups and states– like my former residence of Washington– are gathering to “assure” the UN that they’ll “do their part” to cut CO2, and my former governor had a clip about how “and there’s nothing (Trump) can do to stop us!”
    I did not tell the radio that we didn’t object to THEM doing it, we object to THEM forcing US to do it!

  • Obama used his pen and his phone and left his constituents in the dust as Obama gave our tax dollars away. President Trump brought our tax dollars back to America.

  • If liberals really believed in anthropogenic global warming from emissions off of the cunbustion of fossil fuel, then they would advocate an immediate full conversion to a nuclear – hydrogen economy where nuclear energy generates both electricity for the electric grid and hydrogen gas from splitting water molecules for combustion in transportation vehicles and aircraft.

    Liberals however oppose nuclear energy tooth and nail. So their wailing about climate change means nothing.

    To however debunk objections to nuclear energy, the following is provided based on a discussion I had the other day with a Deacon in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church:

    There is no meme or slogan that can distill the truth into a mere sound bite. I base what I write on 40+ years experience as a reactor operator and reactor instrumentation and controls engineer.

    The issue of “nuclear waste” is one of misnomer. First, there is low level radioactivity and second there is spent nuclear fuel with high level radioactivity. I will deal with both.

    Regarding low level radioactivity, coal combustion releases far more radioactivity into the environment from the naturally occurring uranium, thorium and radium in coal than any nuclear power plant does. Also, fracking for natural gas and oil releases far more radioactivity in the form of naturally occurring radioactive isotopes of radon and argon. Fossil fuel releases far more low level radioactivity into the environment per megawatt than any nuke.

    Regarding high level radioactivity in spent nuclear fuel, current US light water reactors (BWRs and PWRs) use only 5% of the energy content in the fuel; the rest is left over un-burnt in the fuel rods. If the spent fuel is recycled and reprocessed in fast neutron burner reactors – e.g., high temperature helium cooled reactors, molten salt homogeneous reactors, sodium cooled reactors or lead-bismuth cooled reactors – then the long lived actinides like Americium and Neptunium and Plutonium which contribute so much to long lived radioactivity can be completely consumed, obviating the need for a million year national geologic repository. We do not have a waste storage problem. We have a human greed problem that would rather focus on instant profit from natural gas spinning reserve for useless, worthless wind and solar than the responsibility of recycling and reusing our used nuclear fuel.

    Now a few words about waste in general. One pellet of uranium the size of your thumbnail equals the energy content of 3 barrels of oil each containing 42 gallons (that’s a total of 126 gallons), 1 ton of coal or 17000 cubic feet of natural gas. No matter what is done, waste is produced. From the numbers above, fossil fuel produces a lot more waste than nuclear per joule of energy generated. In fact, a 1000 megawatt coal plant dumps millions of tons of radioactive coal ash sludge into sludge ponds with nary a whimper. A 1000 megawatt gas plant dumps millions of tons of carbon pollutants into the atmosphere without a whisper. Yet every wind farm and every solar station requires gas backup spinning reserve for the 70% of the time when wind and sun are insufficient. And all this occurs while the spent nuclear fuel that the US generates from it 99 reactors would fit in a single football field to a depth of 8 feet, and all that fuel is sequestered from the environment, and all that fuel is resource for advanced fast neutron burner reactors. A few facts are in order:

    (1) Current high-level waste volume after 40 years of operations would fill an area about the size of a football field five yards deep

    (2) To replace US nukes with wind turbines requires land area the size of the state of Minnesota.

    (3) To replace US nukes with solar farms requires land area the size of the state of West Virginia.

    (4) Wind and solar have < 30% capacity factor, which means that 70% of the time fossil fuel spinning reserve is required.

    (5) Nuclear is the safest of all power generation. Nuclear has 0.04 fatalities per terawatt hour (even including TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima) compared to coal's 244, oil's 52, gas's 20, biofuel's 50, hydroelectric's 0.1 solar's 0.1 and wind's 0.15. Think on that – nuclear is an order of magnitude SAFER than renewable energy. Please see http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/update-of-death-per-terawatt-hour-by.html

    We do NOT have a nuclear waste problem. We have a human greed and ignorance problem. Gas companies want nukes shutdown so they promote useless, worthless wind and solar. In that way they maintain their profit off the ignorance of the average American.

    I have stood above freshly discharged spent nuclear fuel at both a Westinghouse PWR and a GE-Hitachi BWR. If high level nuclear waste were such a problem, then why am I not dead?

  • Glenn Reynolds will sometime make a note of the travel schedule of some environmental poseur or the square footage of their home and says “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when they start acting like it’s a crisis’.

    I have no understanding of old people who wish to own large homes, other than inertia (in the case of someone like Bess Truman). Al Gore, George W. Bush, Mike Huckabee, and now Barack Obama are living in mansions and / or own multiple homes (and Gore’s all by his lonesome, give or take a masseuse). Richard Nixon had the sense to downsize; it’s a good thing too. He owned two homes (both in warm-weather climates), one of which encompassed 9,000 sq feet. Gerald Ford and his wife occupied a 6,300 sq foot ranch house.

  • I haven’t felt this relieved since November 8, 2016! Donald Trump is our George Washington for our time.

  • How many other treaties disguised as accords or other misnomers are out there? President
    Trump should rescind them all.

PopeWatch: Humanae Vitae Bye, Bye?

Thursday, June 1, AD 2017

 

 

Rumors are swirling about this:

 

Rumors are circulating that Pope Francis has set up a secret commission to “re-examine” the Church’s teaching against the evil of contraception. Let’s hope they prove false.

Such a commission under Francis’ leadership would likely undermine and even corrupt the Church’s beautiful teaching on the meaning and purpose of conjugal relations. 

We saw exactly this sort of undermining happen during the Synods on the Family. The pope’s final document, the ambiguous Amoris Laetitia, has been used to undermine the indissolubility of marriage, to approve of adulterous relationships, to give Holy Communion to adulterers and fornicators, and to elevate conscience above the laws of God as reflected in the perennial teachings of the Church. 

Earlier this month veteran Italian Vaticanist Marco Tosatti blogged about “unconfirmed reports from good sources” that Francis “is on the verge of appointing – or even might have already formed – a secret commission to examine and potentially study changes to the Church’s position on the issue of contraception.”

“We have so far no official confirmation of the existence and composition of this entity; but a request for confirmation, or for denial, which was put forward to the competent authorities, has so far not been answered – which could be a signal in itself – in the sense that, if the report was completely unfounded, it wouldn’t take much to say so,” Tosatti wrote on May 11. 

Tosatti’s claim of a secret commission has, of this writing, still not been confirmed or denied by Vatican officials. 

Six days later, in a May 17 article, OnePeterFive’s Maike Hickson reported that she was able to confirm Tosatti’s claim of a secret commission by a “well-informed source in Rome” who was, however,  unable to “give specific names of the members of that commission.”

My huge fear is that such a commission with Francis at the helm can only arrive at the conclusion, contrary to Catholic faith, that “pastoral accompaniment” of people in “concrete situations” means allowing them to “discern” the use of contraceptives in “serious” cases according to a “well-informed conscience.”

I hope I’m dead wrong. But my fear that the commission would reach such a conclusion is based on what Pope Francis has already said on various occasions about the matter of contraception. Here are a few samples of what he has said that make me so worried:

12 Responses to PopeWatch: Humanae Vitae Bye, Bye?

  • None of this should surprise us. Until heretic Jorge Bergoglio is deposed and anathematized, this will continue.

  • Well, if Paul VI didn’t change the teaching, despite the recommendations of his commission (and probably his own personal desires), the Holy Ghost will not allow Francis to do it either.

  • Under this pontificate if I were the Holy Spirit I would be asking God the Father for a pay increase.

  • Paul VI did change the teaching. HV put the procreative and unitive ends of the conjugal act on equal footing. Prior to that, the procreative end was primary.

  • If so, that P Frank has now set his gunsights on Humanae Vitae, it is the same breathless destructions and deconstruction he inaugurated with the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, the Vatican commissions, and the many bishops he has appointed of questionable quality.

    By the way, the latest that was brought to my attention if “Bp.” William Wack (what’s in a name) of Pensacola-Tallahassee, seen here sporting his rainbow prayer shawl, and later on his pink LGBT alliance chasuable:
    http://angelqueen.org/2017/05/31/the-new-bishop-of-pensacola-tallahassee-florida-loves-screening-photos-also-with-lgbt-scientific/
    ..
    One thing about Frankenchurch, it is decidedly “in your face.”

  • That’s s disgusting picture. Something tells me it is photoshopped.

  • I doubt Pope Francis will flatly contradict Humane Vitae. What we will get is an Amoris Laetitia treatment with the “good stuff” found in the footnotes. Pope Francis motto is “Read my footnotes”.

  • It is likely to be a wink and nod at the many priests who have done this since the 1950s or even before. Thew same genuflection to the world that allowed kings to have their concubines as well as wives.

  • On recalls the Winnipeg Statement on HV, issued by the Canadian bishops in 1968, which “recognized that “a certain number of Catholics”, in spite of being bound by the encyclical, find it “either extremely difficult or even impossible to make their own all elements of this doctrine”. These “should not be considered, or consider themselves, shut off from the body of the faithful. But they should remember that their good faith will be dependent on a sincere self-examination to determine the true motives and grounds for such suspension of assent and on continued effort to understand and deepen their knowledge of the teaching of the Church.” It added that “the confessor or counsellor must show sympathetic understanding and reverence for the sincere good faith of those who fail in their effort to accept some point of the encyclical.”

  • After 20 years of being in love with what the Church Teaches, never hearing anything from the parish pulpit, all I can say is…
    Thank God, it means the end is near.

  • The martyrs in heaven are not buying this wide open gate to hell.

  • If this manifests itself as being true, then the gloves are truly off, and the probability grows that we’re headed toward an open schism in fact, beyond the one that arguably already exists in effect. Dubia Cardinals, call your office; there’s a rogue Pope in the house.

June 1, 1917: Hank Gowdy Enlists

Thursday, June 1, AD 2017

Hank Gowdy was a great ball player and a great patriot.   The high point of his ball career was in the 1914 World Series where he was the most valuable player for winning the World Series for the Boston Braves.  In 1917 he was 28 years old and at his peak as a ball player.  On June 1, he turned his back on fame and fortune, enlisting in the Army, the first major leaguer to do so .  He served in the 166th regiment of the Rainbow Division in France, going through some of the worst trench fighting that American troops experience in the War.  Coming home from the War in one piece, he resumed his career with the Braves.  In 1923 he was traded to the Giants.  After he retired from ball played, he served as a coach with the Braves, the Giants and the Reds.

When the US entered World War II, Gowdy enlisted in the Army again, despite being 53.  Among other duties he served as chief athletic officer at Fort Benning.  He was the only major leaguer to serve in both world wars.  After the War he served as coach and manager for the Reds, retiring from baseball in 1948.  He passed away in 1966 at age 76.

One Response to June 1, 1917: Hank Gowdy Enlists

  • Greet them ever with grateful hearts.

    I am re-reading a book, A Yank in the fighting Sixty-Ninth” by a veteran Albert Ettinger, who also served in both world wars.

    I’m a Yankee fan, so Red Sox aren’t my favorite people. However, Ted Williams was a major Hall of Famer and served as a USMC fighter pilot both in WWII and w(as called back) for Korea.

    Williams’ was one of the greatest hitters (so-so fielder) in history. HIs hand-eye coordination showed up in his excellence at flight maneuvering and gunnery.

8 Responses to Bye, Bye, Miss Empire Pie

  • One of his best. Right up there with “eat it”, “amish paradise”, and “word crimes”.

    Saw him in concert. Twice. If you get the chance, go to one, the man puts on a damn fine show. (and seems to legitmiately love & appreciate his fans)

  • Never heard of this guy but he fabulous.

  • “The Saga Begins”
    Weird Al Yankovic

    A long, long time ago
    In a galaxy far away
    Naboo was under an attack
    And I thought me and Qui-Gon Jinn
    Could talk the federation into
    Maybe cutting them a little slack
    But their response, it didn’t thrill us
    They locked the doors and tried to kill us
    We escaped from that gas
    Then met Jar Jar and Boss Nass
    We took a bongo from the scene
    And we went to Theed to see the Queen
    We all wound up on Tatooine
    That’s where we found this boy…

    Oh my my this here Anakin guy
    May be Vader someday later – now he’s just a small fry
    And he left his home and kissed his mommy goodbye
    Sayin’ “Soon I’m gonna be a Jedi”
    “Soon I’m gonna be a Jedi”

    Did you know this junkyard slave
    Isn’t even old enough to shave
    But he can use the Force, they say
    Ah, do you see him hitting on the queen
    Though he’s just nine and she’s fourteen
    Yeah, he’s probably gonna marry her someday
    Well, I know he built C-3PO
    And I’ve heard how fast his pod can go
    And we were broke, it’s true
    So we made a wager or two
    He was a prepubescent flyin’ ace
    And the minute Jabba started off that race
    Well, I knew who would win first place
    Oh yes, it was our boy

    We started singin’ …
    My my this here Anakin guy
    May be Vader someday later – now he’s just a small fry
    And he left his home and kissed his mommy goodbye
    Sayin’ “Soon I’m gonna be a Jedi”
    “Soon I’m gonna be a Jedi”

    Now we finally got to Coruscant
    The Jedi Council we knew would want
    To see how good the boy could be
    So we took him there and we told the tale
    How his midi-chlorians were off the scale
    And he might fulfill that prophecy
    Oh, the Council was impressed, of course
    Could he bring balance to the Force?
    They interviewed the kid
    Oh, training they forbid
    Because Yoda sensed in him much fear
    And Qui-Gon said “Now listen here”
    “Just stick it in your pointy ear”
    “I still will teach this boy”

    He was singin’ …
    My my this here Anakin guy
    May be Vader someday later – now he’s just a small fry
    And he left his home and kissed his mommy goodbye
    Sayin’ “Soon I’m gonna be a Jedi”
    “Soon I’m gonna be a Jedi”

    We caught a ride back to Naboo
    ‘Cause Queen Amidala wanted to
    I frankly would’ve liked to stay
    We all fought in that epic war
    And it wasn’t long at all before
    Little Hotshot flew his plane and saved the day
    And in the end some Gunguns died
    Some ships blew up and some pilots fried
    A lot of folks were croakin’
    The battle droids were broken
    And the Jedi I admire most
    Met up with Darth Maul and now he’s toast
    Well, I’m still here and he’s a ghost
    I guess I’ll train this boy

    And I was singin’ …
    My my this here Anakin guy
    May be Vader someday later – now he’s just a small fry
    And he left his home and kissed his mommy goodbye
    Sayin’ “Soon I’m gonna be a Jedi”
    “Soon I’m gonna be a Jedi”

    We were singin’ …
    My my this here Anakin guy
    May be Vader someday later – now he’s just a small fry
    And he left his home and kissed his mommy goodbye
    Sayin’ “Soon I’m gonna be a Jedi”

  • Michael Dowd, really? Oh I’m a bit jealous, getting to rediscover Weird Al for the first time…

    Here’s his official youtube channel. Have fun. 😆

    Another good one:

  • UHF – 1989 movie starring Weird Al. His uncle hands George (Al) the keys to a UHF TV station with ratings in the basement. Very funny. Even funnier if one’s knows their way around a small market UHF station.

  • “Running with Scissors” which includes “The Saga Begins” was the first cd that I bought as I switched over from tapes. Great stuff.

  • I never know what to expect when I log on to The American Catholic. It is always enlightening but Weird Al is a treat. If some here are just discovering him; great! Check his album Poodle Hat which features Ode to a Superhero. It is Billy Joel’s Piano Man sung about Spider-Man. On the same album is Bob. This song is made up entirely of palindromes and sung as Bob Dylan. The non-sensical lyrics that palindromes necessarily are, sound perfectly appropriate in Bob Dylan’s voice. Ebay is also hilarious. Actually my only familiarity with current music is if Weird Al does a parody of it.

  • Saw him in concert. Twice. If you get the chance, go to one, the man puts on a damn fine show. (and seems to legitmiately love & appreciate his fans)

    My mom’s a big fan, and my dad quietly enjoys it– since they have both literally been Generic Ranch Couple for multiple magazines, that can confuse some folks. 😀

    One of my favorites:
    https://youtu.be/FhbPLu_qDc0

It Was the Russians! It Was Comey! It Was the New York Times!

Wednesday, May 31, AD 2017

Ah, the country truly dodged a bullet last November.  Clinton has a thousand reasons for why she lost instead of the real one:  her campaign message boiled down to this:  “Hey, you ignorant peasants, vote for me, it’s my turn!”  I guess excuse-making is better than looking in the mirror and thinking:  “Somehow I managed to lose to a man who had been never been elected  dog catcher, whose campaign organization was congealed chaos, who had worse media than Satan, who had half the campaign funds that I had, who often had difficulty getting out three consecutive coherent sentences,  who had more women alleging gross behavior than even the accusers of my “husband”, who had a large section of his party in revolt against him, who has mutant hair, and who hawked steaks and other Trump products during his campaign!  What does that say about me?”

 

3 Responses to It Was the Russians! It Was Comey! It Was the New York Times!

  • In fairness to Hillary, losing the presidency to a septuagenarian adolescent like Donald Trump a hard thing to live down, especially when you have the Clinton Machine at your disposal.

  • Greg, I think we agree.

    It may be akin to Greek Tragedy. Only thing corrupt, incompetent Hillary exhibits not one instance of hamartia, but 40 or 50 fatal flaws.

    It must be gravely disappointing considering the hubris of this seventy-something crone, the smartest woman on the Planet, to lose an election that she and her crime syndicates (Clinton Foundation, DNC, the media) had rigged.

    Equally troubling must be that the American people decided that the madwoman from Chappaqua was less desirable than a septuagenarian (good word!) adolescent that trolled, and continues to troll, the elite, infallibly ignorant ruling class.

  • Chiming in…..the third presidential debate was classic Trump; “She’s a nasty woman.”
    I lost it. Popcorn flying. The truth, which the left doesn’t believe to be substantial, is that She Is A Nasty Woman! Her actions count and her words are urine… unbelievable.

    Culture of personality worked for Obama in 08′. First female POTUS didn’t take. A hint for the left…when your nominee for the great office of President has an odor thought to be originating from her feet but you toss her into the race anyway… please don’t cry the blues on late night television for months after the election. You look stupid. Instead. Make sure your nominee has had all her shots and wears clean underwear.. possibly some feminine hygiene products…then dress her up in a pantsuit and tell her that her smile is….well, genuine. Even if it isn’t.

    Just say-in’.

Quotes Suitable for Framing: Thornton Wilder

Wednesday, May 31, AD 2017

On Memorial Day I spent the morning working in my office.  Before returning home for lunch, I stopped to visit the grave of my son. Mount Olivet cemetery was beautiful with American flags marking the graves of the veterans.  It brought to mind these lines from Thornton Wilder’s Our Town:

 

“Over there are some Civil War veterans. Iron flags on their graves…New Hampshire boys… had a notion that the Union ought to be kept together, though they’d never seen more than fifty miles of it themselves. All they knew was the name, friends – the United States of America. The United States of America. And they went and died about it.”

PopeWatch: Hmmm

Wednesday, May 31, AD 2017

 

This homily by Pope Francis yesterday is attracting attention:

 

“A shepherd must be ready to step down completely from his church, rather than leave in a partial manner” said the Pope.

His words were drawn from the first reading at Mass, where St Paul addressed the church leaders in Ephesus.  The Pope said that this reading could easily be called “A bishop’s leave taking” because Paul has left the Church of Ephesus in order to go to Jerusalem, where the Holy Spirit called him to go.

“All shepherds have to step down. There comes a moment where the Lord says ‘go to another place, come here, go there, come to me.’ And it’s one of the steps that a shepherd must take; be prepared to step down in the correct way, not still hanging on to his position. The shepherd who doesn’t learn how to do this because he still has some links with his sheep that are not good, links that are not purified by the Cross of Jesus” said Pope Francis.

 

Go here to read the rest.  Is this a signal?  Is Pope Francis signaling his own retirement?  Is he signaling dissatisfaction with the Pope Emeritus?  Is it not a signal but merely an exegesis from the reading?  How say you?

13 Responses to PopeWatch: Hmmm

  • “…links that are not purified by the Cross of Jesus.”

    Going to read the rest now, but this morsel is interesting.

  • My take is that there are no retirement plans for our Francis. He is not broadcasting his future. Gut feelings​ only.

    However I would not be surprised to see major changes with appointments within the Vatican and outside as well. I wonder if he IS broadcasting change?

  • I do not think that this is an expression of his intent but of his frustration that so many conservative bishops hang on until mandatory retirement. It is not unlike a President’s frustration with Justicies hanging on to avoid his nomination of ideological opponents.

  • Hopefully he is speaking about himself, but given his personality he is most likely slamming Benedict XVI.

  • With regard to the bishops of the west, the term “conservative bishop” is the Mother of all Oxymorons!

  • The most natural read is a swipe at Benedict, probably related to the former Pope’s fulsome praise of Robert Sarah, which cannot have been received favorably by the liturgical Bolsheviks the current pontiff has installed at Divine Worship.

    That, and there’s zero chance the current pontiff resigns early, occasional rhetorical feints to the contrary notwithstanding. He has far too much demolition left to do.

    I think Michael Brendan Dougherty has it nailed on his Twitter feed (the Bergoglian personality cult reacts predictably).

    https://twitter.com/michaelbd/status/869743291486613504

  • If retired Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz is not a conservative the term is devoid of meaning.

  • Bruskewitz is a notable exception. But his successor is a different story.

  • And as you noted, Donald, Bruskewitz is retired. And speaking of Bruskewitz, he was a constant thorn in the side of the leftist powerbase of the USCCB.

  • Speaking of the USCCB, how do we get around to the laity and some clergy to challenge their “group think” decisions and teachings? I’m convinced their teaching on Mt 25, 31-46 is completely wrong, and it is creating a crisis situation with illegal aliens. And the “fruit” of the “consistent ethic of life” is non existent, the consequence being over 40,000,000 murdered unborn babies without a word from them demanding a constitutional right to life amendment. And their demanding government do something to eliminate poverty. And if the end of prayer in public schools, and the end of God’s two greatest gifts – the gift of life and the sanctity of marriage is not enough, now we are being told that God didn’t know what He was doing when He created all of life based on carbon dioxide and oxygen – which in essence the pope and the bishops are saying in their belief so-called “climate change” is real.

  • Who knows what Pope Francis is saying or thinking. Chances are he doesn’t know himself. Perhaps he has a death wish—-maybe become a martyr or something?

  • I cannot see this as anything other than a snide reference to Benedict XVI, and it is another indication of Francis’ increasing insecurity

Saint Joan of Arc and History

Tuesday, May 30, AD 2017

Joan was a being so uplifted from the ordinary run of mankind that she finds no equal in a thousand years. She embodied the natural goodness and valour of the human race in unexampled perfection. Unconquerable courage, infinite compassion, the virtue of the simple, the wisdom of the just, shone forth in her. She glorifies as she freed the soil from which she sprang.

Sir Winston Churchill

 

Today is the feast day of Joan of Arc.  One of the examples of the direct intervention of God in human affairs, the brief history-altering life of Saint Joan of Arc has attracted the admiration of the most unlikely of men, including the Protestant Sir Winston Churchill, and the agnostic Mark Twain who called his book on Joan of Arc the finest thing he ever wrote.  She was not canonized until 1920, but almost all of her contemporaries who met her had no doubt that she was a saint sent by God.  Some of the English who were present as she was burned at the stake cried out that they were all damned because she was a saint.   Jean Tressard, the Treasurer of Henry VI, King of England, wrote the following soon after the execution of Joan:   “We are all lost for it is a good and holy woman that has been burned. I believe her soul is in the hands of God, and I believe damned all who joined in her condemnation”.  With Saint Joan humanity came into contact with a messenger from God, and the result to her was as predictable as it was lamentable.  However, the outcome of her mission was exactly as she had predicted.  The weak Dauphin that she had crowned would reign as Charles VII and end the Hundred Years War in victory for France, something that none of his contemporaries thought remotely possible before Joan embarked on her mission.

God tends to use unlikely tools to work His ends.  A peasant girl who lived scarcely nineteen years on this globe can sway the destiny of nations if God so wills.  Joan speaks to us powerfully across almost six centuries of the power of God and the courage of a young maid.

 

Whatever thing men call great, look for it in Joan of Arc, and there you will find it.

Mark Twain

 

 

Teaching Hate

Tuesday, May 30, AD 2017

 

Fifth rate comedienne grabs some cheap publicity by holding up a mock bloody head of Donald Trump.  Ho Hum, the deranged left always acts this way, and that is precisely the problem.

 

Mark Shea is his born again leftist mode had this post on his blog today:

So good white Christian Greg Gianforte assaulted a reporter (a fact confirmed by dangerous Marxist network FOX)…

and the Party of Brownshirt Lovers of Threats and Violence loved it, which is why Mona Charen had the unenviable task of trying to tell this party of neutronium-skulled thugs that they must stop denying, excusing and defending it.  They are not listening, of course, because they are violent thugs and enemies of America.  But worst of all, it is Christian thought leaders who are now orgasmic for this crude thuggery and Steven Greydanus calls them out:

I write today neither to accuse Greg Gianforte nor the voters of Montanta, neither of whom I have much to do with.

I write to accuse those who excuse, dismiss or enable intolerable behavior like Gianforte’s, or who give ear and support to those who do.

I’m talking to you, Dinesh D’Souza. I’m talking to you, Laura Ingraham.

Most of all, I’m talking to you, all my friends who still regard D’Souza and Ingraham as voices worth listening to.

It pains me to say this, because the fact is that I not only liked Ingraham and D’Souza, I *respected* them. I feel betrayed by what the American Christian conservatism I once identified with has become. I feel like a fool for not having seen it sooner.

In this words of this article, “None of this is a gray area. You either uphold certain basic standards of decency or you don’t.”

And the answer is: We don’t. Obviously. Read what Ingraham and D’Souza had to say about a now-elected official body-slamming a journalist, and realize the truth of the world we live in: The Tribe Right or Wrong; The Tribe Über Alles.

With the appropriate incantatory words (depending on your sub-tribe and the situation, they may be “But Hillary,” “The Babies,” “Obamacare,” “Immigration,” etc.), people who pride themselves on decency and traditional values will not only look the other way, but actively *defend* bad behavior and harm as long as the right people are being defended or harmed.

That’s what most horrifies me: not simply that someone might say “Unprovoked assault is obviously terrible and unacceptable but what’s on offer on the other side is even worse,” but that people will say “It was our guy hitting their guy? Eh. He had it coming. He’s a crybaby. He’s a sissy for not hitting back.” (This is paraphrase but scarcely exaggeration. Read the piece.)

I shouldn’t have to say this, but experience shows that I do: If your first reaction to this scolding is to bring up punching Nazis or what happened to Charles Murray at Middlebury, YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG.

Tu quoque won’t help you here. First of all, because *I’m* making the accusation, and *I* neither punched Richard Spencer, nor joined in the Middlebury mob, nor have I defended those who did.

I’m against punching Nazis and mobbing out-of-favor academics on college campuses, and *I’m* telling you that if you listen to people like Ingraham and D’Souza who defend blatant thuggishness as long as the violence goes the right way, *you’re* the one being harmed. Tu quoque is no defense when both sides are sipping arsenic.

Some might be tempted to modify the tu quoque and ask me why I’m actively calling out defenders of Gianforte when I haven’t gone out of my way to call out defenders left-wing violence. There are many answers to that, but the simplest is that I USED TO LIKE AND RESPECT INGRAHAM AND D’SOUZA.

The people I’m talking to are still, in spite of my alienation from the conservative machine, very much my peeps. We agree on many of the things that matter most.

What it seems to me we haven’t yet managed to agree on is the spiritual danger of embracing The Tribe Über Alles.

To be sure, not all Republicans endorse this filth.  Some of them, known by the goons and thugs who now constitute the bulk of the Party of Trump as “fake conservative” and “wusses” still speak out on behalf of civilization and are shouted down by Real Christians and Real Conservatives:

18 Responses to Teaching Hate

  • Mark Shea is a complete waste of time. More bloggers ought to come out after him and point out what a hypocrite he is.

  • This fellow Gianforte appears to have had a minor altercation with a member of the political opposition. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to Shea why people might find it at least vaguely amusing that a member of one of the grossest and unethical occupational groups in America was issued a penalty by a fed-up member of the public.

    The irony of Mark Shea offering a vitriolic denunciation of someone else’s bad temper is lost on….Mark Shea.

  • Regarding “hate” in Lt Gov. Ralph Northam’s ad for the Democratic primary which aired today Northam said, “”Donald Trump is a narcissistic maniac and I will do all I can to keep his hate out of Virginia”.
    Predict that the word “hate” referring to President Trump and conservative values will be the liberal, progressive and Democrat buzz word for this election.

  • Mark has turned into a total apparatchik for the left. The type of unthinking political partisan he condemned for years he has become.

  • Some days I’m tempted to start a website that will just be quotes from old Mark Shea posted against the new Mark Shea. And of course he’s become a left-partisan. He’s become increasingly lazy intellectually and leftist politics excel at providing policies and narratives that hit you in the gut and don’t require any thinking (indeed thinking usually causes it all to fall apart so you’re discouraged from that). Now that he’s cocooned himself in an echo chamber, he needn’t worry about ever having to bother thinking or checking facts again.

    And what’s up with his new race obsession. It’s like reading one of those alt sites that insist on pointing out everybody’s jewishness – only it’s everybody’s whiteness.

  • The contemporary left, most of it, is just as race obsessed as a Klansman circa 1866. They have looked into the abyss and became what they beheld.

  • I’m still not sure Gianforte actually assaulted the guy. Not as in, “I don’t think he hit him,” as in “I think the guy was doing the usual pushy reporter violating personal space and came against a NORMAL FREAKING HUMAN BEING.”

    Has anybody actually seen a quote from the Fox lady about what she saw? I’ve only seen things where it says “the fox reporter said she didn’t see an act of open aggression” which, given the media, makes me suspect she actually said “I didn’t see what happened” or something.
    ******
    We’ve had people poisoned, folks run off the road, ROUTINE acts of violence against conservatives… maybe the English reporting style I’ve read about in all the old books is, ah, not the wisest option?

  • Foxfier what gets me (and you can try this on some of Dave G’s commentors if you want it demonstrated) is that numerous, repeated actions by the Left are always excused as “outliers” and “proof of nothing” while the much rarer action by the Right proves everything. Or they’ll use this to end that argument in a kind of “if you want to associate those dozen with the Left, then you have to associate this one with the right.”

    Oh hey, Mark went and provided an example! Let’s see… in the article he wrote:

    [facebook capture of Jeremy Christian praising Trump]
    Christian was much like [these racists] that take their inspiration from our white racist president and his white racist attorney general.

    Then in the comments…

    And he [Jeremy Christian]also supported Sanders for a while, which proves… something or other.

    So supporting Trump proves something, but supporting Sanders proves nothing? Ladies & Gentlemen of the Jury, I present exhibit C in political hackery.

  • The audiofile and one witness account indicate the reporter fell over backwards. The witness just says she saw his feet in the air, not the point of contact between the reporter and anyone else. The conversation between the two is tense but civil until there’s a sudden crash and an enraged person (Gianforte) is rebuking the reporter at a high pitch and orders him to leave. The reporter is complaining of being ‘body slammed’ and complains that Gianforte broke his glasses. (My guess would be his glasses are a pair of over-the-counter cheaters as I have an identical pair). A calmer voice intercedes and says ‘you need to leave’. The sudden change of mood on the part of the candidate leads me to believe something inaudible happened which changed the tenor of the discussion. It sure makes no sense unless the candidate was hopped-up on something.

  • I have a suspicion that viewing M. Shea as a purveyor of political opinion as if he were Paul Zummo is in error. His conduct over the years has grown so peculiar that I have to believe that it is some other phenomenon expressed in political code. It certainly is puzzling.

  • While I don’t care to comment on this issue, I will defend Mark against the characterization of his blog as an “echo chamber”. I argue with him all the time, and he’s never tried to delete comments, ban me, or even responded with anything but respect.

  • Great, Illithid, now shall we go over the much larger number of people who have been banned?

    Or would you care for a scientific experiment? Say something even slightly positive about Trump. For example, I see you commented on his “2 heroes” post, be like Guest and ask him what a Trump tweet from 2015 has to do with the recent week. Or ask him why a post by the madman supporting Trump is indicative of something but posts supporting Bernie is not. Or wait, Mark is due to post the “prison pop > gulag” lie soon, correct him on that. Let’s see how long you last…

  • Okay, I’ll expand. Many commenters argue with Mark, at length, about every topic under discussion. They’ve been engaged with, not banned. This is not an echo chamber. It is true that some comments were deleted in that article. I don’t know what they said. But other comments by “Guest” remain, along with Mark’s replies arguing with them. Unless you’re claiming there is never a legitimate reason to delete a comment, I don’t think you’ve made your point. Have you been banned there?

    P.S. This combox is annoying! Can only see the line I’m typing.

  • Oh, BTW, except that someone with color vision seems to have corrected his spraytan and hairdye, I can’t think of anything positive to say about Trump. I’d be interested to know who he’s banned if you feel like saying, but I’m not debating anything at length in this program. I can’t even go back and edit if I mess something up. This is horrid.

  • P.S. This combox is annoying! Can only see the line I’m typing.

    Do you see the corner where there’s a pair of slanted lines? Click on that and hold and you can adjust the combox to any size you desire.

    Okay, I’ll expand. Many commenters argue with Mark, at length, about every topic under discussion. They’ve been engaged with, not banned. This is not an echo chamber.

    Arguing over who hates Trump the most and why is not any kind of “disagreement” – otherwise by that logical standard there is no such thing as an echo chamber anywhere even on the internet.

    It is true that some comments were deleted in that article. I don’t know what they said. But other comments by “Guest” remain, along with Mark’s replies arguing with them. Unless you’re claiming there is never a legitimate reason to delete a comment, I don’t think you’ve made your point. Have you been banned there?

    Yes I have been (more than once, actually), as well as Dave G., TM Lutas, PetetheGreek… those guys I knew personally. There was a whole “banned by Mark Shea” facebook group but since I’m not on facebook I’ll let those who are find that one. I’m sure some others around here have (like Art Deco) but I’ll let them confirm. You can have fun just googling banned by Mark Shea and finding accounts like here.

    I can’t think of anything positive to say about Trump.

    You don’t have to think of anything positive, just correct a dishonesty. For example, in the original post by Shea Don linked to, there is this bit from Mark:
    “And the anonymous bullies, KKK, and thugs of the Party of Trump have heard the clarion call to threaten a free press with violence too.”
    That line links to…
    http://www.kentucky.com/news/local/counties/fayette-county/article153236479.html

    So, be honest, what does some broken windows in Lexington, KY have to do with Trump? No really, go read the article and ask Mark that. No word on this suspect’s identification. And as the investigating officer notes: “there have been incidents in the last month of windows being shot out with pellet or BB guns on a school bus, a transit bus and at an elementary school in Lexington. It was too early to say whether those might be related to the damage at the Herald-Leader.” Now, it seems pretty clear to me that there is as much connecting those bus and school “shootings” to this incident as there is Trump. (indeed I’d wager money this whole thing is just some kids horseplaying with an air rifle) So go on. You don’t have to say something positive about Trump, just demand a fair trial. Even guilty men get that much.

  • Thanks for the tip, but it apparently doesn’t work on my tablet.

    As to the main topic: okay, I’m somewhat persuaded. I actually remember Dave G. (on whose blog I also comment regularly) saying he had been banned. I shall consider your points and pay more attention. I did read your links.

  • Oh. Yeah, sorry Illithid, I don’t know about tablets much. The combox isn’t great for them. (I do miss some of Don’s old site design, I’ll admit that.)

    And hey, you can make a fun drinking game of it. 😉 Every time the link Mark posts doesn’t quite match what he said about it, take a drink! (note I take no responsibly for any liver failure you experience)

At War With the Sexes

Tuesday, May 30, AD 2017

 

The advocates of homosexuality and transgenderism, mental illness transformed into political ideology, are ever busy within the Church:

 

A Catholic priest took a strong stand [date] against a new policy in the Diocese of Jefferson City, Missouri, that welcomes same-sex “families” into Catholic schools and allows students to identify as “transgender.”

An audio recording of the meeting where diocesan officials introduced the policy to priests includes a rather heated exchange between one priest and the presenters.

The priest accused the presenters of twisting Pope Francis’ words to force gender ideology on the schools.

“You are overturning Christian morality for situation ethics,” he said, “and you are taking way out of context ‘accompaniment.’”

“Pope Francis, the harshest critic of gender ideology, says it’s one thing to have compassion for human weakness and the complexities of life, it’s another thing to accept gender ideology,” he explained. “And you didn’t just open the door a crack. It’s wide open, and you’re accepting this.”

“You’re scandalizing every child in that school and you’re telling us we have to accept gender ideology. That’s what’s happening.”

The diocesan policy was crafted by a committee convened last fall. It included diocesan school and youth ministry officials, a mental health counselor, a former Catholic school teacher, and two priests. Neither of the priests run parishes attached to a school.

Catholics who are opposing the policy have set up a blog titled 30 Pieces of Silver to get it rescinded. The blog links to the recording of the diocese’s presentation to priests.

After the priest said that those on the committee were telling priests and others in the diocese they had to accept gender ideology, one of the presenters objected.

“I will never tell you, you have to do anything,” she said.   

But the priest countered: “You won’t be there to support any of these men [parish priests] when they have a problem of conscience,” he said. “I know it. You will not.”

The presenter repeated what her associate had said at the beginning of the presentation: “We’re not here to deal about the morality.”

The priest immediately emphasized, “It’s a moral issue.”

9 Responses to At War With the Sexes

  • Not at all surprising..

    People (and Clergy) really do not understand the significance of how the practice of widespread contraception has affected Catholic schools, either by: (1)-a weakening of sexual morality by parents who use contraception as a means to have minimal children, (2)-teachers, parents and even clergy being then riddled with dissent being present the schools, (3)-parents who actually follow what the Church Teaches are more open to Life and have normally if circumstances allow – 3 or 4 or more children, instead of just 1 or 2. The caveat is that then these parents can’t afford to send their children to “catholic” private schools, and with these parents not in the schools opposition to crazy ideas is weakened.

  • Thank you! I am stealing this for my catch-all response to liberals and other morons, “mental illness disguised as fake, political ideology.”

  • The Fan may have stumbled upon it – the quality of Francis’ successor will depend upon whether God deems we have been sufficiently chastised. Francis may not even be the worst of it. 😥

  • Bless the priest for speaking out against this immorality to be foisted on children. Where’s the bishop?

  • David-
    it also rips up communities by making it so “shut up, you think you’re so holy because you have a bunch of kids” an acceptable answer to any question of orthodoxy, and acts as a double knife on the ladies who simply can’t manage to have dearly desired children. (On one hand like people think they’re contracepting and thus good to be drafted into the above type junk, on the other like they can’t make common cause with those who have lots of kids because they’ll be “judged.”)

  • If I say, “I am Napoleon”, I am deemed insane. If I say, “I am Josephine”, I am affirmed.

  • You could look at this two ways:

    1. A more benign way is to suggest that church employees are in our time largely derived from the class of people who populate the philanthropic sector. What they have in common is an allergy to commercial employers, not any adherence to the Church.

    2. The episcopacy in our time is a criminal organization. “It’s like the masons. You don’t rise unless you’ve committed some crime”. This explanation was offered me 13 years ago by a sad traditionalist priest just before he resigned from his last parish and disappeared.

    It’s the sheer gratuitousness that gets you. I had 13 years of primary and secondary schooling at a time when school administrators gave little thought to damaged individuals who fancied they were not the sex they were born to be. We did all right. What is their excuse?

  • (2)-teachers, parents and even clergy being then riddled with dissent being present the schools,

    I have personal knowledge of a young religion teacher at a Catholic high school – not yet 30, graced with an MA from one of the surviving Catholic colleges, married and with a child. I gather from relations he’s pretty demoralized right now. His pupils take their cues from the surrounding culture and he’s pissing into the tide. Haven’t got the skinny yet on the rest of the faculty and the school administration.

  • “We’re going to tell you what to think…’” which is exactly what the Diocese has begun doing since Bishop McElroy was placed in charge. Please, pray for us in San Diego.

PopeWatch: Bishops

Tuesday, May 30, AD 2017

 

Sandro Magister believes that Pope Francis is not popular among the Bishops:

 

With the appointment as president of Cardinal Gualtiero Bassetti, after that of the secretary general three years ago, Pope Francis now has full control of the Italian episcopal conference, one third of whose bishops have been installed by him, even in dioceses of the first rank like Bologna, Palermo, the vicariate of Rome, and soon also Milan.

Appointments are a key element in the strategy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. It should suffice to look at how he is reshaping in his image the college of cardinals, which in the future will elect his successor. After the latest batch of cardinals, announced one week ago for the end of June, chances are slimmer that the next pope could mark a return to the past.

Italy aside, however, winning the agreement of the bishops is anything but easy for Francis.

The only national episcopates that he can count on today are those of Germany, Austria, and Belgium, nations in which the Catholic Church is in the most dramatic decline.

While on the contrary the more vital Churches of Africa are those that stood together, in the two combative synods on the family, against the innovations desired by the pope.

If one then looks at the Americas, both North and South, the picture appears even more unfavorable for the pope.

In Canada, the six bishops of the region of Alberta have publicly taken a position against the go-ahead given by Francis to communion for the divorced and remarried, while in the United States the episcopal conference last November elected as its president Cardinal Daniel N. Di Nardo, precisely one of the thirteen cardinals of the memorable protest letter that infuriated Bergoglio at the beginning of the last synod.

In the American media, this election was covered as a referendum on Pope Francis, and there was reason for this. One year before, on a visit to the United States, Francis had ordered the bishops to change course and to get into step with him; and he had accompanied these commands with a series of appointments close to his mentality, in the first place that of Blase J. Cupich as archbishop of Chicago and as cardinal.

But if there was a referendum, Bergoglio lost it altogether. In the preselection for the appointment of the president, out of ten candidates elected only one to his liking made it in. And the elections of the vice-president – archbishop of Los Angeles José H. Gómez, a member of Opus Dei – and of the heads of the commissions were also contrary to the pope’s expectations.

Even in Latin America, Bergoglio has few admirers.

In Colombia the bishops did not like – and they let him know this – the prejudicial support that Francis gave for the “yes” in the referendum on an agreement with the guerrillas of the FARC, an agreement that many bishops judged as a surrender and that in effect was rejected by the popular vote.

In Bolivia the bishops simply cannot stand the blatantly friendly relationship between Bergoglio and “cocalero” president Evo Morales, their bitter enemy especially since they publicly accused the “high structures” of the state of connections with drug trafficking.

In a Venezuela plunged into catastrophe, there is sadness and anger every time President Nicolás Maduro lashes out against them while appealing to Pope Francis, whose support he boasts having. And unfortunately for the bishops, the words spoken by the pope in commenting on the Venezuelan crisis during his latest in-flight press conference, on the way back from Cairo, sounded too benevolent toward the president and malevolent toward the opposition.

10 Responses to PopeWatch: Bishops

  • “It has often been noted that Conclaves often choose a Pope as a commentary on the prior Pope. PopeWatch believes that the next conclave will choose as Pope a Cardinal as unlike Pope Francis as it is humanly possible to be.”

    May that Conclave come quickly, Lord Jesus.

  • It’s clear that many bishops who are horrified by the pontiff are taking a “this, too, shall pass” approach.

    Whereas the pontiff is taking a “*You* shall pass and I shall appoint your successor
    approach. Smart money is on the head of the personality cult. Which means much tribulation, pain, and bleeding out for the Church.

  • “Smart money is on the head of the personality cult.”

    Depends. At his age and rumors swirling about his health, I wouldn’t take bets as to him being around four years hence.

  • There may well be bishops and cardinals who agree with this Pontiff on some issues but will absolutely NOT want another like him. I believe that there is resentment among bishops of the clout wielded by the Germans. The Church is undergoing chastisement and none of us knows when it will end.

  • “PopeWatch believes that the next conclave will choose as Pope a Cardinal as unlike Pope Francis as it is humanly possible to be.”

    I wouldn’t be so sure of that. First of all, Francis is packing the the ranks of the cardinalate with those who are board with his agenda. And secondly, the episcopate in the west, which includes the cardinals, is on the hard left, at least when it comes to the so-called social justice issues. And that’s what even the more orthodox bishops seem to care more about than anything. Perhaps they didn’t intend to elect someone so doctrinally left as Bergoglio. But even if in fact not much was known him personally, the fact that he is from Latin America (which means you assume leftist until proven otherwise), they wanted a leftist and thought it was worth the risk. After all, the bishops of the west know full well that the hard left positions they take on issues like the death penalty, immigration, and the economy undercut any efforts they make to promote doctrinal orthodoxy. But yet they do it anyway, even going out of their way to misrepresent views that disagree with their own.

    Like I have said before, this pontificate is not the cause of the leftward lurch of the Church hierarchy and its institutions. It is the product of it!

  • I think Pope Francis was elected because almost all the Cardinals knew almost nothing about him rather than being enthusiastic for a leftward move in the Church. Based upon news reports at the time the Cardinals could well have assumed that he was firmly orthodox.

  • Donald, like I said the default assumption of any cleric from Latin America, especially high ranking clerics, is that they are leftists. Everyone knows that! Why do you think leftists have been clamouring for a pope from Latin America for all these years? Pope Francis has definitely answered that question.

  • As I recall the stories about Pope Francis at the time was that while an economic liberal he was hard core against gay marriage and abortion. This report from the National Catholic Reporter was typical at the time:

    “Bergoglio is a supporter of the social justice ethos of Latin American Catholicism, including a robust defense of the poor.

    “We live in the most unequal part of the world, which has grown the most yet reduced misery the least,” Bergoglio said during a gathering of Latin American bishops in 2007. “The unjust distribution of goods persists, creating a situation of social sin that cries out to Heaven and limits the possibilities of a fuller life for so many of our brothers.”

    Yet he is also known as a staunch defender of the church’s traditional sexual teachings, opposing abortion, same-sex marriage and contraception.

    In 2010, he said gay adoption is a form of discrimination against children, earning a public rebuke from Argentina’s president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.”

    The Cardinals bought a pig in a poke and a very surly and unorthodox pig it has turned out to be.

  • He also proposed coming out for civil unions to Argentine Bishops Conference, but got shot down.

  • “PopeWatch believes that the next conclave will choose as Pope a Cardinal as unlike Pope Francis as it is humanly possible to be.”

    Let us pray that you are right Donald. Pope Francis is the most dangerous man in the world today, endangering Catholic souls and the world at large with his false views on economics, politics and Islam.

Memorial Day Pledge

Monday, May 29, AD 2017

It  is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us —  that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for  which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve  that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall  have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people,  for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Abraham Lincoln

I have always loved Memorial Day.  A simple holiday, it unofficially marks the beginning of Summer in the US.  Fun and frolic marks the long weekend.  In many places school has ended or will be ending, and families are getting into vacation mode.  In my lifetime I have always been able to enjoy the holiday in peace and freedom, and that is due to the men the holiday honors.

Our war dead, stretching from the Revolution to the most recent skirmishes in Afghanistan and Iraq, I wonder what they make of all this.  Varying reactions no doubt, as varied as the men who died in our wars.  I assume that most of them wouldn’t begrudge people having fun, or gathering with their families.  During their lives almost all them liked having fun and loved their families.  Parting from loved ones is always a terrible burden on anyone who has gone to war, and today we remember those who never came back to their families. Thus I assume that the fun aspect of the weekend would not offend most of them, but rather please them.  However, Memorial Day is so much more than that.

The pain of a family, especially parents and spouses, who lose someone in a war is an agony that only time can dim but can never end.  Those of us who have fortunately not suffered such a loss can only imagine the grief and pain.  The least we can do for those families, and for their dead, is what I call the Memorial Day Pledge, taken from the last sentence of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address:

It  is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us —  that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for  which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve  that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall  have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people,  for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Never should our war dead die in vain.  Never should our troops be asked to make the ultimate sacrifice unless the nation is ready to win the conflict they are fighting in.  Never again should politicians play with war, cheering it at the beginning and then quickly running for cover when the going gets tough.  If the nation is unwilling to fight to win, no matter the cost, then it is better not to get involved in a conflict.  Anything less is a betrayal of every man who dies in battle.

Of course the circumstances of the war in which they fell in no way takes away from either the valor of our war dead or the value of their sacrifice.  We owe them and all our war dead a debt we can never repay.  Living Lincoln’s words each day is the best remembrance we can have for the men who died to ensure that we remained free and safe here at home.

Go, tell the Spartans, stranger passing by
That here, obedient to their laws, we lie.

Simonides

5 Responses to Memorial Day Pledge

  • Amen.

    The tradition (as I knew it) called for flying the Flag at half-staff until 12PM Noon when it was ceremonially raised to full-staff.

    The motto of the 187th Infantry Regiment (Rakkasans) is “Ne Desit Virtus” That Valor Shall Not Fail. If you saw the movie “Hamburger Hill” that was the Third Battalion, 187th.

  • My favorite scene from Hamburger Hill:

  • On your Memorial Day I salute my American cousins who have served in the profession of arms. May God bless and keep your war dead and may perpetual light shine upon them. JohntheMad Major (Ret’d) Royal Canadian Air Force

  • Thank you John. One of my cousins served as an officer in the Canadian Army and he is now retired as well. His father served in the British Army throughout World War II and I used his experiences for one of my Memorial Day reflections a few years ago.

  • A rumor of war . . .

    It was not “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Coincidentally, on 29 May 1453, The Eastern Christian Empire in Constantinople “perished from the Earth.”

    From a 1999 (before the Global Terror War On Us) Economist article. “The Byzantine Empire, denuded of its lands, was dependent on Italian allies; it had suffered the flight of Greek scholars (particularly brilliant in Byzantium’s final years) to Italy, where they helped to stimulate the Renaissance.

    “Hundreds of years of wars in south-eastern Europe: Austro-Hungarian vs. Ottoman empires. The Turks besieged Vienna in 1683 and in the 130 years after were repeatedly at war with Russia or Austria. They held southern Greece until 1832, today’s Bulgaria, Romania, Bosnia and nominally Serbia until 1878, the lands south of these down to liberated Greece until 1913. Hence the Muslim pockets—Albania, Bosnia—that for most Europeans today are the only reminder that the country they see as a source of cheap, resented, migrant labour was once a mighty power in Europe.

    “But a part of Europe? Allied with Germany in the first world war, and therefore stripped of their remaining Middle Eastern empire, the Turks by 1922 were strong enough again to drive Greece’s troops, and centuries of Greek society, from Anatolia. Old enmities were resharpened by the Turkish invasion of northern Cyprus in 1974. If the European Union still hesitates, despite Turkey’s decades inside NATO, about its wish for EU membership too, the real reasons lie centuries deep; not least in 1453.”