What’s a Constitution Between Friends?

Saturday, June 16, AD 2012

The federal DREAM Act failed to pass Congress; however, President Obama has never been one to let a pesky little thing like the U.S. Constitution to get in the way of achieving his policy objectives.

The Obama administration will stop deporting and begin granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives. The election-year initiative addresses a top priority of an influential Latino electorate that has been vocal in its opposition to administration deportation policies.

The policy change, described to The Associated Press by two senior administration officials, will affect as many as 800,000 immigrants who have lived in fear of deportation. It also bypasses Congress and partially achieves the goals of the so-called DREAM Act, a long-sought but never enacted plan to establish a path toward citizenship for young people who came to the United States illegally but who have attended college or served in the military.

Let’s take a look at Article II of the Constitution (the article dealing with the presidency, for those of you in Rio Linda). Hmmm, we’ve got length of term, eligibility requirements, the electoral college, Commander-in-Chief, state of the Union, adjourning Congress . . .  don’t see anything here about just ignoring the will of Congress when they don’t implement policies you approve of.

Oh. Wait. There it is. It’s right between the penumbras and emanations guaranteeing the right to privacy and abortion. My bad. Clearly my Ph. D training was incomplete.

Now you might be upset with this decision, but do not question President Obama’s fealty to the Constitution. This is a man who has been a zealous guardian of the Executive Branch’s duties and responsibilities. And if you don’t believe me, just take a closer look at the tremendous work the Justice Department has done in fighting for the Defense of Marriage Act. No, that president would never let partisan politics prevent him from faithfully upholding the laws of our land.

In all seriousness, this is another power grab that would be impeachable in a saner world. Make no mistake, this is not about the policy itself. That is a topic for another discussion, and is absolutely not the point of this post. The merit of the policy is irrelevant to the concerns over constitutional authority and power. Last I checked this was still a constitutional republic, not an autocracy, and the president of the United States cannot simply make policy absent a grant of legislative authority.

What’s troubling to me is seeing a handful of Catholics applauding this decision, including Archbishop Schnurr of Cincinnati. I understand why these individuals support the overall policy, but again, the policy itself is beside the point. You should not applaud a policy when the manner in which it is implemented so flagrantly violates the Constitution.

So let me say this bluntly: if you approve of the president’s actions in this particular case, then you have absolutely no standing whatsoever to to complain about the constitutionality of the HHS mandate. If you support this action but think the HHS mandate is a tyrannical show of force, then you are a complete hypocrite. You’re essentially signalling that you are okay with usurpation of constitutional authority when you agree with the policy outcome. Just as we can’t be cafeteria Catholics, we don’t get to be cafeteria constitutionalists either. You don’t get to pick which parts of the Constitution you uphold. Now of course constitutions, unlike dogma, can be amended and changed, though I suspect permitting the president of the United States to do whatever he likes whenever he likes would not be an advisable change.

This president has absolutely no regard for the Constitution, and this action only helps underscore this undeniable fact.

Continue reading...

53 Responses to What’s a Constitution Between Friends?

  • “So let me say this bluntly: if you approve of the president’s actions in this particular case, then you have absolutely no standing whatsoever to to complain about the constitutionality of the HHS mandate. If you support this action but think the HHS mandate is a tyrannical show of force, then you are a complete hypocrite.”

    Speaking of hypocrites, John Yoo, who famously claimed that a wartime president had the legal authority to torture anyone he wanted, including crushing that child’s testicles, now claims executive overreach on the part of Obama:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/303038/executive-overreach-john-yoo

    My own feeling is that the president does in fact have an obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Congress should fund enforcement adequately, but we know they don’t. And when resources are stretched, sometimes the prudent thing to do is go after the worst violators. Obama’s action may or may not be prudent. I’m opposed to the HHS mandate either way.

  • Sometimes I think Obama is the culmination of everything that is evil in this country, and maybe that is part of God’s plan. He must draw unto his person everything that is wicked – media, hollywood, academia, unions, the illegals, abortionists, homosexuals, etc., and when the time comes, all of this will be taken out in one big swoop. I can dream can I?

  • “Sometimes I think Obama is the culmination of everything that is evil in this country…”

    How is this policy/excecutive overreach pertaining to illegal immigrants “evil”? It may be imprudent, it may be unconstitutional for all I know, but I don’t see it as evil. How are illegal immigrants “wicked”?

  • The way in which it is being done Spambot I would say is evil. There are laws on the books regarding deportation. Obama by presidential fiat is now saying that he is not going to enforce those laws. Such action is lawless and goes to the heart of whether we are ruled by law. His action is destructive of the Constitutional order by which Congress makes the law and the Executive, Obama, enforces the law. His action instructs each and every citizen that when you disagree with the law you have the right to ignore it. Yes, evil is the term I would apply to this.

  • Paul

    You missed the latest amendments to the constitution.

    Preamble

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    We, Barrack H Obama, in Order to form a more perfect Commune, establish Fairness, insure domestic Tolerance, provide the Nomenklatura’s Defense, promote the Welfare system, and secure the Benifits of Multiculturism to ourselves and our (unaborted) Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.</i?

    SNIP

    Article 1 Section 8

    1: The Congress shall have Power [Delete to end and replace with] to legislate the wishes of Barrack H Obama

    Snip

    Article II Section 1

    1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. Barrack H Obama. He shall hold his Office ,during the Term of four Years, for life

    From
    A new Constitution

    Hank’s Eclectic Meanderings

  • Donald, thank you.

    An analogy: Congress does not fund the IRS sufficiently to audit every income tax return, so the Executive Branch conducts audits on the returns that are flagged as suspicous and/or contain egregious errors. Tax returns of wealthy income earners are more likely than poorer Americans to be audited. Penalties for those caught cheating on returns might differ, too. Those caught cheating in big ways might face criminal prosecution, while those caught cheating in small ways may be let off relatively easy.

    This approach to enforcement of income tax laws does not seem evil, even if Congress did not authorize it.

  • A better analogy Spambot would be the President proposing that the IRS stop auditing tax returns below a certain income threshhold. Legislation to accomplish this is defeated in Congress. The President announces that he will simply order the IRS not to audit such tax returns anyway, any existing laws regarding the auditing of such tax returns to not be enforced by his administration.

    When a President has a blank check not to enforce laws that he does not like we are pretty far down the road to tyranny.

  • Illegal immigration IS a great evil. They know they’re breaking our laws, they know they’re stealing from our treasury, and they know they’re pulling down our workers salaries and eventually taking the bread out of the mouths of OUR children. They are not displaced people – they have a country and they have chosen to invade mine. Their presence in this country is an insult to the proper citizens who ancestors built it and to those who have legally and legitimately entered this country, sometimes taking them years to do so and at the cost of thousands of dollars! They are also willing pawns of a larger agenda of a wicked ruling class that wants to crush and depose the founding people so they can impose their communist agenda! I have very little sympathy for these criminal invaders.

  • D. McCleary ” Obama by presidential fiat is now saying that he is not going to enforce those laws.” Agreed. Just what I was about to say although ” Fiat” dignifies his actions– could just call it “power grab” I am willing to use the term evil.
    Not enforce of DOMA
    Overreach past local school boards
    1st Amendment
    2nd Amendment
    5th Amendment
    Zimmerman endangerred by him
    voter fraud, I.D.
    voter protection
    hope martial law doesn’t occur to his Hench-people

  • The USCCB is a toothless tiger in the fight for the preservation of our Constitutional freedom of the free exercise of religion because in part it openly supports this latest usurpation of due process through Congress:

    http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-110.cfm

    I am thoroughly disgusted with the American Roman Bishopry. At heart they are Democrat and always will be. Social justice crap has always been more important to them than conversion and repentance.

  • What is more disappointing than Obama’s action is the reaction from the majority of the citizenry and the opposition party. It will be a little hand wringing here and there and then nothing.

    This movie scene is for the bishops council and Spambot…
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk

    How many more trees are you willing to see cut?

  • Jobs . . .

    Where are the jobs?

    Maybe jobs would be created if he decided to not enforce the penal (as in Federal prison) sections of the Internal Revenue Code.

    Maybe Obama, the genius, can concoct something – anything – unConstitutional or otherwise, that will create jobs for 23,000,000 Americans who can’t get work.

  • Paul,
    If you want to know what happened to the Catholic Church in this country, please read Bella Dodd’s “School of Darkness”. The Church was infiltrated and compromised a long time ago. With few exceptions, I have no faith in the Bishops to stand tall and fight Obama on the HHS mandate. I believe a schism is coming and the authentic Church will be greatly persecuted. I pray I’m wrong.

    http://catholicism.org/bella-dodd-%E2%80%94-from-communist-to-catholic.html

  • Oh no, Siobhan, you are sadly 100% correct.

    John 6:22-27 describes this people and their Bishopry so very well:

    22 On the next day the people who remained on the other side of the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone. 23 However, boats from Tiberias came near the place where they ate the bread after the Lord had given thanks. 24 So when the people saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum, seeking Jesus. 25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” 26 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27* Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal.”

    —–

    This people and their Bishopry are not interested in the Gospel of conversion and repentance. They are not interested in saving souls from the eternal fires of hell (for they believe not that such a place exists except as myth to scare school children). For them the gospel is all about social justice, the common good and peace at any price. Oh how how I despise and loathe those three phrases!

    So they will welcome the illegal immigrant whole heartedly into this nation to suckle off the teat of the public treasury, Constitution and Laws to the contrary be damned, while they, by their inaction on and apathy towards the true Gospel of conversion and repentance, damn the souls of these same immigrants to hell.

    Ezekiel 34:1-10 rings loudly and clearly. The US Council of Catholic Bishops had better start listening in this life because it will be too late before that Great White Throne of Judgment in Revelation 20:11-15.

    No Democracy. No two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner!

  • Interesting observation about the parallel between the cafeteria Catholic phenom and that of the cafeteria Constitutionalist phenom. Neither wants to abide by or acknowledge any authority above its perverse self.

  • Exactly, Paul. In my eyes, when the Bishops support amnesty, they tip their hand and reveal themselves as frauds. They always talk about “welcoming the stranger”, but how about “THOU SHALL NOT STEAL”, which is a mortal sin! The illegals are not only STEALING our money, they are attempting to steal what they did not build in this country, and our sense of nationhood. That the bishops cannot see the obvious tells me that they are either completely out of touch with reality or they are complicit in the destruction of this country. Plus, in catering to the hispanics, they are also dividing the Catholic Church between english speakers and spanish speakers which will be very destructive. Though, with all of this, we musn’t give up hope because there are signs of renewal with the young and dynamic priests and religious coming up today. We’re still in the darkness, but I do see light at the end of the tunnel. I just hope our country will survive.

  • I’ve always been a little bit unclear to the extent to which the executive branch is permitted to determine its priorities when it comes to enforcement of laws. Let’s say for the sake of argument that the United States was not able, because of budgetary constraints, personnel limitations, or some other practical matters, to apply 100 percent effort to the enforcement of all federal immigration and border control laws and regulations. Every deportation costs money and personnel, after all. Is it perhaps within the executive branch’s authority to set enforcement priorities? (E.g. to focus on deportation of people who have committed crimes besides immigration violations, or on people who arrived in the country voluntarily). After all, it is in the legislature’s authority to write laws more stringently and to assign budget dollars more specifically, and it remains with the people to vote an executive out of office if we judge that he sets priorities poorly. And I don’t know — maybe it’s possible for a state to sue the U. S. in the Supreme Court to force enforcement if they can show harm from the feds’ refusal to enforce some part of the law?

    Don’t get me wrong — the *announcement* of such a policy is obviously a campaign move, and I recognize that there are good arguments for why this makes bad immigration policy. But I’m not entirely convinced that priority-setting is outside the bounds of the executive branch’s powers. Yes, the executive branch has a positive obligation under the constitution to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” but as we know from Catholic moral doctrine, positive obligations usually come with an “unless.”

  • “this is another power grab that would be impeachable in a saner world.”

    One of the offenses for which Gov. Blago was impeached by the Illinois General Assembly was his attempt to implement a health insurance program for low-income families by executive rulemaking alone, without any approval from the legislature (which had not appropriated any funds to pay for it). The offense was NOT that he tried to obtain healthcare for poor families (a good end) but that he attempted to do so without proper authority (bad means).

    I believe that, as a Catholic, one can argue either way about the justice or injustice of allowing illegal immigrants who were brought to this country as minors (and therefore cannot be faulted for choosing to break the law themselves) to stay. Remember, illegal immigration, in and of itself, is NOT a criminal offense but a civil offense — it is still wrong, but not on the same level as murder, rape or robbery.

    That said, the means which Obama has chosen to do this is wrong even if the end is just or justifiable. The separation of powers must be respected. In my opinion it would be just as wrong if a future president who was a devout Catholic and staunchly pro-life were to attempt to outlaw abortion or gay marriage nationwide by executive fiat alone, without approval of Congress or of the states.

  • Speaking of hypocrites, John Yoo, who famously claimed that a wartime president had the legal authority to torture anyone he wanted, including crushing that child’s testicles, now claims executive overreach on the part of Obama:

    Why not provide quotations verbatim and in context ‘ere making particularly inflammatory remarks?

  • AD:

    Facts!?

    Facts?!

    Obama-worshiping imbeciles don’t need no bloody facts.

    The Executive branch executes laws passed by the Legislative branch. The executive doesn’t have power to ex post facto veto any law nor to pick and choose which law it will enforce and which law it will flaunt.

    Sic semper tyrannis.

    The common good and social justice form the alibis of all tyrants.

    It seems bishops et al place a progressive, liberal temporal narrative ahead of the salvation of souls.

    St. John Chrysostom: “The floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”

  • So what IS the proper use of an executive order? I am unclear on that. For the record, Archbishop Schnurr didn’t say anything about the president. The quote is from an archdiocesan official.

  • Obama is pandering to just about any groups for votes but what I don’t understand is that Hispanics in general are Catholics & conservatives but yet they support him. I can understand illegals supporting him but most legals do too. Of course, they know many illegals so they don’t want them deported. Why didn’t he do this when the democrats were in control two years ago if he believed in it so strongly. He once said he couldn’t do because it was illegal but, of course, he needs votes.

  • “So what IS the proper use of an executive order?”

    I don’t know all the details of federal law on this question, but based on my own experience in Illinois state government, I would say that executive orders are properly used to manage or change details of a program or policy that has been legislatively authorized, or to reorganize executive agencies (e.g., merge them or change their names). Oftentimes the legislature will authorize a program in law and insert a clause in the law saying that such-and-such agency will have charge of the program AND will adopt rules for it. Also, executive orders in Illinois don’t become effective unless ratified by the legislature within 60 days. Again, this doesn’t directly relate to how federal law works but I’m offering it as an example of how legislative/executive power COULD be balanced (the only example I’m really familiar with).

  • T. Shaw — While I may (or may not) be an imbecile, please do not imply that I am “Obama-worshiping”.

    Art Deco — Do you really need me to introduce you to Mr. Google?

  • No, you do not.

    Mr. Google will introduce me to 1,001 online rants from people like you, about which I do not give a rip and cannot be bothered to read. Show me a published article or intra-office memorandum where he develops an argument which can be fairly characterized the way you do it.

  • Paul Zummo: for what it is worth. June 17, 2012 10:16 AM
    The Mexican constitution forbids Catholicism and therefore, religious freedom. All the illegal Mexican immigrants may have sought political asylum for religious freedom had they been educated to the fact. It may be too late since the United States no longer has any religious freedom.
    When Obama learns that the Mexican aliens have come to America for freedom of religion, will he allow it?
    Right-wing extremists, as Obama likes to call pro-lifers, returning veterans of war and individual citizens who disagree with him, are trying to save humanity by keeping to “the laws of nature and nature’s God” (from The Declaration of Independence) and by serving “WE, the people”(from The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.) Obama, Pelosi, Sebelius and Obama’s 32 czars, Thomas Malthus, Paul and Ann Erhlich with their book Population Bomb, along with Uncle Hitler are trying to save humanity from extinction by a bloody, and obscene massacre of “our constitutional posterity”.
    The Mexican constitution outlaws the Catholic Church, priests and freedom of religion to this very day to protect freedom for humanity.
    The Mexican government does not give freedom. God gives freedom. The Mexican government does not give life to humanity. God gives life and liberty to His children. The Mexican government tells God how God’s people will experience God. Satan, the devil said: “If you eat the apple you will be like God – infinite.” The Mexican government killed the priests and citizens who dared to profess that Christ is King. The Mexican government tortured and killed a fourteen year old boy for being Catholic. The young man had not reached the age of legal majority, emancipation at eighteen years of age, and is considered to be an infant in a court of law. In “a court of law” is not one of the tenets of the Mexican constitution.
    Will Obama give the Mexican aliens protection from Mexican tyranny, asylum and a homeland to practice their freedom of religion and their free will and their observance of the precepts of their conscience? Will Obama give protection from tyranny to U.S. citizens to practice their freedom of religion, their free will and their observance of the precepts of their conscience?
    Only atheists, secular humanists and communists have religious freedom in the United States. This is why we have no religious freedom to petition Divine Providence in the public square for the blessings of Liberty and prosperity. Only atheists can petition Divine Justice for relief from prayer, other persons’ prayer, other persons’ speech to God, other persons’ assembly to pray, other persons’ petition for Divine Justice. Communism, atheism, and secular humanism is the diabolic intervention of the devil in human affairs.

  • applaud Mary De Voe
    thanks for the great link Siobahn

  • Anzlyne. Many Hail Mary’s for you and yours. Please pray for me and mine, one Hail Mary.
    Siobahn: Let us pray too, that the Cardinals planted by the Communists coverted to the Catholic Church.

  • It may be too late since the United States no longer has any religious freedom.

    All right, let’s dial it back a little. We haven’t quite reached Soviet status in this country. This administration has been bad enough that we don’t need to exaggerate what has happened.

  • Paul Zummo makes a point we are not quite at the extreme of the soviets, but I do think there are several things communist already in the US.

  • Not sure about the exact relevance of the Mr. Yoo reference, but I did see the piece and Spambot seems pretty accurate about Yoo being comically hypocritical about presidential overreach. But again, so what? Bush and Obama are both guilty of overreach – is that supposed to exculpate one or the other?

  • But again, so what? Bush and Obama are both guilty of overreach – is that supposed to exculpate one or the other?

    No, you are right about that, cmatt. I was just providing a counterbalance to Paul’s inference in the original post that a Catholic bishop was “a complete hypocrite” for supporting this one particular action by Obama while opposing an unrelated action by Obama. I suspect the constitutionality of each action will be determined on grounds unrelated to each other (not that I’m the expert).

    It’s been said that President Bush selected judicial appointees who favored his vision of a strong “unitary executive” — a president with broad and complete authority to execute the laws and prosecute the wars, including the war on terror. My memory is that people on the left complained most about a strong “unitary executive”, while people on the right were generally supportive, because the context was often treatement of captured terrorists. Now, the shoe is on the other foot.

    Anyway, that was all my mind when I read Paul’s piece that I may be a hypocrite.

  • The concept of the “unitary executive” is one of the most misunderstood concepts in our political lexicon. To put it as succinctly as possible, all it means is that the executive branch of the federal government is under a single head – the president of the United States. He is ultimately responsible for all executive decisions of the federal government. So even with the labyrinth bureaucracy that exists today, the buck stops with the presidency, and he and he alone is responsible for executive branch action. It does not mean, and was never meant to imply that the chief executive has plenary decision making power over all the government. He only has the ultimate authority within his own sphere (or branch), a concept that our Founding Fathers would heartily have endorsed.

    So, your counter-example of hypocrisy falls flat.

  • The concept of the “unitary executive” is one of the most misunderstood concepts in our political lexicon.

    Maybe it’s easy for me to get “misunderstood concepts” about the definition or extent of “unitary executive” because of what John Yoo stated in testimony. He said in so many words that unless a treaty or law explicitly forbade the president from crushing a child’s testicles during lawful prosecution of a war, then the president had the power and authority to do so.

    I think my counter-example is a pretty good one: John Yoo is a complete hypocrite for pushing broad powers to the president then, but regretting it now.

  • I think my counter-example is a pretty good one:

    Just thinking it doesn’t make it so.

    John Yoo is a complete hypocrite for pushing broad powers to the president then, but regretting it now.

    Even if your depiction of what he said is true, so what? You’ve proven that another person is a hypocrite. Congratulations, but you haven’t in any way made you or anyone else who supports the president’s actions any less of a hypocrite.

  • By the way, even your example doesn’t exactly hold up as a case of hypocrisy. I think Yoo has a too expansive view of executive authority, but his theoretical exercise is still distinct from the situation under discussion. According to Yoo, presidential authority is expansive absent a Congressional prohibition. In this particular case, President Obama is essentially defying a law enacted by Congress (and passed under previous administrations).

    Of course this is still beside the larger point, but I’ll give you points for trying to change the subject.

  • Even if your depiction of what he said is true, so what? You’ve proven that another person is a hypocrite.

    Paul,

    In your original post, you called out one particular individual as a hypocrite, and then used that as a launching point to say like-minded persons were also hypocrites. I’m just following your lead.

    …but you haven’t in any way made you or anyone else who supports the president’s actions any less of a hypocrite.

    The legal basis/justification for (or against) the HHS mandate would seem to be completely unrelated to the legal basis/justification for (or against) the new amnesty policy. Your original post complained of “usurpation of constitutional authority” which I believe still needs to demonstrated in both instances. My man-in-the-street view of my 1st Amendment rights is that HHS over-reached and intruded into my free exercise of religion.

    On the subject of amnesty, the administration complained of inadequate resources to faithfully execute the laws preventing illegal immigrants from entering the country, and now choose to enforce them selectively, picking on the “worst violators” for severe treatment. The allocation of resources would be more of a judgment call than a constitutional issue.

  • In your original post, you called out one particular individual as a hypocrite, and then used that as a launching point to say like-minded persons were also hypocrites. I’m just following your lead.

    My lead doing what? I said that any individual who holds a certain viewpoint is a hypocrite. Instead of arguing the case, you pointed out another person’s supposed hypocrisy on a completely different issue. What does one have to do with another? This is called a red herring argument.

    The legal basis/justification for (or against) the HHS mandate would seem to be completely unrelated to the legal basis/justification for (or against) the new amnesty policy.

    The point I was trying to make is not that the issues are the same, but that you can’t cry about unconstitutional decision making in one area, and then excuse it another. As I said, you can’t be a cafeteria constitutionalist.

    The allocation of resources would be more of a judgment call than a constitutional issue.

    But it didn’t end there. The president of the United States issued a directive that said a law would not only not be enforced, but went above and beyond to essentially declare that a federal law (or aspect of a law) is nullified. This is far beyond the powers of the presidency.

    By the way, though I disagree with your assessment of the constitutionality of this decision, that’s a legitimate argument to make. This Yoo red herring, on the other hand, doesn’t advance the ball for anybody.

  • …and maybe I should add that if the amnesty action is a constitutional issue and it withstands a court challenge, John Yoo should be the last person to complain.

  • Spam Buddy,

    This is not about John Yoo or illegal immigrant salutatorians being denied the opportunities to give Spanish orations at their graduation ceremonies.

    This is about distracting and confusing the people about Obama’s policies and their horrid effects on Yoo and me.

  • It may be too late since the United States no longer has any religious freedom.

    All right, let’s dial it back a little. We haven’t quite reached Soviet status in this country. This administration has been bad enough that we don’t need to exaggerate what has happened.
    I was thinking of the aborted children who have had all of their constitutional rights taken from them. These persons have no religious freedom, taken from them by a government that ought to protect them and their constitutional rights.

  • Aside from issues of constitutionality, I oppose the HHS policy outright, but am ambivalent on immigration. I’ve always favored an orderly process for immigration and this new policy has long-term disadvantages in that regard for various reasons people have pointed out. Catholic bishops have supported the DREAM act as “a practical, fair, and compassionate solution for thousands of young persons.” So, the is the basis for my tentative support of the policy, as long as the causes of mercy and justice are served.

    The question about executive overreach is something the courts will need to decide. I don’t think Archbishop Schnurr of Cincinnati is a hypocrite for expressing his opinions for how these complex matters should be resolved.

  • There are as many as 20 million illegals in the country, according to many estimates. Nobody knows the actual numbers. But what we do know is that they came to America unlawfully and more than 80% are from Mexico and other Latin American countries.
    Mexico, which is responsible for around 57% of the total, has done nothing to stop the unlawful exodus until, ironically, it issued a warning to its citizens not travel to Arizona, which was forced to toughen immigration laws because the federal government failed to do so. Notwithstanding its concern for its own people, Mexico has managed to export drug cartels, kidnapping rings and criminal gangs to the U.S., all of which have rightly caused fear and loathing by lawbiding U.S. citizens.
    When he placed his hand on Lincoln’s Bible back in January 2009, Barack Obama swore to “faithfully execute” the laws of the United States of America. But is he?
    . As Pat Buchanan wrote: “(Obama) is siding with the law-breakers. He is pandering to the ethnic lobbies. He is not berating a Mexican regime that aids and abets this invasion of the country of which he is commander in chief. Instead, he attacks the government of Arizona for trying to fill a gaping hole in law enforcement left by his own dereliction of duty.
    “He has called on the Justice Department to ensure that Arizona’s sheriffs and police do not violate anyone’s civil rights. But he has said nothing about the rights of the people of Arizona who must deal with the costs of having hundreds of thousands of lawbreakers in their midst. Obama has done everything but his duty to enforce the law.”

  • The question about executive overreach is something the courts will need to decide

    This is a very dangerous attitude. I don’t fault you, spambot, for expressing it because it’s been so deeply rooted into our collective psyche. But the Courts are most definitely not the sole repository for adjudicating constitutional matters. What’s more, when it comes to inter-branch squabbles, the Court is generally reluctant to act.

    So while the Court can intervene, we should shake off this attitude that dictates that we await their say and only their say.

    I don’t think Archbishop Schnurr of Cincinnati is a hypocrite for expressing his opinions for how these complex matters should be resolved.

    I’m not saying he’s a hypocrite for expressing an opinion, but for being okay with violations of the constitution that are in accord with his personal policy preferences.

  • Thank you, Paul Zummo for responding to my comment. My opinion is dialed back to reset.
    Mary De Voe

  • No worries, Mary. I’ve been known to engage in hyperbole from time to time.

  • Not sure about the exact relevance of the Mr. Yoo reference, but I did see the piece and Spambot seems pretty accurate about Yoo being comically hypocritical about presidential overreach. But again, so what? Bush and Obama are both guilty of overreach – is that supposed to exculpate one or the other?

    The Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice has a handy website providing links to legal opinions issued by the office since 1995 or thereabouts. Included among them are four (4) opinions issued during 2001, 2002, and 2003 bearing the signature of one John Yoo, Esq. I am not an adept of this, so maybe you and Spambot can read through them and tell us all where we can find the text about crushing children’s testicles or something remotely related thereto.

    When you are done with that, maybe we can have a panel discussion between you, Spambot, Mark Shea, Zippy, Daniel Nichols, Ronald Dworkin, and any three members of the Gitmo Bar where you can all discuss the circumstances under which we should have boards of judges on battlefields (helpfully advised by white shoe lawyers and professors) reviewing tactics and strategy.

  • Art Deco,

    John Yoo’s comments that I referenced are not posted to the OLC website that I am aware.

  • Obama is doing what he said he couldn’t and wouldn’t do. He is flaunting the law. I think he (and the DOJ) should be should be impeached. Only..I am afraid that if he were impeached the left thinkers see that he has no support and no leg to stand on, they might try to convince him to let another democrat run instead of him, and then Romney would have a harder time.
    Borrowing trouble?

  • Not to be picky, Anzlyne, but believe you meant “flouting,” not “flaunting.”

  • ok — you are right Joe
    I could say that he flaunts his education and knowledge of the Constitution… : )

  • Joe I hate it when I make mistakes like that because then you look at the mistake and not at the content of the comment. Maybe not such a worthy comment but I’ll ask:

    Are we too close to the end of his term for an impeachment process to get started? Can the actions and authority of the DOJ be scrutinized?
    Even if his time as president is over, shouldn’t an investigation be done, so that our system of government is protected from this kind of breaking the Constitution.

    I hope he is out of office soon, I hope we vote him (and all his appointees out) but I wouldn’t be surprised if the bad guys pull a fast one and try to run someone else if he gets too much more unpopular… or like LBJ, just pull out – then it would be quite a different race

  • Anzlyne,

    Who would they run – Barney Frank?

    Your comment’s content is perfect.

    November must mark the end of an error or the USA could well be finished.

    Re: this latest ill-advised campaign ploy/Exec Order: Which is served social justice or common good for 20,000,000 American citizens and legal immigrants that cannot find work, when the Anointed “Won” doles out extra-special work benefits to 600,000 extraneous persons who absconded into the USA?

    Joe, Did I correctly use the word “absconded”?

Need Reader Input: Who Are The Top 10 Dynamically Orthodox Catholic Bishops?

Sunday, June 3, AD 2012

 I would like some help in identifying the most active, passionate, orthodox American Catholic Bishops currently serving. It is a cultural thing that we seem to love rating everything- not a bad thing- and I have a personal interest in this topic because I want to offer my services to a Bishop who needs someone who gets the following Big Three Realities that I have been focusing on in my last three postings here at American Catholic.

 

1. The Obama Administration is threat #1 to the continuance of our Hierarchical Catholic Church- here in America and since we are a Superpower in worldly terms this could damage a big chunk of Christendom. I do not speak as an Obama-basher with Republican talking point tie-ins- I was a lifelong Democrat who only recently gave it up to become an Independent, not Republican. My realization about the Obama threat emerged slowly after being absorbed in a national Catholic Democrats listserve with some of the real heavyweights- like FOB (Friend of Barack) Vicki Kennedy. It was clear to me that Kennedy with her fellow travelers in Catholic universities, and liberal Catholic political organizations, have been intent on much much more than just getting more traction in American policies and legislation for a few political issues often neglected by the conservative-Right. There is blood in the water for the Church Hierarchy due to the notorious Minor Abuse Scandals. These prominent Catholic Dems seem intent on using whatever power they can muster to force changes in the Church to cut the Hierarchydown to size- replace the Teaching Authority with liberal Catholic college professors and liberal political activists who will “save” the Church from irrelevance among the youth. We have seen that President Obama has been systematically assisting in this process- not openly- but consider his choice of Joe Biden as VP with his pro-choice, pro-gay marriage beliefs, and Kathleen Sebelius as HHS Secretary who is pushing contraceptives down everyone’s throats, and I suspect we’ll see that Justice Sotomayor is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage eventually. The threat to religious liberties will hit the Catholic Church Hierarchy first, with the contraceptives mandates and then gay marriage will turn the Catholic Church Catechism into Hate Literature and every orthodox Catholic into a bigot along the lines of the old school racists back in the 60’s. No one wants to be a racist- so I’m sure that Vicki Kennedy et al are counting on most American Catholics to simply abandon their Bishops’ leadership and embrace her brand of progressive Catholicism which is Obama-cool. So- me thinks the Bishops need a few folks around who see this danger and are willing to stand with the Bishops and the Catechism. I’m here to help.  Here’s a link to my piece on the Catholic Dems/Obama “conspiracy”-  http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/05/31/obama-working-willfully-to-undermine-hierarchical-catholic-church/

 

2. Having this information about the Obama-Catholic Dem elite battleplan is useful- but I am also interested in assisting a good Bishop at the parish level with practical steps- all perfectly legal- for assisting the process of cultivating a new breed of orthodox Catholic political leaders. Pope B teaches us to free ourselves from ideologies in his last encyclical- the social doctrine of the Church is the stuff we need more of in America- the reason we keep swinging wildly from Republican to Democrat in the races for political power is that at the gut level most people get that each Party has got some things right and some things wrong. There is no Party of God- even if right now the mainstream Democratic Party represents the greater threat to the Church/Christ- we are still talking about lesser evils. The Catholic social doctrine is about building civilizations of love- this is the positive vision that is the corrective of narrow ideologies which feed on anger for the most part. The way to bring Christ’s Way into the marketplace of ideas in American political thought and debate is for more fully informed and inspired Catholic voices to emerge and assume the responsibilities of leadership at every level of our society. There is so much that we could do in every parish and school-  here is my POA (Plan of Action) which I would love to bring into a parish in a diocese where the Bishop is aware and involved to guide the development- I’m not interested in being a lone ranger or riding against the wishes of the local Bishop.  Here’s the Plan-  http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/05/10/wanted-orthodox-catholic-political-leaders-time-to-get-serious/

 

3.  Finally, my long experience in the trenches of Catholic high schools has left me with many thoughts on how to inculcate a genuine Catholic identity which has a chance of being transmitted to our very distracted youth. I would love to be part of an orthodox Bishop’s team to help select passionately orthodox Catholic administrators/teachers/staff to be in place to give life witness, along with instructional guidance, to budding disciples of Christ. You can’t give what you don’t have- so if we want Catholic students to come out the other side in love, or more in love with Christ and His Church- then you don’t load up the schools with adults who are full of dissenting views from the Catechetical teachings of the Church. I’m not saying everyone has to be some kind of a stepford-wife cheerleader type of Catholic- we all have our personalities- but if you are an adult working in a Catholic school you should be someone who is thirsty to know what the Church teaches and why- especially if it pertains to your particular discipline or area of responsibility. I get into a lot more detail beyond just the staffing issue in my article below.  I am open to returning to the teaching field or entering new territory in administration under the right Bishop in a diocese that really wants to play it straight-up as a passionately Catholic institution -without being satisfied with a PR-level Catholic Identity which produces nice dog and pony shows for visiting bishops and parents- but scratch the surface and where is the love for the Church? If you fall in love with the Church you will just want to know more and more and to share more and more with the youth and everyone you meet- am I right?  Here’s the last link-  http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/04/16/a-vision-of-catholic-education-from-the-front-lines/

 

OK- if you are still with me- here is how you can help- write out up to 10 names(and email addresses if you have them!) of Dynamically Orthodox Catholic Bishops here in America- with the name of their Diocese.  You can order them according to your own rating system. I want to follow the science here and the shortest distance between two points is a straight line- I want to begin a new mission in using whatever talents I possess for the sake of Christ and His Church- I have tried to use these talents to produce something helpful to preserve and protect the Hierarchical nature of our Catholic Church- If Christ didn’t desire a Hierarchy why bother with Apostles- He could have just had disciples with no leadership inherent in the Church- but He didn’t- evidence from Scripture, history and logic all persuaded me in my Truth Quest. I don’t want to just apply for jobs blind to the leadership in a given Diocese. Leadership matters, that’s why leaders get targeted all the time, and why assassinations are so unfortunately common throughout human history. I want a meaningful mission within the Church and short of that I will do whatever I can do to provide for my wife and four young children- this is my story and why I need our Reader’s Input. Brother (Sister) can you spare a moment and share what you know? God Bless you.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Need Reader Input: Who Are The Top 10 Dynamically Orthodox Catholic Bishops?

  • Perhaps we should remember the wise words of Abbé Henri Brémond, whose life (1865-1933) spanned the Jules Ferry laws of 1882 and 1886 laicising public education, the law of 1901 suppressing many religious orders and the law of 1905 on the separation of Church and State, which vested all church buildings and other property in the nation.

    “No law can affect those who believe, those who pray; prayer is silent, prayer offends no one, prayer attacks no one.” – [La prière est silencieuse, la prière n’offense personne, la prière n’agresse personne]

    His response to the Anti-Clericalism of his time were his essays, “Prière et Poésie”[ Prayer and Poetry] and “Introduction a la Philosophie de la Prière”[Introduction to the Philosophy of Prayer] His monumental work “Histoire litteraire du sentiment religieux en France depuis la fin des guerres de religion jusqu’a nos jours” [A Literary History of Religious Sentiment in France from the end of the Wars of Rekigion to our own day] published between 1913 and 1936 in 11 volumes, was based on his unrivalled knowledge of mystical writings and devotional works. His writings on poetry, symbolism and romanticism earned him election to the Académie française in 1923 and a eulogy from the French Symbolist poet, Paul Valéry.

    His influence was incalculable.

  • The current head of the USCCB, Timothy Cardinal Dolan, Archbishop of NY and his I-95 brother (my Archbishop) in Philadelphia, Archbishop Charles J Chaput. (Lori of Baltimore and Aquila of Denver deserve mention as well in my VERY short list.)

  • My only input is cautionary; the plan of action is a good idea, BUT I’d give it about a week before it’s taken over by the same folks who use “social justice” to promote abortion, theft, etc. At the absolute least, it would claim binding teachings where they don’t exist. (I recall one discussion I was having with another Catholic, who pulled the death penalty vs abortion thing– even offering a letter from the man who would become Pope saying there was a valid variety of views didn’t sway him.)

    I do love the idea of equipping people to find out what the Church teaches for themselves, and enthusiastically endorse the answer-religious-questions-kids-as/thirsty-for-theology thing. That would have made my youth a lot more interesting, and might have kept several friends from falling away from the Church. (it would also have meant I could find a babysitter from the Parish– but that’s another rant!)

    If there was a group for something like “Catholic Q&A- Last Wednesday Of The Month Snack and Chat” I’d do it. If I thought I could pull it off, I’d start one myself. (Wed because it’s the middle of the week; schedule it about 6pm. It would have to be sort of small to start with, and a computer with one of those books-on-CD collection EWTN sells would be wise; has soup to nuts of decrees, etc.)

    … Dang it, now I’ve got a post bubbling in my head for designing theology groups. Thank you.

  • Bishop Ronald Gainer of Lexington KY: not as high profile as Dolan etc, but methodically rebuilding an orthodox and dynamic diocese. Yesterday ordained 23 deacons: 3 transtional and 20 permanent.

  • Bruskewitz, Finn, Olmstead, Morlino, Aquila, Sample, Cordlione, Nienstadt, Slattery, Chaput

  • My only input is cautionary; the plan of action is a good idea, BUT I’d give it about a week before it’s taken over by the same folks who use “social justice” to promote abortion, theft, etc. At the absolute least, it would claim binding teachings where they don’t exist.

    I would go a step further Foxfier – or backward actually. I think the other side has already been doing this for many decades. The chanceries and USCCB were chock full dissenting activists with a socialist agenda who were either supported or tolerated by their bishop. I would venture to guess that even with ascension of a large number of orthodox bishops, there are still a large number of these folks in important and influential positions. Even when an orthodox bishop takes over a troubled see, he doesn’t do a housecleaning so to speak. He pushes his agenda of reform with the people he has and tries to lead the chancery operatives to fulfill his mission. The bishops have to lead, but that doesn’t mean all will follow – and many of those people still have power and influence enough to do damage.

  • Sounds good, Tim. I would echo both MichaelP71’s and Jim’s lists, adding only three more solid bishops with whom I’ve had contact: 1) Bishop Robert Vasa of Santa Rosa, CA (and formerly of Baker, Oregon); 2) Bishop Kevin Vann of Ft. Worth, TX; and 3) Arch-bishop Wilton Gregory of Atlanta. There are undoubtedly many other good, solid bishops and auxiliaries around in the US, but they simply don’t have as high of a public profile as do these aforementioned bishops.

  • Oops! One glaring omission did just come to mind (how could we forget?) Cardinal George of Chicago, of course!

  • First of all I think Masculinity has been beat down passive aggressively both in the American Church as well as society, so if we are not willing to reject bad laws and smash the Serpents head to mush than we are bound to lose with the communist attitudes of Obama and other democratic leaders.

  • The dioceses of Wilmington Delaware seam to be getting somewhat more Orthodox but still need improving and the general public of Delaware seems very secular and the cops tend to act like gangsters in their attitudes.

  • By lose I meant lose temporarily.

  • Possibly the most important philosophical law is that because God is all knowing, all powerful, and all good we should take what he tells us seriously rather than throwing his words around like protestants who use his words to justify whatever they fancy.

  • If worst comes to worst there is just war but it would be much better if it did not have to come down to that.

  • One. I’m curious, why did it have to come to your being a Democrat “insider” before you realized your choice of political party clashed with your Catholic religion? I knew it for me when the Democrat Party officially supported and acted to make abortion-on-demand the law-of-the-land.

    Two. When are people like you going to start showing some “love” your talking about to those of us who have been battling people you have been electing to keep abortion-on-demand the law-of-the-land? And, now, thanks to Catholics like you, we have to fight to keep marriage the institution it has always been since God enacted it at the beginning of man-kind. And thanks to the 54% of Catholics like you, the U.S. bishops (equally responsible for what has continued for almost 4 decades) have to sue the President and his Administration they helped put in office just to keep our First Amendment Rights. How about showing some love to Catholics like me for realizing straight on that any organization that supports and defends the murder of innocent human beings, especially infants in the protection of their mother’s womb, could never be serious about “caring for others,” especially the “little guy?”

    Three. How about finding out why almost all the U.S. bishops adopted Cardinal Bernardin’s proposal to change the definition of “prolife,” a word coined by prolifers to counter the pro-aborts calling themselves “pro-choice?” And then, contacting those bishops still alive who voted against that change, to get their recommendations on who should be on that list of bishops you want to put together. While doing that, you ought to read the 1989 favorable biography called “Cardinal Bernardin – Easing conflicts -and battling for the soul of American Catholicism” by the cardinal’s long time friend (30 years) Eugene Kennedy. You’ll learn that that name change was a lot more political than it was spiritual. This is a quote of Bernardin’s motivation for expanding the definition to include prudential judgment issues so-call “social justice.” Page 243,244: “Not only would this move gain greater support from Catholics and others but it would keep the prolife movement from falling completely under the control of the right wing conservatives who were becoming it dominant sponsors.” How about that?! I don’t know where in the Catechism of the Catholic Church the “good” cardinal found that some how being a “right wing conservative” was evil. Maybe you know where that is?

    Anyway – how about showing some “love” for the millions of us who have removed ourselves from the sin of being in the Democrat Party, the main organization responsible for denying the right to life of God’s greatest creation – a human right by the way; and maybe perhaps an apology as well for making people like us have to fight people like you for so long?

  • Stilbelieve:

    Hold on, friend. There’s a parable about that. “Take what is yours, and go your way: I will also give to this last even as to you.” (Mt 20:14)

  • Stilbelieve:

    I’m with you!

    Nd, those people need to stop employing presumed moral superiority to advance evil and to start supporting Church teachings.

  • My own Bishop Leonard P. Blair of Toledo should be on that list. He is the bishop who conducted the recent investigation of the women religious. He is an outstanding and holy and orthodox bishop, and I am shocked, frankly, that he hasn’t been picked in the last few years to lead a higher-profile diocese. The fact that he was chosen to lead the investigation of the women religious indicates that he is at least on someone’s radar in the Vatican.

    Were it not for the fact that Bishop Blair was the Bishop of Toledo, I doubt I would have moved my family to this part of Ohio almost 7 years ago.

  • @Escolonn

    “Hold on, friend. There’s a parable about that. ‘Take what is yours, and go your way: I will also give to this last even as to you.’ (Mt 20:14)” The text in bible has the last sentence of 20:14 reading: “What if I wish to give this last one the same as you?”

    First of all, I’m not looking for “reward.” I’m looking for evidence that this author has obtained wisdom from his experience to be of help to any bishop. The question was raised in my mind soon into reading his article. He says this in the 4th sentence:
    “I do not speak as an Obama-basher with Republican talking point tie-ins- I was a lifelong Democrat who only recently gave it up to become an Independent, not Republican.”

    Talking in a dismissive way about the only major organization that has been trying to save the babies, protect our country militarily and economically, fight for our right to pick our own doctors and make our own decisions on our medical care, defend marriage as God created it, and now have to save our First Amendment Rights to freedom of religion isn’t being a “Obama-baser” using “Republican talking point tie-ins.” It’s being an American who has “eyes to see and ears to here.”

    Second, you would think that someone who contributed with their decision-making and votes all this time to prolonging the evil of abortion-on-demand remaining the law-of-the-land, and to these newer attacks on our safety and freedoms, would be a little more contrite and humble towards those who were wise enough to see the sin of remaining in the Democrat Party much sooner in their lives then he did.

    Third, I think the verse you chose is a parable better suited for the rights of ownership to do with one’s property as one chooses and pay the wages as agreed. Verse 15 completes that thought saying: “[Or] am I not free to do as I wish with my own money?”

  • Jay, it just so happens that my own bishop, Thomas John Paprocki of Springfield, Ill. is assisting with that investigation as well. He too is known for his orthodoxy and has been on the Vatican-watchers’ radar for some time, so he probably won’t be here forever!

  • Stillbelieve- I can defend my previous Democratic party membership on the grounds that I was quite active as a pro-life candidate and leader in Dems for Life- the fact is that until the 80’s the Dems were more pro-life than the Repubs- I was a Democrat long before I was Catholic- being drawn into politics at the age of 13 by the first Jimmy Carter campaign- and then basically became a believing secular liberal in my 20’s. My introduction and conversion to Catholicism came as I neared 30- in becoming Catholic I gave up previous beliefs on abortion et al- but there has always been two thoughts in my mind- first- the Republican establishment has always been like shifting sand on the issue of abortion since Reagan – lukewarm belief is never attractive as Jesus indicated in Revelation- and second- there has long been the hope that Catholic pro-life Democrats could lead the charge within the Democratic party to restore traditional moral beliefs on social issues- I took up that challenge since I figured I was well-placed as a lifelong Dem who became a Catholic convert- but identified more or less along the FDR-Democratic coalition lines- recall that American Catholics as a community tended the Democratic party way before social issues and the sexual revolution began destroying the Dems from within. Reagan was an FDR Democrat but said that the party moved away from him not the other way around.

    So- in any case- I never publicly supported any pro-choice candidates- and typically voted for third party/populist no-bodies to get around my conscience- and our hierarchy instructed us that we could not vote for a candidate because of his/her pro-choice position on abortion- but it was left open to conscience if there were other compelling reasons to vote for someone who was unfortunately pro-choice- since we are not to be single-issue voters. So- if one supposed that voting for a Republican candidate would bring on potentially nation-ending war or economic ruin and thus render the legal abortion question (in effect) moot in such an environment since no movement focused on a social issue would gain any traction during crisis times- well that would be a paradigm of thought whereupon someone with a Catholic conscience may have voted for a Democrat in some paticular national office like president.

    My own experience with being exposed to the really influential Catholic Democrats was one where I tried my best to evangelize for the orthodox teachings of the Church- to follow the Magisterium and the Bishops on all fronts and not to continue in a heterodox direction- but alas I was confronted by the truly powerful forces that drive those who have actual weight in Democratic party power politics these days- and I was asked to depart from my place of opinion sharing- and at that stage I openly left the Party and my role as a leader for florida Dems for Life- and became a NPA- non-party-affiliation- as Archbishop Chaput did according to what I read in his great book- Render Unto Caesar. So- stillbelieve- I don’t know what to apologize to you about- I think my personal history explains why I chose the paths I took- if the Church had clearly indicated that working from within the Democratic party to try to reform the party on social issues was an immoral choice- then I would have abandoned the effort years ago- I have given up on that front- but I have many good Catholic and Christian friends who are still battling from within and taking the abuse from the dominant sexual revolutionaries – I’m not of a mind to join you in heaping more abuse their way- but if this is how you interpret WWJD in your time on stage blogging then it is something that Jesus Christ will have to determine at the time of our personal judgments- and I look forward to my time with Him so that I can see where I missed His cues and promptings, or just was blind- so that I can apologize to anyone or any group of persons that I did wrong by. I am trying to “live clean” and I have been trying to follow the orthodox directives from Christ’s Church- my wish now is that the American Bishops will now make perfectly clear to all of us that taking public positions opposed to granting the right to life for the unborn, and protecting traditional marriage definitions, and respecting religious liberties- all make any candidate unfit for any Catholic to vote for or support in any capacity- and political leaders who call themselves Catholics who vote for any of the Big Three will have to forego reception of Holy Communion due to the scandal they are producing among law-abiding American citizens. That, I think, would clear up any confusion about the morality of our political choices- given the unusual extremity of our times. I still hope to be of service to our Church and to serve a strong Bishop and take guidance from him- but if you are correct and the Holy Spirit agrees then I will accept another role in my life’s work- at the end of the day I just want to be one of those ‘unprofitable servants’ in the eyes of the Lord- if digging ditches is my true talent then so be it- I will carry a shovel for Christ- that’s my heart-that is something I can know even if many who know little about me doubt it- those in my home know me and from them I draw the human consolation that helps keep one’s spirit from being taken away by the naysayers always to be found.

  • It is important to realise that, for professional politicians, party labels are largely a sham.

    In any democracy, they inevitably group themselves into two parties (or coalitions), the friends of corruption and the sowers of sedition; those who seek to profit from existing abuses and those who seek to profit from the disaffection those abuses naturally produce.

    The policies either faction espouses, primarily to attract funding, but also as a sop to the rabble, is a matter of chance and circumstance.

  • I don’t have much experience with bishops, but I would suggest two: Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs, CO and Archbishop Charles Chaput, currently Archbishop of Philadelphia (formerly of Denver, CO). Both have been a strong voice for authentic Catholic teaching and activism.

Surprise! Barack Obama Now Supports Gay Marriage

Wednesday, May 9, AD 2012

Actually I am rather surprised, not by the fact that he supports gay marriage, his alleged opposition was the most transparent lie in contemporary politics, but by the fact that he announced his switch in positions now.  As the thumping that gay marriage took in North Carolina yesterday indicates, gay marriage is not popular in swing states crucial in November.  Additionally, his support ensures that there will be a plank in the Democrat platform calling for gay marriage throughout the  nation and that this will become a major issue in the fall.  I assume that Obama and his advisors think that this will excite his base, but this makes zero political sense to me.  Homosexual activists are most powerful in deep blue states that Obama has in the bag.  They are relatively weak on the ground in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania where this election is going to be decided. 

Continue reading...

36 Responses to Surprise! Barack Obama Now Supports Gay Marriage

  • Obama made this announcement as a reaction to how the Tar Heel State voted yesterday – he’s sulking. God knows what he’ll do if he wins in November – require priests to marry men with men, women with women?

  • Dear Mr. President,

    Would you object to your daughters marrying each other, assuming their legal age of course and remain in a committed, monogamous relationship? If so, why?

    [He’s building a foundation of principles in sand.]

  • Obama is discussing gay marriage because it distracts attention from the horrid economy.

  • He’s desperate for $$$ Bill Maher is his biggest single donor at one mil. So now he has to rely on the queers/Hollywood for campaign dough. It’s a risk but he’s lost the white vote, the conservative vote, the independents, probably a lot of blacks even. His base is shrinking and it’s a calculated move to get the youth vote.

  • Given that he had instructed the DOJ to not represent the gov’t on DOMA, this comes as no surprise to me. I have a feeling this will backfire on him come November. People are mostly concerned about the economy and the future of our nation.

  • Pingback: BREAKING: OBAMA SUPPORTS SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE” | The Pulpit
  • My hunch is that people are going to be shocked by the cynicism of this.

    As for the reasoning behind this announcement, I think it’s going to be a way of reminding everyone that Mitt is a Mormon without actually using the word “Mormon” (although, you know what kind of people oppose gay marriage? Mormons!). It’s also going to be a way to remind people that Obama’s black without making reference to his skin color. Because, you see, he can understand discrimination better than Mitt can, so he knows what gays go through. Mitt doesn’t, because Mitt’s white. In fact, you know what group used to discriminate against blacks? Mormons! That’s not to say that Mitt discriminates against blacks or gays, but he is a Mormon, and Obama’s black.

    The really cynical thing, even more cynical than all of that, is that Obama’s counting on black preachers not to criticize him. He’s going to paint gay marriage as a civil rights issue, and claim to be on the cutting edge of civil rights, because, you know, he’s black and all, and Mitt’s a Mormon, and by doing so he’s going to be spitting in the face of every black minister who thinks differently. I think that he and his advisors have badly miscalculated how much this is going to offend Christians.

  • Oh, I forgot to note that he gave this interview to Robin Roberts from Good Morning America, which wouldn’t make any sense unless he felt like he needed it to be with a black. She’s a host of Good Morning America, not a major anchor or even a White House correspondant.

  • Well he did say that he did not look anything like the the dead white males on the US notes.

  • Follow the money. Joe is probably right; this is a calculated move to excite the base and generate funds that can be laundered into silly “war on women” ads in the swing states.

  • My contention is, as it has been all along, is that Obama is more of an ideologue than he is a politician. Everything he does has to be viewed through that lens. Remember when he said he’d rather be an effective (effective meaning of course implementing leftist idelogy as policy) one term president? That was one of the few moments I think he was being sincere.

  • Breitbart proves the announcement today was just Obama coming out of the closet on homosexuality.
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/09/obama-was-for-same-sex-marriage-before-he-was-against-it

  • This is no surprise to me, since he was for gay-marriage for a long time but had to change positions and his words to be elected. Now he says he’s “evolved”…..yeah, right. This is what he said in a letter to a gay newspaper in Chicago in 2004:

    “For the record, I opposed DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act] in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying. This is an effort to demonize people for political advantage, and should be resisted … .”

    http://republicansforfamilyvalues.com/2008/10/18/obama-calls-defense-of-marriage-act-doma-abhorrent-in-letter-to-chicago-gay-newspaper/

    God help us all if he is re-elected. How many other abhorrent issues has he “evolved” into to force down our throats?

  • Why should we be surprised that someone who supports same-sex sexual unions and thus same-sex sexual acts, also supports same-sex “marriage”? The question we should ask President Obama is:

    President Obama, how do same-sex sexual acts respect the inherent Dignity of the human person?

  • Gay-marriage redefines the human being as having no soul, no rational, immortal soul. No soul, no unalienable rights, endowed by “their Creator”, no free will, no freedom. Obama is preparing the soil to plant absolute tyranny, like that of the United Nations, wherein one gets inalienable rights from the state. Obama has no business redefining the human person. As president Obama has no “personally”, Obama only has constituently.

  • Mary, how does gay marriage redefine the human being as soulless? It redefines marriage, sure, but how does it deny personhood? I’m not looking for a fight or anything; I’m genuinely curious.

  • K: It is sad.

    I think it would be that the soul is devoid of sanctifying grace because the person committed, and may be committed to promulgating, mortal sin; and has not repented, confessed, done penance, etc.

    I don’t know about personhood. Corporations have legal personhood, unlimited existence, and limited liability. I’m an accountant.

    Such poor people are slaves. It is sad. Their vices form their fetters.

  • Hi Kristin and Mary– I don;t know for sure Kristin, but I took Mary’s words to mean that person redefined with no dignity as image of God and no conscience, are more like animals– ( yes yes aquinas– but not human souls )

  • It is obvious that President Obama has never grasped the meaning of civil marriage.

    The civil codes of most countries contain no formal definition of marriage, but a functional definition can be found in the provision, common to all of them, that the child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father. Everything else that distinguishes marriage from unregulated cohabitation, civil unions or domestic partnerships flows from that.

    No one, surely, will deny that the state has a clear interest in the filiation of children being clear, certain and incontestable. It is central to its concern for the upbringing and welfare of the child, for protecting rights and enforcing obligations between family members and to the orderly succession to property. To date, no better, simpler, less intrusive means than marriage have been found for ensuring, as far as possible, that the legal, biological and social realities of paternity coincide. And that is no small thing.

    It is also quite irrelevant to same-sex couples, whom nature has not made potentially fertile.

  • In the space of the few seconds that it took Obama to get those words out of his mouth, he managed to do what Romney hasn’t been able to do in over 5 years of running for President – convince social conservatives to vote for Romney. Obama giftwrapped the social conservative vote, put a pretty little bow on it, and handed it to Romney without Romney having to lift a finger to win over, or move rightward to shore up, the support of social conservatives.

    Not ALL of us, mind you (I still won’t vote for him under any circumstances). But enough social conservatives to make a difference, especially in swing states like Ohio and Missouri, and red states that Obama won like North Carolina and Virginia.

    In my own household, Romney picked up a vote that he would otherwise not have received after Obama’s announcement. Just 2 weeks after telling a Romney campaign caller that she would not be supporting Romney, my wife announced yesterday that she was going to vote for him.

    As for me, even if I were inclined to change my mind about voting for Romney (which I am most assuredly NOT so inclined), I STILL wouldn’t vote for him because I have already publicly pledged my support for Constitution Party nominee Virgil Goode, and have personally pledged my support to Virgil himself (a friend of over a decade).

    But I think it’s safe to say that, after Tuesday, a whole lot of social conservatives who were on the fence about Romney, and even some who had made up their mind to go 3rd party, are now firmly entrenched in his camp.

  • I guess it was Wednesday, not Tuesday, when Obama made his announcement. But it was Tuesday when the news leaked that the announcement was forthcoming.

  • It was a blunder of historic proportions Jay, and I think it shows the dangers of a man being surrounded by sycophantic underlings and only reading a sycophantic media. Obama simply could not conceal any longer the contempt he truly feels for us “bitter clingers”.

    The Rasmussen tracking poll today shows Romney 50- Obama 43.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

    This is the first time Romney has reached 50. That is setting off alarm bells among wiser Democrat strategists.

  • “…I think it shows the dangers of a man being surrounded by sycophantic underlings…”

    What Donald writes is 100% correct. Now yes, I realize that what is posted at the following web link provided below is not germane to the topic of this blog post, but it IS germane to what Donald pointed out. Just read this – how Obama keeps a lying bully of a man in charge of the agency that regulates the safe use of the fires of creation. This typifies everything about the Obama Administration. And again, while it’s not technically relevant, it sure as heck exemplies the contempt Obama and his henchmen have for any right dealings with those who disagree with him.

    http://commentarius-ioannis.blogspot.com/2012/05/corruption-of-nrc-chairman-gregory.html

  • Just like the HHS mandate attempting to force the Catholic Church to pay for contraceptives, it’s only a matter of time when there will be the futile attempt to force the Catholic Church to performing homo-weddings.

  • Kristin: Marriage is a covenant between two souls. Informed consent necessary to marriage is free will in action, without which there is no marriage. Free will is the image of God in our souls. For there to be gay-marriage, Obama must deny the action of the human being’s free will; informed consent of the human being’s soul. Otherwise, it is lust, the vice of lust and licentiousness. Otherwise, it is as Anzlyne says practicing the instinct of animals, for animals have animal souls. Animals’ souls die with the animal as they have no conscience, reason or discernment. Therefore, animals are innocent in that they do not reason. The human being is composed of body and soul. When two become one at conception, God creates an immortal soul. When the human soul consents to do virtue, the human body rejoices. The body and soul are in communion and life occurs. When the human soul consents to do vice, the human body suffers as sin is its own punishment. The body and soul are in divorce and death occurs, as the soul leaving the body is called death. Death is the wages of sin.

    Obama is denying the rational soul of the human being who reasons, wills and gives informed consent. Obama denying the rational soul of the person is the first step in Obama wanting to take the life of the person. How curious, that Obama’s Information czar, Cass Sunstein has written 35 books on making animals into legal persons, while Obama is detracting personhood from human beings. “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.” Thomas Jefferson. …and you have an immortal soul. When Obama speaks, he speaks for the constituency entrusted to him as president. Saying it is “Personally” does not make him innocent of betraying his constituency.
    T. Shaw:
    As an accountant, you know that corporations have legal personhood from the time that they are incorporated by their trustees as corporations. The legal corporate person is incorporated as a legal corporate person. At no time is there a legal corporate person that is not a legal corporate person. The legal corporate persons are framed according to the sovereign personhood of the human being to function under the law. Human existence is the criterion for the objective ordering of human rights. (Suarez from Aquinas) The Person is a person always. The person is immutable. The human being, composed of body and soul from conception, is who he is, and at no time is he anything but who he is: a sovereign person. The human body will grow to be whoever the human soul is. No soul, no life, and no need for abortion.
    Thanks Anzlyne: You said it very well. I should use words like posited it and succinctly but you said it very well.

  • “it’s only a matter of time when there will be the futile attempt to force the Catholic Church to performing homo-weddings.”

    What I foresee, more precisely, is a situation in which the state will require anyone with CIVIL authority to officiate at weddings or sign off on marriage licenses to not “discriminate” against same-sex couples, thereby making Catholic weddings (and those of other denominations that do not recognize gay marriage) no longer valid for legal purposes. This has been the case for centuries in some other countries, and Catholic couples deal with it by simply having two weddings — one civil, one religious.

    I would almost prefer that the Church voluntarily step aside from involvement in the civil aspects of marriage at this point, instead of waiting for it to be taken away from them. That way, a clear line in the sand is drawn between civil marriage and the Sacrament of Matrimony, and they are understood to be separate institutions.

  • Elaine Krewer

    You are right about mandatory civil marriage, which exists in most of Europe, even in those with concordats with the Holy See.

    In France, for example, it is an offence for a minister of religion habitually to perform wedding ceremonies for couples not legally married to each other. It constitutes an attack on the civil status of persons (Code Pénal Art 433-21] “Habitually” was added so as not to penalise priests who performed “marriages of conscience.”

    When the bishops asked Napoléon to restore the Church’s right to perform marriages, he remarked that amidst the manifold ritual provisions made by the Divine Lawgiver of the Jews for the various offices and transactions of life, there is no ceremony prescribed for the celebration of marriage. As Mary de Voe reminds us, marriage is constituted by consent.

  • Elaine / Michael right at as rain about marriage and the State in other countries.. that can and maybe will happen here.. and that is the part that saddens me..
    I know that the Sacrament and Marriage and the Church will not die of this– they will not cease to exist. and as a Church we can go on living within our society — but a separate life within the organism of the State– maybe a bit like the Jews during the time of Caesar Augustus. In America today our government becomes increasingly foreign to us.

    The Church will continue. the family will continue, the Sacrament of Marriage will continue… but it is sad because we are called to leaven society– and we have. (ask Dinesh D’ Souza)– and to kind of abdicate that calling is going in the wrong direction– maybe prudent for now, but sad.
    America has been a wonderful Catholic experiment and I don’t want us to give up now.

  • Yes T. Shaw, the rational, immortal soul of the human being without sanctifying grace is deadened by mortal sin, but man’s soul is not annihilated. The soul must be judged by the Lord of Heaven and earth and go to eternal bliss in heaven or eternal hell. This is the constitutional freedom, the right to choose, an exercise of free will and the mark of a free person, as opposed to the animal soul, that is not a person, not immortal, not rational. .
    By endorsing gay-marriage for homosexual practitioners, Obama, as chief executive has reinforced their choice of lust and vice, their error and their ignorance. By endorsing gay-marriage for homosexual practitioners, Obama, as chief executive has enabled their decent into eternal misery. Obama has refused to acknowledge and enable their right to the TRUTH, to spiritual maturity which may result in physical sexual maturity. The American Psychiatric Assoc. had at one time diagnosed homosexuality as arrested development. It was no small thing for the psychiatrist to declare that the patient under his care had matured and was now a mature individual. Homosexual predators are criminals. We are talking about individuals who believe that abusing, through the vice of lust, their bodies is a civil right.
    As President of the United States, all citizens are constituents of Obama, and Obama must speak for all. This is important because not all of Obama’s constituents are emancipated, spiritually mature and physically able to withstand the indoctrination of gay-marriage as a legally protected institution. As captive constituents of Obama’s presidency, minor children and those who have not achieved adulthood and reached the age of informed sexual consent necessary to function as a sovereign person in freedom as citizens, are being denied the “blessings of Liberty” and their “pursuit of Happiness”. Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage denies the infant children and minors, the freedom, the right to choose. Gay marriage is a rather uncivil right, a corruption of the covenant of marriage. Legalizing the indoctrination into homosexual behavior for infant and minor children, the captive audience of Obama’s constituents is treason. Obama commits treason against our constitutional posterity, and the Preamble, the stated purpose of our U.S. Constitution, which Obama has sworn to uphold. In endorsing gay-marriage for captive, un-emancipated virgins and innocent infants, physically and spiritually immature captive constituents, emancipated constituents, who practice virtue, and the captive immortal souls of all American citizens, Obama is committing treason and perjury. If I were to tell an infant child that homosexual behavior is gay-marriage, I would be lying. If I worked for the government, I would be committing perjury. If I were president of the United States, I would be committing treason. It is criminal for Obama to abuse infant and minor children by imposing the vice of lust through homosexual behavior as an alternate lifestyle for our immortal souls.
    Infants, before the age of reason at seven years have no shield against being led into a deluge of corruption. Un-emancipated children before the age of eighteen years, have no legally required informed sexual consent to give to be indoctrinated into the vice of gay-marriage.
    There is no joy, in homosexual behavior, of having procreated an immortal soul, another sovereign person, another human being for eternal happiness, and another individual substance of a rational nature made in the image of God who will pursue his destiny. Therefore, homosexual behavior repudiates the sovereign person, denying him first and foremost LIFE, the LIBERTY to exercise his First Amendment rights TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION, SPEECH, PRESS, and PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY. The homosexual practitioner repudiates our Creator’s dominion over another person to live, to love, and to the pursuit of Happiness.
    Michael Patterson-Seymour: Oh, yes, there is: God brought the woman to Adam and Adam said” This is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone. This is the Sacrament of Matrimony. Adam gives consent to Eve as his helpmate in procreating God’s work in the human race, and this was before Satan twisted man’s life into sin. Adam knew perfectly well what he was doing and saying, informed sexual consent. Those who reject the Sacred Scripture cannot reject the fact that they have come into being through the work of one man and one woman. God be praised. One Hail Mary in Latin.

  • Elaine Krewer: “I would almost prefer that the Church voluntarily step aside from involvement in the civil aspects of marriage at this point, instead of waiting for it to be taken away from them. That way, a clear line in the sand is drawn between civil marriage and the Sacrament of Matrimony, and they are understood to be separate institutions.” Again, as Michael Paterson-Seymour reminds us, the Sacrament of Matrimony is through the informed sexual consent of two participating adults who enter into the office of husband and wife. The office of husband and of wife are vocations, giving St. Paul the authority to say: Husbands love your wives, wives be obedient to your husbands. These are vocations to be spiritually directed by Holy Mother Church. Honestly, I believe that homosexual relationships are entered into by people who have not achieved informed sexual consent as evidenced by the lack of repsect they have for one another as human beings. It is respect that these unfulfilled individuals seek. So, unless the state creates the human person, body and soul, marriage is a covenant between the soul of one man and the soul of one woman and God. What God has joined together, let no man put asunder (flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone). Render unto God the state wihich belongs to God.

  • “mandatory civil marriage, which exists in most of Europe”

    I don’t think that would fly in the United States given that non-marriage “domestic partnerships” and cohabitation have become entrenched in our society.

    What I foresee and could tolerate (though it would certainly not be the ideal) would be a situation in which the State only concerns itself with civil marriage and doesn’t impose ANY regulation whatsoever on religious marriage (as France does by making it illegal to perform a religious wedding for a couple not civilly married). If you enter a civil marriage or civil union, the State treats you as married; if you don’t, the State treats you as merely cohabiting, regardless of what kind or how many other weddings you may have had.

    The Catholic Church, meanwhile, could require couples to be civilly married before they can marry in the church — just as, at the other end of the process, you now have to be civilly divorced before you can petition a tribunal for an annulment. It would not be much different from the situation that now exists when a couple who has married outside the Church has their marriage “blessed” or validated — the ceremony is purely religious and no marriage license or registration with the State is involved.

  • Elaine Krewer: The homosexual agenda is bent on removing the sanctions against homosexual behavior by codifying both civil and then religious marriage to acccept, acknowledge and recognize their practice of homosexual behavior as legitmate marriage. Civil unions for homosexual practitioners will produce happy homosexuals but only because they exercise their free will to do unnatural acts. For the homosexual practitioner it is about exercising their free will to choose to demonstrate to themselves and to others, us, their God given talent to choose. It is the same for the abortionist, the murderer and the saint. But gay-marriage will produce a pair of husbands, a husband and a husband; a pair of wives, a wife, and a wife; no children, no mothers, no fathers, only two husbands as partners and two wives as partners. Far be it from me to indicate that this arrangement is feckless and ridiculous, both at the same time.

  • Elaine Krewer wrote

    “I don’t think that would fly in the United States given that non-marriage “domestic partnerships” and cohabitation have become entrenched in our society. “

    Well, France has civil unions (PACS – pacte civil de solidarité) Because they were introduced as an alternative to unregulated cohabitation, rather than to marriage, they can be used by same-sex and opposite-sex couples and about 90% are between opposite-sex couples.

    Similarly, Belgium and the Netherlands, both of which permit same-sex civil marriage (which France does not) retain a system of civil unions that remain popular with both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

    The prohibition on religious weddings for unmarried couples is logical enough if, like the French, you regard marriage as primarily concerned with the civil status of children. It would be like allowing religious adoptions or religious wills. That is why the greatest modern authority on the Code Civil, le doyen Carbonnier (1908–2003) could write, « le cœur du mariage, ce n’est pas le couple, c’est la présomption de paternité » [The heart of marriage is not the couple, but the presumption of paternity] That is why so many jurists, many of them staunch, anti-clerical atheists, reject same-sex marriage. For them, the argument is the same in both cases.

  • The homosexual agenda has rejected civil unions offered to them by the several states. The civil unions of Belgium and the Netherlands without France, whether same sex or man and woman may be compared to common law marraige here in the U.S. The states recognize any domestic relationship after seven years duration, with all of the civil rights of a certified, legal marriage, and including every impediment. Homosexuals of a thirty year relationship point to their relationship as a reason to pursue civil marriage as a civil right, but they refuse domestic civil unions, making their demands questionable. Actually making their demands uncivil. The children being brought into the world are the concern of the state. It is the duty of the state to protect their life, their innocence and their virginity.

  • “The prohibition on religious weddings for unmarried couples is logical enough if, like the French, you regard marriage as primarily concerned with the civil status of children. It would be like allowing religious adoptions or religious wills.” The state does not make prohibitions on any religious actions for or against people. It is the separation of church and state and the freedom of the conscience clause and the free will of the people. The state does not “allow” religious adoptions or religious wills. The state has no sovereign authority over the church.

Bad Night for Barack

Wednesday, May 9, AD 2012

In a Presidential election year, primaries become much less newsworthy after the presidential nominees for each party are decided.  However, last night’s elections were of interest, and the results are bad news for President Obama:

1.  President Obama won the West Virginia primary with approximately 60% of the vote.  His opponent, who got approximately 40% of the vote, was Keith Judd, or as he is also known, Inmate No. 11593-051.  Judd is serving a 14 year term for extortion in a Federal prison in Texas.   Democrat Senator, and former West Virginia Governor, Joe Manchin refuses to say if he voted for Obama in the primary.

2.  There is a strong push in the Democrat party to have the President come out in favor of gay marriage.  Biden recently came out in favor of it, citing the old sitcom Will and Grace, which I am sure played a huge role in his decision to support changing an institution as old as Man.  There is a move afoot in the Democrat party to have a plank put in their party platform calling for gay marriage.  The party convention will be held in North Carolina.  Last night the voters of the Tarheel State approved a constitutional amendment, 60-40, banning gay marriage and the fake gay marriages called civil unions.  The Democrat party in North Carolina is in chaos as a result of the party chairman of the state party being accused of gay sexual harassment.  It is rare for a party to wish to raise a social issue that will harm them in the general election, especially in the key swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, but that is apparently what the Democrats are in the process of doing.  Pass the popcorn!

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Bad Night for Barack

  • 60-40 was nice but hardly overwhelming. The rainbow brigade will be out in full force outside both conventions. It will get ugly

  • In elections Joe, 60-40 is always overwhelming. Gay thugs demonstrating against the GOP will drive up the Republican vote in the Fall. Gay thugs demonstrating against the Democrats will drive down the Democrat vote in the Fall. Where the homosexual activists are strong, icy blue states, they will produce wasted votes for Obama. Where they are weak, the swing states, they will drive up votes for Romney. The politics of this issue are crystal clear on the national level.

  • I was happy to see a Mourdock win in Indiana. Now, as long as Pres. Obama comes out strongly for Joe Donnelly, and pushes the gay marriage issue hard, Indiana will go Republican.

  • I dunno, Don. 40% is a high number. 4 out of 10 voters in secret favor GM; when polled publicly its 50-50, according to Gallup. How does 1 percent of the population get 40% support? That’s hardly proportional.

  • As a Hoosier, and one who worked on Lugar’s first campaign back in high school, seeing him not slaughter his primary opponent is something that recent memory cannot offer. So, a 60-40 loss – yea, verily, a loss at all – is quite remarkable.

  • Sadly, the distribution of votes in Mecklenburg County was 45.82% for Amendment One and 54.18% against. Thankfully, the rest of the State is smarter! And even more thankfully, Bishops Burbidge and Jugis spoke out publicly in favor of Amendment One. That, I think, was critical – two Bishops lending their names to this very important State Constitutional Amendment. Praise God!

  • Joe-
    it’s a very emotional issue, easy to build sympathetic stories around the support of; I wouldn’t call it “secretly” supporting gay marriage– quite the opposite. I remember what I went through being the token conservative in school. Between the people who go along to get along, the folks who don’t think about what they believe on this or that issue that doesn’t directly touch them and the people who refuse to set themselves up as targets…. Ugh.

    One problem with surveys is that if someone calls me up and says they’re asking about gay marriage, I’m going to hang up. I already know what happens then.

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | The Pulpit
  • If my own experience of working in politics at that level is representative, you cannot very well keep the body of signatures on nominating petitions wholly confidential. You might be able to contrive a system where an aspirant challenger posts a bond to be able to examine the petitions (in lieu of publishing the names). The risk of systematic forgery is too much to allow the petitions to be submitted and propositions approved for the ballot without vetting.

    I am as disgusted as anyone at the mixture of harrassment and defamation heaped on some people who have contributed funds or provided court testimony (Maureen Mullarkey, to name one), but for the most part these perps are not dangerous, merely disgusting, and no one can make you feel inferior without your consent. It is something that can be borne and it is not edifying to have attorneys effectively conceding the public square.

  • How does 1 percent of the population get 40% support? That’s hardly proportional.

    I think 2% of the population is closer to the mark.

    1. Fashion

    2. An extension of the phenomenon you see both in domestic life and political life generally which has an occult origin: a tendency to give bon bons to clamoring constituencies.

    3. A loss of a sense of fixed standards in all realms of the common life (a corollary of which is referred to in point 2).

    4. A conceptualization of marriage which has it as a ratification of desire among expressive agents acting against their surrounding society rather than taking their place within it. Plays like West Side Story and The Fantastiks made the case for this sort of romantic attachment fifty years ago.

  • Art-
    there is a difference between fraud prevention and the argument that signing a petition is public speech which should be published.

  • Art, where do you get the 2% figure? That would be 6 million, which even counting a big chunk in San Francisco, seems excessive.

  • Another sign of the Apocalypse. I never thought I’d see the day when the President of the United States would endorse so-called “gay marriage.” What has America come to?

  • How is it that 60% of WV dem primary voters are so stupid as to prefer the worst POTUS in history to a convicted felon?

  • Art, where do you get the 2% figure? That would be 6 million, which even counting a big chunk in San Francisco, seems excessive.

    IIRC, Edward Laumann’s estimate was 2.8% of the adult population, of which 2/3 were male. The figures propagated by the Kinsey Institute which you used to see quoted a generation ago you do not see much anymore.

    Just shy of 20% of the population is prepubescent and (among the homosexual population) a small percentage of men (and larger percentage of women) are of sufficient age that it hardly matters on a day-to-day basis. So, you would be talking about somewhere north of 4 million men and 2 million women. The male population would be divided into a core of about 2 million and a periphery of about 2 million. Unadulterated lesbianism is rare; the bulk of the female set would be in the periphery (think Susan Sontag or Camille Paglia). So, yes, the core population would likely not exceed about 1% of the total population of the U.S.

  • there is a difference between fraud prevention and the argument that signing a petition is public speech which should be published.

    There is a difference. The implication of either argument is that the list of signatories cannot be confidential (even if you do not publish the names).

  • I’m no lawyer, Art, but I was under the impression there was a lot of daylight between “force the bigots to be publicly known” (which I recall from the radio coverage at the time) and “can be accessed by those investigating to see if there’s fraud.”

  • I think the 40 percent comes from family and friends who love their “gay” children, and want to “support” them. There are lots and lots of families in that situation– trying to decide what to do when he says he wants to marry him….

  • Anzlyne-
    from my facebook, the folks without that reason are the same ones that want more social programs that won’t directly help themselves.

    I can assure you, as a mom, saying “no” is hard. Especially if someone is willing to be emotionally manipulative. (Like a dear family friend’s nephew, who disowned them when they said “dear, we love you, we wish you well– but we believe what you are doing is wrong. We won’t lie about that. It’s wrong.”)

  • They disregard the Gospels and St. Paul’s Epistles which are the Truth about eternal life.

    It’s unlikely that the 40 percent that love their gay children and their gays will be getting into Heaven.

    But, it’s okay!

    They’re happy here. The Hereafter is not a consideration.

    The same goes for anybody voting democrat.

  • I’m no lawyer, Art, but I was under the impression there was a lot of daylight between “force the bigots to be publicly known” (which I recall from the radio coverage at the time) and “can be accessed by those investigating to see if there’s fraud.”

    There is daylight as to the motivation. There is less daylight as to practical implications. (And no, we should not give a rip if the likes of Dan Savage, et al call us ‘bigots’).

  • Not motivation-daylight, but legal restrictions type.
    I know some things are absolutely confidential, while some things are limited access, and some things are on-request, and some are if-you-request-it-you-can-publish-it. Those are just the ones I know from the military– different levels of classified.

Bishops? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Bishops!

Tuesday, March 13, AD 2012

 

In the spirit of the Obama Worship Day at Notre Dame in 2009, Notre Dame Professor of Philosophy Gary Cutting has a recent article in the New York Times, the high worship rag for all liberal apostate Catholics, in which he explains why Catholics should not pay attention to the Bishops and the silly fuss they are making over the HHS Mandate, which, among other things, rips to shreds freedom of religion enshrined in the First Amendment.  I was going to give the article a fisking to remember, but Christopher Johnson, a non-Catholic who has taken up the cudgels so frequently in defense of the Church that I have named him Defender of the Faith, has beaten me to it:

Roman Catholics will be interested to learn that Gary Gutting, a philosophy professor at Notre Dame and someone who claims to be a Catholic, recently discovered that the Reformation is finally over and that the Protestants won:

What interests me as a philosopher — and a Catholic — is that virtually all parties to this often acrimonious debate have assumed that the bishops are right about this, that birth control is contrary to “the teachings of the Catholic Church.” The only issue is how, if at all, the government should “respect” this teaching.

Good question since Gutting thinks that Catholics have pretty much plowed it under and sowed the furrows with nuclear waste.

As critics repeatedly point out, 98 percent of sexually active American Catholic women practice birth control, and 78 percent of Catholics think a “good Catholic” can reject the bishops’ teaching on birth control.  The response from the church, however, has been that, regardless of what the majority of Catholics do and think, the church’s teaching is that birth control is morally wrong.  The church, in the inevitable phrase, “is not a democracy.”   What the church teaches is what the bishops (and, ultimately, the pope, as head of the bishops) say it does.

The bishops aren’t the boss of us!!

But is this true?  The answer requires some thought about the nature and basis of religious authority.  Ultimately the claim is that this authority derives from God.  But since we live in a human world in which God does not directly speak to us, we need to ask, Who decides that God has given, say, the Catholic bishops his authority?

Who died and made the bishops religious leaders?

It makes no sense to say that the bishops themselves can decide this, that we should accept their religious authority because they say God has given it to them.  If this were so, anyone proclaiming himself a religious authority would have to be recognized as one.  From where, then, in our democratic, secular society does such recognition properly come?  It could, in principle, come from some other authority, like the secular government.  But we have long given up the idea (“cujus regio, ejus religio”) that our government can legitimately designate the religious authority in its domain.  But if the government cannot determine religious authority, surely no lesser secular power could.  Theological experts could tell us what the bishops have taught over the centuries, but this does not tell us whether these teachings have divine authority.

Out: cujus regio, ejus religio.  In: vox populi vox dei.

In our democratic society the ultimate arbiter of religious authority is the conscience of the individual believer. It follows that there is no alternative to accepting the members of a religious group as themselves the only legitimate source of the decision to accept their leaders as authorized by God.  They may be wrong, but their judgment is answerable to no one but God.  In this sense, even the Catholic Church is a democracy.

You know that joke I like to make about how in the future, everybody, to paraphrase Andy Warhol, will be an Episcopal bishop for fifteen minutes?  As far as Gutting is concerned, every single Roman Catholic is a bishop right now.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Bishops? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Bishops!

  • Who died and made the bishops religious leaders?

    Oh, it’s on the tip of my tongue…begins with a J …. Jim… John …. Joe… Jesse… Jesus!! That’s it.

  • What I read in here is all true. There is nothing other than the Church that claims the Bishops have the authority of Christ to teach in the name of Christ. However, it is stated in the Bible (which was given to us through Tradition passed to us through the Church), that these men were given the authority by Christ himself. Of course, one would have to have Faith in order to “buy in” to that system. Otherwise, it does all become about power and autonomy and the most popular belief (as we have seen work to the great demise of most protestant faith traditions). Do I believe that the Bishops have the authority to teach and have consistently lead the Church through the past 2000 years by the direction of the Holy Spirit? Yes or No? The evidence certainly would point in favor of the constant teachings of the Church, but it still requires faith and a bit of humility. Unfortunately, those are two qualities this world despises. This professors is logically correct in his argument, saying that however, logic and reason can take you only so far. At some point, you must either ascent to the truth or you must deny it. It’s a shame so many choose to deny it, but that doesn’t make it less true.

  • Remember, the whole point of President Caiaphas’ efforts, and those of his infernal minions, is to cause the Church’s charities, medical facilities and social services to close, so they can take over.

    That makes Professor Gutting (ironic, that) a Fascist pig, since anything which does not stand in defense of the First Amendment’s Freedom of Religion clause then stands against it. Any attempt to weaken the Church or divide its members is an attack by the powers of darkness and oppression.

    Surely, a Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame cannot be stupid enough to not see what he’s doing. Thus, it must logically follow that he has consciously and purposefully enlisted in the ranks of the Godless totalitarians, seeking by intent to ruin the Church and eviscerate America in the process. By this overt action he could, and should, be excommunicated.

    What will it take to start the excommunications en masse? What will it take to have the Bishops stand up and slice these forked-tonged serpents to tiny bits? Why so long?

  • I have recently read somewhere that these “so-called” catholics have excommunicated themselves….a pattern that has come about perhaps since Vatican 2. The article I cite did put forth the idea that the Bishops were very careful not to sound too dogmatic! ha ha…..I, for one, would love to hear a Bishop or Cardinal speak out about our high profile catholics (small c)…Let Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sibelius, and others of their ilk be called on the carpet…I hope I am not sounding judgemental, but it might be the one of the jobs of the hierarchy to excommunicate people. The time has come for those closest to the Lord to take a stand!

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • What are Catholics to think about their bishops when they preach the evil of abortion and glad hand the purveyors of it. I’m talking about their cozy relationship with the democrats. When I witnessed Ted Kennedys funeral and the reception of his casket by the Cardinal of DC I wanted to puke. The excuse for overlooking his evil was the social justice babble. Once again they threw their weight behind the dems with obamacare and are surprised by what came out of that public financing of abortion. These are highly educated men how can they be so foolish to have trusted the radical community organizer in the white house to produce a clean reasonable bill. Do they think now that abortion is the only horror in this bill, have they not figured out that the handicapped the elderly and those babies with handicaps that were lucky enough to make it into the world will have reduced medical care as in the eyes of some of his advisors are of little use to the state. There are some good thoughtful bishops who adhere to church teaching and then there are the others unfortunately the ones usually quoted by the media are the misguided ones.

  • Is the following quote pertinent to both clerics and laity?

    “What is reprehensible is that, while leading good lives themselves and abhorring those of wicked men, some fearing to offend shut their eyes to evil deeds instead of condemning them and pointing out their malice. To be sure, the motive behind their tolerance is that they may suffer no hurt in the possession of those temporal goods which virtuous and blameless men may lawfully enjoy; still, there is more self-seeking here than becomes men who are mere sojourners in this world and who profess hope of a home in heaven.” from St. Augustine, The City of God.

  • Finite minds need infinite wisdom.

  • JANE a. Sebelius was instructed to not present herself for Holy Communion by her bishop and Pelosi was called to the Vatican. Pelosi’s meeting with Pope Benedict XVI remains private. I think Pelosi and Sebelious do so much bellowing about being Catholic because they are not Catholic and have been chained. Pelosi and Sebelius are like chained devils, rattling their chains.

Apologias

Saturday, February 25, AD 2012

 

I believe that President Obama has been a notable failure in most ways as President, but he is a champ in regard to abject, groveling apologies to those who hold us in contempt:

President Barack Obama apologized to Afghans on Thursday for the burning of Qurans at a U.S. military base, trying to assuage rising anti-American sentiment as an Afghan soldier gunned down two American troops during another day of angry protests.

The U.S.-led military coalition says the Muslim holy books were sent by mistake to a garbage burn pit at Bagram Air Field and the case is under investigation. The explanation and multiple apologies from U.S. officials have yet to calm outrage over the incident, which has also heightened tension between international troops and their Afghan partners.

Thousands of protesters, some shouting “Long live Islam!” and “Death to America!” staged demonstrations across Afghanistan for a third day. Protesters climbed the walls of a U.S. base in the east, threw stones inside and adorned an outside wall with the Taliban’s trademark white flag.

At other sites, demonstrators burned tires or American flags. Afghan police and international troops fired guns in the air to disperse the crowds.

Such apologies simply play into the hands of the enemies of the US who use mock outrage as an excuse to go on murderous rampages.  Two US soldiers were murdered by an Afghan government soldier during the current on-going riots and of course no one has apologized for that true outrage.  There is a time for diplomacy and there is a time for blunt speaking.  Time, past time, for some blunt speaking to our enemies and our “friends” in the Islamic world.  In that regard, I believe this is an appropriate apology from Kira Davis to President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan.  (Content advisory:  harsh language and refreshingly undiplomatic sentiments.)

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Apologias

  • Obama needs to apologize to the mothers of the four US service members murdered by Afghan National Army troops since he apologized to the vicious savages.

  • Afghan troops have been routinely murdering our service members. This is not new.

    When I hear Newt talk like this it really makes me want to vote for him. He gets it…. He gets radical Islam, he gets the uselessness of our continued attempts at “nation building” in Afghanistan.

    Our country has sacrificed our sons and daughters and countless dollars in Afghanistan. At the very least we can’t even ensure that vetted Afghan security forces won’t shoot our troops and insist that the Afghan government protect the rights of Muslim converts to Christinaity.

    It’s disgraceful.

  • “There is a time for diplomacy and there is a time for blunt speaking.”

    Oh, Obama agrees with that, Don. He is diplomatic with the Afghans and blunt with his enemies – namely, the Catholic Church.

    A liberal called me an “American Taliban” on another site this past week. My reply should have been “If I were Taliban, Obama would treat me better.”

  • If extremist correspondence was being passed through the Qurans, couldn’t they’ve found a fluent-in-Arabic (and/or Farsi) soldier to fin the messages and white them out or something?

    (Not to mention that the burnings may have been inadvertant. Sounds like the Afghans could use some insensitivity training.)

    While you are right that the Obama administration seems to be turning a blind eye to the abuses and atrocities of the Islamic world, I must say that it disturbs me when people here and elsewhere start using rhetoric to the effect of “let’s allow our forces to slaughter Afghan civilians!” I’m sorry, but it is evil and wrong to throw aside God’s commandments and the Catholic moral tradition based upon them simply because it makes us feel more patriotic. Sin that serves the American national interest is still sin.

    No doubt I will be considered a liberal, an Obama supporter, a public sector union worker and other such things for making these remarks. I am none of these things, but if I have to choose between the Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Ayn Rand, Jack Bauer and the Founders, then the Founders, Bauer and Rand can just say good-bye.

  • “but if I have to choose between the Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Ayn Rand, Jack Bauer and the Founders, then the Founders, Bauer and Rand can just say good-bye.”

    I rather suspect Tommy that the Founders have a wee bit more in common with traditional Christianity than they do with the fictional Jack Bauer and the acted -as-if -she-was- a -fictional-character- in- one -of -her -wretched- novels Ayn Rand. There is a golden mean between “kill ’em all and let God sort ’em out” and acting as if being a Christian means having your forehead perpetually stamped CHUMP. In this century the West is going to have to learn how to deal with Islam, and what we are doing now is manifestly not working.

  • “BTW, you’ll love this: Catholics mobilizing against the HHS directive.”

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/25/video-dem-rep-booed-by-constituents-over-hhs-mandate/

    You anticipate one of my posts Donna!

  • Tommy,

    Good concept: I have chosen the Holy Trinity and Teachings of Holy Mother the Church over Obama and all the evil scoundrels prowling the White House and Congress intent on the damnation of souls.

    I would think your conflation of Ayn Rand and private enterprise are false comparisons to abortion, unmanned aerial drone assassinations, gay marriage, class envy, etc.; i.e., whether Ayn R, the US Constitution or private property are evil are matters of prudential judgment, while abortion and the rest of the garbage I cited are intrinsically evil.

  • I must say that it disturbs me when people here and elsewhere start using rhetoric to the effect of “let’s allow our forces to slaughter Afghan civilians!”

    I have yet to read anyone post “let’s slaughter Afghan civilians”. I have not read or heard that anywhere….

    I think what most of us are saying is “we have wasted enough of our financial resources and have lost too many military men and women on a lost cause”. We don’t know what the answer is, if one exists, but nation building is not it. Heck, our troops can’t even have a cross posted outside a makeshift Chaplin tent…..

    I live near Ft Campbell and almost weekly the local newspaper has articles on the families of lost soldiers. Something the national press all but ignores.

    I am no anti-war pacifist liberal, but enough is enough. Time to come home…..

    I think our country needs to come to a better understanding of Islam as a religion and sharia law before we continue engaging in foolish military engagements throughout the middle east and the larger Islamic world.

  • Further there is no reason to spell their book Quran or even Q’uran instead of the anglisised Koran. Their book mean nothing to Christians. These people are stupid and thoroughly vicious. Common courtesies are wasted on them and only pander to their vanities.

    As to the larger question question of whether Muslims desire the same things as minuteman Americans; the answer for all practical purposes is in the negative. The Americans have squandered lives and treasure,and seen their own rights and liberties curtailed in pursuit of the grand experiment of engaging the Musalman. It is time to cut the losses. When Mr and Mrs Bush went to Uganda at the tail end of his term, they were treated to a tumultous welcome – so grateful were the Ugandans to Bush for his aid in their difficulties. This was only a small fraction of the amount spent in Afghanistan and Iraq, yet I doubt if even sympatico Muslims would have dared to name their children George or Laura. That is how screwed up all largely Mohamedan cultures are. They have the dead weight of the murderer and rapist their prophet to carry around.

  • Apologies for thee (Islam) but not for ye (Catholics). What an odd world where the leader of what was once known as the free world apologizes to the advocates of islamic depotism while at the same time trashes religious and other liberties here at home.

  • As he said recently, after pushing ~contraception and health~ the supply of which has been in place anyway, men with guns protect his daughters from the risks he legislates affecting 11 -18 yr. schoolchildren. The drones from violence or danger to someone’s liberty are legal. This, which revitalized a war cry of death to America and Kira Davis’ response. Tests for the first Sunday of Lent, with the story of Jesus in the desert and John’s sacrifice.

  • I’ve got a serious question:

    As Catholics, we burn or bury blessed items. What do Muslims do with worn or damaged holy items?

    In other words, if Muslims had found Korans with the pages defaced, what would they have done with them, if not burn them?

    I am asking this here because several of the contributors are much smarter than me, so I figure someone might know.

  • Pingback: The American Catholic in Good Company | The American Catholic

HHS Mandate Hastens The Demise Of Liberal Catholicism & Ensures The Growth of Catholic Orthodoxy

Tuesday, February 14, AD 2012

In a bizarre way President Barack Obama, through his Health and Human Services Mandate (HHS) has united religious orthodoxy across the spectrum as never before. In its wake liberal religiosity is going the way of striped pants, bell bottoms and lava lamps; something that is only seen on rare occasions usually when too much alcohol is flowing. At the precipice stands liberal Catholicism, for soon there will be no need for them to retain any religious presence. Liberal Catholic mouthpieces like the National Catholic Reporter are destined to go the way of so many other products whose users outgrew the usefulness of what they read and believed.  Mainline liberal churches have imploded all the while the numbers of Catholics and Evangelicals continue to grow. Apparently the liberal religious elite are so smart, they have disappeared into the mists of history.  Even if the current baby boomers remain religious, their liberal minded children have by and large abandoned the faith to the whims of Hallmark and Deepak Chopra styled spirituality.

In my last book The Tide is Turning Toward Catholicism, I noted that having worked in the Church with a good deal of liberals I cannot think of a single instance in which their children retained their liberal views and also practiced their Catholic faith. I have met their children and while some have become Evangelicals and others have seen the light and come over to orthodox minded Catholicism; those who have remained liberal would only darken a church door if a close relative passed away. Sadly not only have they left their faith but many can’t find a single good thing to say about it. Their compliments are reserved for Big Government and Libertinism.

I am not writing this to sound clever or flippant or negative, simply to relate what I see. In many ways, the tide is turning like never before, and we can’t say that Jesus didn’t tell us that wheat would be separated from the chaff. Indeed we can’t serve two masters and the liberals by and large have thrown their lot in with the Herod’s of the world. While the liberal elite pretend to live oh so sophisticated lives; they in reality are nothing more than a fallen character in a 1980s hair band ballad video, succumbing to the vices on Sunset Boulevard that the liberal elite relegated to some degenerative red state tourist. As angry as we may be at the religious left’s venom and their apostasy, they most certainly need our prayers and we should never forget that supposedly wise people can be fooled as much as anyone by the dark side.

In my previous article, I noted the striking metaphor of the pall of smoke hanging over the Acropolis in Athens caused by rioting Greeks who could no longer pay for their extravagant lifestyle. They are merely the first example of a culture that has aborted and contracepted itself into oblivion, prophetically predicted by Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Humanae Vitae. For the Greeks, Big Government had the answers and their Epicurean ancestors had the lifestyle that seemed oh so appealing. However in reality they couldn’t pay the bills because charged with the simple mission of reproducing they felt it too complicated of a task.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to HHS Mandate Hastens The Demise Of Liberal Catholicism & Ensures The Growth of Catholic Orthodoxy

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • when they get rid of the carol keehans and all the clowns running our
    institutions their own way i’ll believe the tide is turning.

  • The Holy Spirit is truly at work here to rejuvenate our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church by separating wheat from the chaff just as Jesus Christ Himself promised us, oh so, so long time ago. + Laudetur Iesus Christus +

  • Good essay, Doug. But Donald’s essay on “The Catholic Left Falls into Line” is sadly depressing because the regime in charge will listen only to the Catholic Left. The Bishops have to start public excommunications. 1st Corinthians chapter 5 comes to mind.

  • How will this affect our Catholic universities?
    Wouldn’t it be great if a Catholic college taught Catholic faith, doctrine and morals. Girls living in an all girls dorm. No overnight visitors. Religion classes, including Catholic philosophy and Church history be taught for 4 years. Wouldn’t it be great to have Catholic universities that teach science AND morals.
    .
    And I agree with Paul P above, the Church REALLY needs to address the Liberal Left, anti-Church Catholics who work against the Church Monday-Friday, but go to communion on Sunday and publicly call themselves good, devout Catholics. This would be HUGE for us folks in the pews – I find it hard to talk to my children about the faith when Catholics in public life (politics) promote ideas opposite of the Church teachings but call themselves good Catholics (“I will punch you in the face with my rosary”)

  • too many gifted and talented individuals are not even attempting to dip their toe in the waters of entrepreneurialism because it may be too much work.

    And: too much financial punishment — high taxes, in other words — for those who do dip their toe in that water.

  • Amen. Amen. Amen. I can sense the shift in the air… a slow grinding shift building momentum… the teeth gnashing from the enemy is sentient also.

  • Mr. Hartline, I would love to read your books. Have you considered formatting them for kindle?

  • Vicki I hope that when my new book tentatively titled; “The Tide Continues to Turn Toward Catholicism” comes out, we should have a kindle option available for my books. Thank you for your interest. Honestly all of you out there who fight the good fight in your special way are all part of that turning tide.

59% of Catholics Disapprove of Obama’s Job Performance

Tuesday, February 14, AD 2012

 

 

 

Interesting numbers from Rasmussen:

Catholics strongly disapprove of the job President Obama is doing as the debate continues over his administration’s new policy forcing Catholic institutions to pay for contraception they morally oppose. While the president’s overall job approval ratings have improved over the past couple of months, they have remained steady among Catholics.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% of likely Catholic voters nationwide at least somewhat disapprove of the president’s job performance, while 40% at least somewhat approve. But the passion’s on the side of those who don’t like the job he’s doing: 44% Strongly Disapprove versus 19% who Strongly Approve.

Fifty-four percent (54%) of Catholics voted for Obama in November 2008. However, Republican hopeful Mitt Romney currently leads the president among Catholic voters by a 52% to 35% margin. Among all voters, however, President Obama leads Romney and all Republican hopefuls.

These results are from surveys conducted over the seven days ending February 12, 2012. Among all likely voters, 50% approve of how the president is doing and 49% disapprove.  This includes 26% who Strongly Approve and 38% who Strongly Disapprove. Rasmussen Reports also provides daily updates of the president’s Job Approval and match-ups between President Obama and both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to 59% of Catholics Disapprove of Obama’s Job Performance

  • It appears there is something seriously deficient among 41% of Catholics.

  • What percentage of the 41% could pick the Pope out of a line-up?
    I love our big fuzzy universal Church but it can be difficult having to continually explain away the bizarre behavior of my self-identifying Catholic brethren, particularly those currently forming the warp and weft of the P’resident’s doormat.

  • “If Obama loses the Catholic vote in the fall, he can kiss Ohio and perhaps Pennsylvania goodbye.”

    And probably Wisconsin too. Not to mention the concerned Protestant evangelical votes (e.g. Rick Warren) that he will also lose over the HHS issue. That means, I’m guessing, he loses EVERY state in the Midwest other than Illinois and maybe Minnesota. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him lose every Illinois county outside of the Chicago metro area and East St. Louis as well.

  • Good analysis Elaine. The Midwest could well decide the election. I think the South is gone for Obama. New England will be solid for him except for New Hampshire. In the West Obama keeps the coast, with the Republicans taking everything else, except possibly New Mexico. The Great Plains states will be entirely Republican as usual. The Mid-Atlantic is Obama’s except quite possibly Pennsylvania. If Obama can only hold on to Illinois and Minnesota in the Midwest, the elction becomes a rout against him.

  • I did a little playing around with the 270towin.com electoral vote map, based on your projections, and the results were:

    Without PA or OH, Obama loses 337-201.

    With PA but not OH, he loses 317-221.

    With PA and OH, he still loses 299-239.

  • “What percentage of the 41% could pick the Pope out of a line-up?”

    Maybe 5% of that I’d say.

    I wish these polls would a make a distinction between church going catholics (~20%) and the rest of catholics, who are asleep in a coma.

The Militant Secular Left Shows Their Cards, Proving That The Tide Continues To Turn Toward Catholicism

Monday, February 13, AD 2012

The militant secular left thinks they have won a victory with President Barack Obama’s “Accommodation” with regard to the Health and Human Services (HHS) Mandate ordering religious based institutions to provide contraceptives, sterilizations and the morning after abortion pill. Some of the left couldn’t contain their glee, one guest on MSNBC described President Obama’s move as “brilliant.” In their distorted thinking they surmise that since not all Catholics adhere to the Church’s teachings, especially on birth control, they can cause a split in the Church.

First of all, the militant secular left continually cites the Guttmacher Institute’s polling, which is about as accurate as the daily pronouncements of Syria’s Bashar Assad. Secondly, it is one thing for Catholics to go against the Church’s teachings, it is quite another to say they are proud of it and want more Big Government telling them what they and the Catholic Church to do. The sheer nuttiness of this was illustarted in a discussion which occurred on Sean Hannity’s the Great American Panel seen on Fox News last week. One of the participants Jehmu Greene told fellow panelist Andrea Tantaros that without birth control she wouldn’t be here. When the incredulous Tantaros wondered how that could logical be, Greene went on a tirade that demeaned women who have children and or decide to work at home.

For years the militant secular left has treated pregnancy as a disease and families as inconvenient truths interfering with their own narcissistic ends. Powerhouse television shows like Sex and City helped to illustrate this point. Katharine Jean Lopez of the National Review wrote some time ago how disgusted she felt seeing men demeaned as objects in the Sex and City movie, the very treatment feminists have railed about for years.

However with the narcissistic Sex and City lifestyle comes another reality playing out in the streets of Athens, Greece and soon to come to a city or country near you in the western world. The declining birth rate means the youngest among us will have to eventually have to pay for a culture that aborted or contracepted itself into oblivion. The generous benefits demanded by those cultures, especially from the militant secular left can only last so long. As the old saying goes; “The problem with Socialism is eventually you run out of other people’s money.” The ancient Greek world gods who hailed narcissism and hedonism and whose lifestyle was proselytized by the Epicureans seem as irrelevant as ever as the pall of smoke hangs over the Acropolis, a fitting metaphor for what the militant secular left has wrought.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to The Militant Secular Left Shows Their Cards, Proving That The Tide Continues To Turn Toward Catholicism

  • November 2012 cannot come soon enough!

    Here is additional evidence (as if it were needed) that one is repreating oneself when one uses the words liberal and idiot in the same sentence.

    This rank stupidity is the reason the economy continues to flounder and why government should be limited so that it can inflict limited harm on us.

    With his talents, Obama ought to be on an urban street corner dealing “three card monty.”

  • T. Shaw – but instead liberalies are letting the executive branch play monopoly in the WH with other people’s money and no rules because cheating etc. is easier. The jail corner says send someone you don’t like directly to court. The community chest cards are awards for using racist and bigot on opponents.
    What a waste.

  • Pingback: Catholic Teachings Not Subject to Polls « POWIP
  • Regarding – The Militant Secular Left Shows Their Cards, Proving That The Tide Continues To Turn Toward Catholicism
    Published Monday, February 13, 2012 A.D. | By Dave Hartline

    I agree with everthing the writer has said, but I have trouble with one thing.
    Are we willing to fight as hard for the living child after birth as we are for the child in the womb? Are we willing to provide a higher level of education, of health care, of food and housing OR do we prefer to pay in the back end when the unwanted, uncared for, fatherless child becomes a miscreant; someone on drugs, alcohol or at least in poor health or pertetuates more unwanted pregnancies…
    I would rather put the same energy and money to providing the programs the child would need to be a caring, involved citizen rather than a fatherless child in a broken home with little love and education. I hope to see Catholics turn a cheek and start realizing that if we want to lower the abortion rate holistically, the best way to do it is to educate and provide the necessary programs so woman don’t find themselves in an unwanted pregnancy to begin with. It does start at home, but the home alone will not win the battle…we must help, with love.

  • My friend, I have no doubt that you mean well and sincerely believe that old canard that the Militant Secular Left has been pushing concerning not caring for those who have been born. Let me tell you why it is a canard. My wife and I have been blessed with the gift of adoption. I can tell you first hand what a great gift it is and how long it took. Sadly parents wait untold lengths of time and spend untold amounts of money to adopt, jumping through all kinds of hoops.

    Years ago when we decided to adopt, we sat down with an adoption specialist who told us that before Roe v Wade there were about two million couples who couldn’t have children and wanted to, and about two million women who didn’ think they could raise a child in their current situation. It was a Providential give and take, something that Roe v Wade took away. Adoption wait times and costs continue to grow because millions of parents who want nothing more than to love a child have to wait while millions of unborn babies are aborted.

    Sadly ever since Roe v Wade, and most notably now the militant secular left treats pregnancy as a disease, all the while children are called “punishments” by our very leaders. We are also told that we are ignorant because we “cling to religion.” God help those who will have to answer for that.

  • Pingback: TUESDAY RELIGIOUS LIBERTY EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • “In their distorted thinking they [the Militant Secular Left] surmise that since not all Catholics adhere to the Church’s teachings, especially on birth control, they can cause a split in the Church.”

    The split is already present in the Church in America, and has been since Vatican II. Many “liberal” Catholics feel more animosity toward the Church, and her Bishops, than they do toward the militant secularists who oppose the teachings of the Church. Obama is merely using that split in an attempt to secure his political base for 2012. You may think this will not work, but many “liberal” Catholics, in the end, will side with Obama versus the Bishops.

    I hope I am wrong, but the political calculation that Obama has made may work. Those who oppose his HHS mandate, did not vote for him in 2008 and will not vote for him in 2012. However, many on the Left who voted for him in 2008, who have recently had serious doubts about Obama, will now be MORE inclined to support him in 2012, not less inclined. It is a classic divide-and-conquer electoral strategy, based on the very theological and ideological split that already exists in the Church.

    President Obama is merely exploiting what already exists. Again, I hope and pray that I am wrong, but he may very well succeed in exploiting the divisions that already exist in the Church.

  • Tom D, I have no doubt that militant secular left who call themselves Catholic will rally behind President Obama, including those who work within the Church. Having worked for the Church in various capacities, I know their names, believe me. However, the rank and file Catholic will be upset by this, even those who voted for President Obama, believe in contraception and attend Mass here and there. Those Catholics who have a nagging suspicion of Big Government will also find this more than a little disturbing.

    However, I must reiterate this point again. There are people who vocally call themselves Catholics who haven’t attended Mass regularly since the Ford Administration. Yet, they proudly they say they are Catholic. Take for example someone who is a lukewarm Methodist or Lutheran; they will probably say they are Christian but won’t attach a demoninational tag behind their name, thus taking their church off the hook when it comes to matters that may look heretical to their respective churches. This doesn’t take place with Catholics because of our strong sacramental and ethnic identity. In the depths of their soul, they know what is right but their flesh is weak.

    The only Catholics who will openly rally to President Obama are those who wear their heresy on their sleeve as a badge of honor. Even though far too few of the faithful actually follow the Church’s teachings, in their heart of hearts they know the Church is right and thus will abandon those who openly want to stick it to the Church.

  • Pingback: HHS Mandate Hastens The Demise Of Liberal Catholicism & Ensures The Growth of Catholic Orthodoxy | The American Catholic
  • I think the joke is on the Left–because the mandate is not only unconstitutional but also illegal; see this long article: http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.4654/pub_detail.asp. It made me realize the mandate really was an assault on the Catholic Church–and a stupid one, blatantly violating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, for no rational reason because contraception IS readily available. You wonder whether the most powerful man in the world ever listens to the numerous lawyers he has available (never mind the people in his inner circle who give him contrary advice, like, in this case, Joe Biden and Bill Daley). I think many Catholics will still vote for Obama, but hope and believe fewer than in 2008, and I hope that people of other faiths will stand and work with us in turning him out of the White House.

Government Health Care Mandate Awakens The Faithful From Their Slumber

Sunday, February 5, AD 2012

Occasionally the haughty and arrogant become so full of themselves, they are deluded into thinking that by their sheer will and intellect they will convince a sizeable part of the populace to give up their beliefs. The current administration illustrated this very point when they announced last month that every group will be forced to abide by the dictates of the governmental health care plan. All employers must provide birth control coverage in their health care plans as well as the morning after abortion pill. (Churches were given an exemption but churches are a small part of church related institutions, such as hospitals, schools, universities etc.)

The prairie fire started by President Barack Obama’s Administration wasn’t immediately reported by the mainstream media. Surely some in the mainstream media must have thought few Catholics would care if a bunch of old bishops read a letter from the pulpit that would go in one ear and out the other. Well of course,  at least the “enlightened Catholic populace” who voted for President Obama would surely come to this conclusion. Those who would care wouldn’t vote for the President anyway, the liberal talking heads surmised. This shows how ill informed many in the mainstream media have become; for since the last 20 years or so increasing numbers of newly appointed bishops and cardinals have been far more orthodox in their beliefs and far less willing to appeal to the whims of the political world.

When I first heard the news, I thought there must be some sort of mistake; surely any freshman majoring in Political Science would realize that rankling the feathers of any major swing state voting bloc especially that of Catholics would make little sense. Yet even after some in the mainstream media awoke from their militant secular slumber, the White House insisted that this dictate would remain because of the “deeply held beliefs of the President.”

This created an opening for the Republican Primary candidates who pounced on the issue, none more than former Speaker Newt Gingrich who called it, “President Obama’s War on The Catholic Church.” Traditional and conservative minded people of all faiths immediately expressed shock at the decision of the White House. Even liberal columnist EJ Dionne wrote a scathing column saying, “The President had thrown him and his fellow Progressive Catholic allies under the bus.” Naturally the liberal media and the likes of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi rushed to the President’s defense. MSNBC’s Ed Schultz, seemingly unaware of the White House decision, wondered what on earth Newt Gingrich was talking about with “Obama’s War on the  Catholic Church,” which Gingrich stated in his concession speech following the Florida primary. Former Speaker Pelosi did her best Richard Rich imitation saying she “stood firmly with the Obama Administration.”

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Government Health Care Mandate Awakens The Faithful From Their Slumber

  • Pingback: MONDAY RELIGIOUS LIBERTY EXTRA I | ThePulp.it
  • I am reminded of Jacob Marley’s Ghost – “Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”

    The trouble with activism is that it is the occupation a narrow spectrum of people – most of which enjoy more leisure than the common man. The rest are engrossed in their lives.

    I am one of them.

    It is difficult to rise from a political slumber when catching an early train, working all day, coming home to dinner, homework review, reading with the children, and spending time with a spouse. “Life” fills each nook and cranny of the day and carving out time to do even routine chores, that don’t require immediate attention, is difficult.

    I am therefore skeptical that even so direct an assault will change much.

    It isn’t that our fellow Catholics are uninterested or unconcerned it is that they are engrossed in the day-to-day.

  • G-Veg, true we all lead busy lives but for too long, too many people have filled their lives with junk and thus you can’t digest the good stuff when it comes. If you have ever eaten too many doritos and cheese puffs before a friend suddenly invites you to a nice dinner, you can’t help but think that what have I done? Believe me I am a big sports and music fan, so I know how to enjoy many things. However, at the end of the day, I hope I know where my priorities lie. Sadly too many people live reality show lives, which lends them to being told what to do and how to think. For them pleasing the “In Crowd” and the “Political whims of the moment” are of the utmost importance.

    Once in a while, we are all awoken from our slumber. In a strange sort of way, the Obama administration unwittingly did the Church a favor by waking the faithful up to see the reality of their second term agenda, which lies far beyond this mandate. It is only a taste of things to come. I will leave you with the words of Patrick Henry who said, “When people forget God, tyrants forge their chains.”

  • The Supreme Court will hear the Obamacare case on March 26-28. Can we Catholics make a pilgrimage to the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception at the Catholic University in Washington, DC?

    I agree with G-Veg–most people are too harried–can we block these three days and come together as a Church to worship, fast and pray for our nation? Perhaps a million Catholics praying for the Supreme Court Justices (6 of whom are Catholic) will make a positive difference in this nation!

  • People are not that busy that they can’t change their voter registration if they wanted to.

    You want to be heard? Catholic Democrats who are offended by Obama’s intentional act against the Catholic Church in violation of our Constitutional First Amendment Rights need only register out of the Democrat Party and become Independents or Declined to State registered voters. When the Democrat Party starts seeing their voter registration numbers declining, they will start paying attention to what is happening and start giving the Church the respect we deserve.

    Just as important to Catholics is our professed belief that God is the giver of life (“I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life….) and our praying for God’s “will be done on earth;” so to the Democrat Party is their belief that they are in the right which is verified by the numbers of people registered in the Democrat Party. The fact is that after 39 years of Roe v Wade and 52,000,000 murdered babies, Catholics still represent the single, largest voting block for the Democrat Party. In addition, 55% of Catholic voters voted in 2008 to elect Obama – the first pro-abortion, pro-infanticide President ever. Finally, Obamacare provides, supposedly, health insurance for illegal aliens, something very important to the Catholic Bishops and Hispanics. The combination of those facts convinces Obama that the majority of Catholics will support his mandating the Church include birth control, etc., in their employees’ health insurance or face millions of dollars in fines every year.

    We’ll see who is right… the Church who thinks Catholics really do believe what they say they believe in their “Profession of Faith” on Sundays and in what they pray for in the Lord’s Prayer; or, Obama, who, based on historical, electoral statistics, believes the majority of Catholics will continue to remain Democrats glad to have free birth control paid for by the Church even if Obama’s order is in violation of the Constitution.

  • Somewhere someone commented, “It’s not so much about birth control. It’s all about control.”

    The remnant of the Holy Catholic Church that is not in the tank for Obama is spiritually safe.

    Wait until they individual mandate you to buy Government Motors Volts.

  • I have to agree with Dave that the Obama regime badly miscalculated this one, which very well should make its re-election chances go up in the smoke of Satan.

George Will on Obama’s Militaristic Rhetoric

Saturday, January 28, AD 2012

George Will has a superb column on Obama’s rhetoric in the State of the Union Address:

Obama, an unfettered executive wielding a swollen state, began and ended his address by celebrating the armed forces. They are not “consumed with personal ambition,” they “work together” and “focus on the mission at hand” and do not “obsess over their differences.” Americans should emulate troops “marching into battle,” who “rise or fall as one unit.”

Well. The armed services’ ethos, although noble, is not a template for civilian society, unless the aspiration is to extinguish politics. People marching in serried ranks, fused into a solid mass by the heat of martial ardor, proceeding in lock step, shoulder to shoulder, obedient to orders from a commanding officer — this is a recurring dream of progressives eager to dispense with tiresome persuasion and untidy dissension in a free, tumultuous society.

Progressive presidents use martial language as a way of encouraging Americans to confuse civilian politics with military exertions, thereby circumventing an impediment to progressive aspirations — the Constitution and the patience it demands. As a young professor, Woodrow Wilson had lamented that America’s political parties “are like armies without officers.” The most theoretically inclined of progressive politicians, Wilson was the first president to criticize America’s founding. This he did thoroughly, rejecting the Madisonian system of checks and balances — the separation of powers, a crucial component of limited government — because it makes a government that cannot be wielded efficiently by a strong executive.

Wilson is of particular importance here.  Wilson’s dissatisfaction with the Constitution stemmed from the many limitations said document placed on the government.  Not only did the Framers grant few specified powers to Congress, they instituted various mechanisms that made it even more difficult for government to enact the reforms that Progressives like Wilson so desired.  Wilson wanted to convert the United States government into a parliamentary system.  Under this kind of design, instead of a legislature-dominated government complicated by checks and balances, we would have an executive-led government with few checks on the Prime Minister’s power.

Wilson was unable to transform the government to his liking.  The Constitution still divides power in so many ways that it would be theoretically be difficult for the Progressive reformers to get all that they wanted.  So instead of working within the system, the left has basically just ignored that pesky ancient document.

Franklin Roosevelt agreed. He complained about “the three-horse team of the American system”: “If one horse lies down in the traces or plunges off in another direction, the field will not be plowed.” And progressive plowing takes precedence over constitutional equipoise among the three branches of government. Hence FDR’s attempt to break the Supreme Court to his will by enlarging it.

In his first inaugural address, FDR demanded “broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.” He said Americans must “move as a trained and loyal army” with “a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in time of armed strife.” The next day, addressing the American Legion, Roosevelt said it was “a mistake to assume that the virtues of war differ essentially from the virtues of peace.” In such a time, dissent is disloyalty.

Yearnings for a command society were common and respectable then. Commonweal, a magazine for liberal Catholics, said that Roosevelt should have “the powers of a virtual dictatorship to reorganize the government.” Walter Lippmann, then America’s preeminent columnist, said: “A mild species of dictatorship will help us over the roughest spots in the road ahead.” The New York Daily News, then the nation’s largest-circulation newspaper, cheerfully editorialized: “A lot of us have been asking for a dictator. Now we have one. .?.?. It is Roosevelt. .?.?. Dictatorship in crises was ancient Rome’s best era.” The New York Herald Tribune titled an editorial “For Dictatorship if Necessary.”

Commonweal. Some things never change.

And so now we’ve arrived at Obama’s America, and the left’s impatience with the Constitution manifests itself again.

Obama, aspiring to command civilian life, has said that in reforming health care, he would have preferred an “elegant, academically approved” plan without “legislative fingerprints on it” but “unfortunately” he had to conduct “negotiations with a lot of different people.” His campaign mantra “We can’t wait!” expresses progressivism’s impatience with our constitutional system of concurrent majorities. To enact and execute federal laws under Madison’s institutional architecture requires three, and sometimes more, such majorities. There must be majorities in the House and Senate, each body having distinctive constituencies and electoral rhythms. The law must be affirmed by the president, who has a distinctive electoral base and election schedule. Supermajorities in both houses of Congress are required to override presidential vetoes. And a Supreme Court majority is required to sustain laws against constitutional challenges.

“We can’t wait!” exclaims Obama, who makes recess appointments when the Senate is not in recess, multiplies “czars” to further nullify the Senate’s constitutional prerogative to advise and consent, and creates agencies (e.g., Obamacare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board and Dodd-Frank’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) untethered from legislative accountability.

Like other progressive presidents fond of military metaphors, he rejects the patience of politics required by the Constitution he has sworn to uphold.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to George Will on Obama’s Militaristic Rhetoric

  • Dan in Philly commented at another blog.

    “Let me be clear, O is and always has been an ordinary political hack who was picked up by a brilliant campaign because he happened to be in the right place at the right time. This brilliant campaign ran him, and ever since he’s been trying and failing to lead the country. He’s been a failure from the beginning because he’s been a fraud from the beginning.”

    Paraphrasing Camus: The “general welfare” will be liberals’ alibi for our enslavement.

  • The human being is created with body and soul, rational and immortal. The citizen constitutes government to protect and defend his unalienable rights and his freedom. For this duty taxes are levied. The present administration has decreed that all people will purchase Obamacare or pay penalties and heavy fines. The freedom of the citizen to exercise his conscience has been eradicated from the First Amendment and from the definition of man as having a free conscience, rational and immortal. With the redefinition of the citizen as having no freedom of conscience to be acknowledged by the government, the free man, who exercises his conscience in freedom is not represented by the very government that he has constituted and funds with his tax dollars. This is taxation without representation. The fines and penalties to be extorted from the citizen who exercises his freedom of conscience are just that: EXTORTION, the buying of insurance to protect oneself from damage and penalties.
    The very existence of the United States of America is contingent upon the eternal truths, inscribed in our founding principles, in our Declaration of Independence and in our U.S. Constitution, being acknowledged and practiced, to guarantee, as Abraham Lincoln said: “that government of the people, for the people and by the people will not perish from the face of the earth”.
    The American Civil Liberties Union, while ecstatically enjoying the display of brute force by our government is not exempt from the extortion or tyranny. As soon as the government decides it needs the ACLU’s land, the government will take the land under the Rural Councils Executive Order 13575. When the government decides that it no longer needs someone, or that someone begins to think for himself, or becomes a loose canon, that person may be detained indefinitely, without charges under the National Defense Authorization Act . This is the denial of free will and a rational and immortal soul.
    What Obamacare does not accept is that you cannot kill a person twice. After all the abortions are done, the immortal soul remains to indict the murderers. The immortal soul of the innocent victims cannot be silenced nor murdered twice. Obama, being a student and adherent to Saul Alinsky’s philosophy of: “Take as much as you can, as fast as you can”, has not yet put two and two together. Alinsky asked God to send him to hell. Alinsky, therefore, acknowledged God, the immortal soul, eternal life and the eternity of hell. Obama needs to get on board the next barge to be ferried by Sharon across the River Styx.

  • T. Shaw: Our reliance on Divine Providence, which John Mills’ utilitarianism and Paul Erhich’s Population Bomb, Thomas Malthus’ demographic projections, and Roe v. Wade have rejected, is simply, Our Creator providing for his children. The atheist does not and cannot speak for our founding principles: our Declaration of Independence, and our Constitution. The “general welfare” absolutely includes the Preamble: “to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our posterity”, all future generations. Less is not more. If one notices that the “more” one is promised, the “more” one gets is less. The Israelites saw Goliath and fainted at his size. David saw Goliath as the biggest target…EWTN

  • Richard the Lion Heart’s (and it seems all saxon monarchs’) Motto: “Dieu et mon droit.” I translate trust in “God and my strong right arm.”

    Henceforth, I apply the following to Obama, “pharaoh.”

    The pharaoh must go.

  • What T Shaw said – the Pharoah must go.

  • Good post, Paul. I remember Goldberg talking about this tendency toward militarizing peace time in his book Liberal Fascism. Wilson wanted to see agenda items having a “moral equivalency” to war, i think that was his term. This kind of fascist thinking was considered good by liberals back then–case in point: the “mild dictatorship” advocated by Commonweal as Will mentions. I think the only difference is the terminology used–they are more careful not to use certain words.

  • This concept deserves a nice glass of Maker’s Mark and a cigar. The connection never occurred to me.

  • I learned that the OWS folk call demonstrations ‘battles’. On a college campus in Chicago I overheard one OWSer say to another, “I’ll see you at the battle”. None of these folks could last one day in basic training. It’ funny/pathetic in one regard, but scary in that they seem to crave violence.

  • 1. Most constitutional states function passably with parliamentary institutions. Separation of powers is quite atypical, characteristic of the United States and three or four other well- established electoral systems; none of the others are ensconced in a state with a population larger than Belgium’s.

    2. During that portion of the Wilson Administration which preceded World War I, the ratio of federal expenditure to domestic product was about 0.014.

    3. One consequence of the collision of social crisis and extant political forms during the Depression was that those occupying the salient positions in all three branches of government took to simply ignoring inconvenient constitutional provisions rather than organizing a campaign to amend the constitution to alter the range of delegated powers. You might interpret that as a mark of collective faithlessness. Then again, you might interpret that as a mark of institutional inadaptability.

  • Indeed Gingrich did talk about this in Liberal Fasicsm, and he also had his own article yesterday which I should have linked to. Here it is.

  • Separation of powers is quite atypical, characteristic of the United States and three or four other well

    Precisely.

    During that portion of the Wilson Administration which preceded World War I, the ratio of federal expenditure to domestic product was about 0.014.

    I never suggested that Wilson was particularly successful, merely that he wanted to transform the governmental structure of the U.S. FDR was the one who more ably picked up the Progressive mantle.

  • It appears that for government officials to want to change our form of government and our founding principles, they do not understand nor appreciate them, nor do they have the power to change our founding principles without two thirds of the states ratifying the change. Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations was the forerunner of The United Nations. The United Nations, like global world government will force The United States to violate her sovereignty, and become subserviant to what has become one government under the World Bank. The Vatican came out with one economic world government under God, our Creator, one citizen at a time. Divine Providence. AWESOME.

  • Mary de Voe – I hope you’re not really calling for the president’s death – or his damnation. I don’t think we should be wishing people on Charon’s next boat.

    (Completely agree with your comment about extortion, by the way.)

  • If Obama won’t repent, then he deserves the fate that God award King Manasseh. It took 12 years of imprisonment in an Assyrian dungeon for him to repent. What will it take for Obama?

Reason Number One to Defeat Obama in November:

Monday, January 23, AD 2012

 

A statement yesterday from President Obama:

As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.  I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.  While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue- no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.  And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.

Continue reading...

31 Responses to Reason Number One to Defeat Obama in November:

  • It’s sad that so many Roman Catholics in America have cast aside the issue of abortion in favor of other social issues. If Americans were dying at the reate of 3,000 daily from any other influence, whether illness, or war, or natural disaster, you bet that would be a political priority. Are these children not important enough because they are silent? Thanks, Kathy – I love your blog!

  • Reason #1 of 50.
    This is a man aligned against the human spirit.
    Survive the abortionist’s vacuum and then get assigned to an inferior public school that treats you as an object.
    Make it out of the public schools intact then work half your life to pay taxes that pay for more abortions and more inferior public schools.

  • Abortion is not just about the destruction of life within the womb. Our society which now legally destroys nearly a million tiny infants per year in abortion clinics and hospitals across the country (official records indicate over 50 million since Roe vs. Wade) has in effect redefined human life.
    Life in the womb now is not much different than a filet minion in the grocery keepers’ meat case. It’s something you can have if you feel like steak for dinner so take it home. If you decide later that you don’t want it and would rather have pizza you can just throw the steak out. That may sound crazy and one would think that you could/should give the steak to someone else who would love to have it. Forget about it! It’s yours; you can do with it as you please.
    The facts are today a new human life in the womb is no longer recognized as a gift from heaven or the procreated fruit of true love. Our president has even described its presence as a “punishment” for making a poor choice. Life in the womb is not treasured by society as its most valuable asset and our hope for the future.
    This society has decided womb life is no life and deserves little consideration and no protection under the law. Some, like our president have “personally” and “legally” determined that even when out of its home in the womb on an abortionist operating table having survived an attempt to be destroyed it must be ignored and left to die since it was “unwanted”. Unlike the unwanted and homeless on our streets these little souls currently have no tin cup or neighborhood shelter or government assistance to turn to for help. When they arrive on the scene or sonogram they aren’t received like illegal aliens and given the benefits of citizenship like the thousands crossing our borders daily. In short, the most helpless of all “life” in our country are the least served by us. They have been disenfranchised, sold if you will, by society edict and left on their own since ownership has been transferred to the womb keeper along with all “rights” for disposal much like the unwanted and discarded filet minion from the meat case at the grocery.
    We need to ask ourselves:
    Do we ever want to get to the point where all men may consider behaving as human “gentle” men, spouse protectors, family providers and not a domesticated form of reproductive animal?
    Do we ever want to see an end to women being treated by some men as if society had given them a license to use women as a depository for their male sexual passions?
    Do we ever want all women to someday have enough self pride and dignity to understand and admit their bodies were designed to be the very sanctuaries of human society and their wombs are and always have been the wellsprings of mankind?
    Do we ever want both men and women to understand that within this concept and the knowledge they are “pro-creators” that children are more than simply a product of physical activity between lovers?
    Do we ever someday want all children to grow up to realize and understand they were begotten out of more than blind passion?
    When ever we have answered yes to these questions we will have begun to know the true meaning of human love and “life” and when it begins

  • “It’s sad that so many Roman Catholics in America have cast aside the issue of abortion in favor of other social issues.”

    Unfortunately in part because our shephards so teach us. At today’s Mass (which is offered in the Missal for the legal protection of the unborn) the priest only talked about respecting all life from conception to natural death. No mention specifically about what this day meant. Thus he ignored the number of abortions that routinely occur and intentionally or not equated the contingent nature of judgments about other social issues and legitimate means to end poverty etc with outright killing.

    But it isn’t just this priest. This is now the constant theme that I have heard from other priests and bishops. It was the theme at this weekend’s March for Life in our capital. They seek to equate all social issues (and unfortunately their chosen solutions) with abortion.

    Prudential solutions about problems of homelessness, immigration and poverty do not equal the intrinsic evil of abortion. The fact that some clergy have courted this line is coming home to roost in the attack on conscience.

  • Just because the supreme court voted in favor of roe vs wade does not make it right. The supreme court also voted in the horrible “Jim Crow” laws. PLEASE vote that man out if office!!!!

  • Newt Gingrich’s message to the March for Life:

    Thank you for bearing witness today to the incomparable dignity of every human life, born and unborn.

    And thank you for your commitment to change hearts and minds and laws in defense of the unborn.

    I join you in this commitment.

    It is a testament to the American spirit and the vision of our founding fathers that almost forty years after Roe. v.Wade, millions of Americans have grown stronger and not weaker in their conviction that the words of the Declaration of Independence are in fact true, that all are created with unalienable rights, including the unborn.

    Our American history represents an ongoing effort to fulfill the vision of the Declaration.

    It is important to pause today to consider why the pro-life cause is winning and why we will one day see an end to abortion in America.

    Americans know in the core of their souls that the idea that we can say one class of humanity — whether the sick, the poor, the elderly, or the unborn — is less valuable than others, is fundamentally opposed to every value that we cherish and that makes us who we are.

    The truth that every person is created equal in the eyes of God, with equal value and worth and equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit his or her own future and destiny, is at the root of our system of law and government. Americans know this, and slowly but surely they are coming to terms with the irreconcilable reality of legalized abortion in our nation.

    A prominent commentator recently wrote, “That the pro-life movement is bigger is a given. It’s also younger, increasingly entrepreneurial, more strategic in its thinking, better organized, tougher in dealing with allies and enemies alike, almost wildly ambitious, and more relentless than ever.”

    Your marching today is evidence of that relentlessness.

    My commitment to you is twofold: first, to continue supporting your work to defend the rights of the unborn, and second, if elected President, to advance pro-life legislation, appoint judges who will stay true to the meaning of the Constitution, work to bring about an end to judicial tyranny, defend religious freedom, and work with allies in Congress and throughout the country who desire to bring about a day in which America restores legal protection to all unborn human life.

    Specifically, on day one of my administration, I will sign an executive order reinstating Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City policy that prevents taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortions overseas.

    I will also oppose federal funding of any research that destroys a human embryo.

    I will work with Congress to repeal Obamacare, and will defund Planned Parenthood so that no taxpayer dollars are being used to fund abortions– but rather use that money to promote adoption and other pro-family policies.

    I will also support Congress enacting pro-life legislation that would grant protections under the 14th Amendment to the unborn, including legislation that would define personhood as beginning at conception.

    There was once a similar battle waged in America over whether the rights in our Constitution applied to all Americans, or only those selected or favored by the political class. It was during the battle to overturn the deeply engrained institution of slavery, something considered universally repugnant to us all today, that Abraham Lincoln said the following:

    We will make converts day by day… We will grow strong by the violence and injustice of our adversaries. And unless truth be a mockery and justice a hollow lie, we will be in the majority after a while. This battle … [will] be fought out on principle.

    Together, let us continue to work for the day when there will be no abortions for any reason, and that every unborn child will be welcomed into life and protected by law — from conception until natural death. May God bless each of you in your efforts to bring about this day.

    Thank You.

  • Mitt Romney’s message to the March for Life:

    In great number, men and women from across our country are gathered today on the Mall in Washington in the cause of defending the rights of the unborn. In their ranks are many who remember the day when Roe v. Wade was announced. Also among them are thousands of young Americans born after 1973 whose idealism and good hearts will continue to represent the passion and resolve of the pro-life movement. All of them are marching today in the spirit of compassion and mercy, and I share their commitment to laws that protect the innocent and uphold a culture of life. We take heart that we are winning this issue step by step, and I look forward to working arm and arm with the pro-life movement until the wrong of Roe v. Wade has been set right.

  • Ron Paul has attended the March for Life before, but I can’t find out whether he is there this year. His son Rand was to be one of the speakers until he was detained by the TSA. (I wonder what genius thought in the TSA that it would be a good idea to detain a US Senator because he would not consent to a pat down?)

  • Speaker of the House Boehner is at the march as one of the featured speakers, leading a contingent of pro-life members of Congress:

    It’s an honor to serve with men and women committed to protecting the sanctity of life. We may disagree in other areas, sometimes starkly, but we are one and the same on this. Because human life is not a political or economic commodity. And defending life is not a matter of party … it’s about standing on principle.

    In that spirit, I think it’s important we take a moment to reflect on the first principles that bring us all here today.

    We’re blessed to gather on this National Mall, hallowed ground kept hallowed by footsteps and echoes. Here, half a century ago, John F. Kennedy let the world know Americans would ‘pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship’ to keep freedom alive and well.

    Like many of you, my family of Kennedy Democrats was moved by those words. I’m from what you might call a big family … I’ve got 11 brothers and sisters. It wasn’t easy for my mother to have 12 children. But I’m sure glad she did.”

    Respect for life, at every stage, was instilled in us early on. My heart still grows restless at the story in Scripture that says ‘whatever you do to the least of my people you do unto me.’ No life is an island … we’re all taught that. We’re taught to extend a helping hand, especially to those in need.

    So I’ve never considered ‘pro-life’ to be a label or a position. It’s just who I am. It’s who I am, and it’s who we are as a people. If you’re like me, when you climb the steps on the other side of the Tidal Basin, you’re awed by Jefferson’s immortal words: ‘God who gave us life gave us liberty.”

    These two founding principles, life and liberty, are intertwined. Together, they form the core of our national character. They comprise the standard by which the world looks to us. When we affirm the dignity of life, we affirm our commitment to freedom. When we don’t affirm life … when life is cheapened or weakened, here or abroad, freedom itself is diminished.

    Here on this Mall, many solemn vows have been made in the long fight for freedom. America is an idea, and our duty is to preserve its blessings, the first and dearest of which is life.

    That is why Nellie Gray marches on. Let us rise to Nellie’s example and raise our voices together in defense of life. Let us pray that more of our countrymen, whether you belong to one party or no party, will join this noble cause.

    God go with all of you, and God bless the United States of America.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/288934/speaker-march-life-kathryn-jean-lopez

  • The press release from the White House states in part: “but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters”.

    Yet just last week the HHS rule regarding contraception coverage for all regardless of religious convictions was mandated (rather shoved down our throat).

    We must defeat this man and pray that our country is still salvageable.

    God Bless America – please.

  • Pingback: U.S. PRO LIFE EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • To Phillip’s comment: At my parish yesterday we had a very powerful sermon, primarily about abortion. The deacon did talk about broader issues, specifically care for the needy, but then brought it back around to abortion – in our area, Catholic charitable organizations have seen their aid cut because they don’t provide their employees with “family planning services”.

  • Life is the wellspring of freedom

  • Pinky,

    Good to hear. What diocese are you in? Obviously not all clergy have a disordered sense of moral issues. Unfortunately for me, I have not heard a homily about abortion without being equated to other issues in an exceptionally long time.

  • Washington DC. I think that as the host diocese for the March for Life, we’ve become more articulate on the subject than a lot of other dioceses. Now, the deacon did also talk about the death penalty (which may be overturned in Maryland) and other issues. But the subject of abortion is taken seriously, and not just as a once-a-year topic either.

  • I did read a blog post from a priest of the D.C. diocese recently that noted the issues involved in political judgments, allocating scarce resources, legitimate differences in solving problems etc. Much more balanced than the simple “life issues” theme.

    We need to spread such intelligent thought throughout the clergy.

  • Seems those people believe it’s licit to vote for the 365/24/7 abortion candidate because he/she promises to justly and pacifically confiscate/tax other people’s money and hand it over to the virtuous victims of rich men’s universal larceny.

    They don’t think much past the propaganda. To start, there is no way to steal gently or kill with honor.

    St. Robin Hood, pray for us.

  • I am so depressed reading hours of pro-life blogs and comments. After each one I emit an unconsciously led audible sigh. I am trying to understand why. Maybe at 62, I don’t feel I will live long enough to see abortion disappear. Do any other people get these feelings of hopelessness even when they are reading words whose intentions are to be uplifting?

  • Bill,

    I’m 61 years old. It’s all uphill beginning with rolling out of bed and verifying everything is properly functioning.

    I think [shudder] depression is a sin against Hope. Trust in God and do what is possible (talent, time) in this vale of tears. Besides, I need to be up because I want to help my family.

    I get feelings of rage.

    Plato [?] said, “Only the dead have seen the end of war.”

    Pray for the conversion of sinners and America.

    He will not nominate a pro-life Federal judge. His policies are ruining working people. Obama must go.

    No Democrat senator will accept a pro-life Federal Judge. I never vote Democrat only GOP pro-lifers or RTL.

  • “Maybe at 62, I don’t feel I will live long enough to see abortion disappear.”

    I can’t promise you Bill that you will live to see it, but each day we are one day closer to the ban on abortion. Opinion is shifting on abortion and time is on our side. We all need to keep slugging away until the goal is reached: recognition under law of the right to life of the unborn. On slavery Thomas Jefferson said: “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.” Precisely the same law of divine justice is at work on the issue of abortion. Be of good cheer, and keep up the fight!

  • @Pinky @3:43 Capital punishment is the temporal punishment due to capital one homicide. Capital punishment has been banned often and must be reinstated because the murder of innocent people is a crime that flourishes in its absence, especially of little children, when the murderer KNOWS that he will be spared the very same death that he is inflicting upon an innocent person. It has been said that life in prison is worse…than being denied freedom and civil rights by rigor mortis in a six by three foot box six feet underground? Unhappily, abortion is touted as “saving” the aborted person from suffering. The child comes into being (existence) through the will of God, lives through the will of God and returns to God at the will of God.

  • First off– thank you for a picture that gets the point across without giving me nightmares right off the bat. So many folks can’t manage that; I understand that abortion is destroying a tiny human, like the one asleep on my lap right now– that doesn’t make seeing their shredded corpse any easier!

    Growing up, the only time I ever heard about abortion was in “sex ed” in school.
    (Class of 2001, Spokane dioceses.) Came back five or so years later, and even our “let’s put him where he’ll do the least damage” run of priests mentioned abortion being bad a few times. Moved to a population center, it got mentioned during the sermon , and they even had a drive for baby supplies expressly to help remove one of the pressures for abortion. With the new bishop there’s been serious focus on fighting abortion, both in the supportive and the resistant manners– even knowing that location mattered a lot, there’s a LOT more action going on!

  • Before I read all the Responses I feel an urgent need to respond to Phillip…..Philip, if every Catholic in your country was faithful to God and ready to obey Him, they would not need their Priests or the Bishops to be hollering at them at every Mass that abortion is the greatest Insult to God and the worst Sin…..killing an innocent, defenseless person in the very place they should be safest – their mothers’ womb. Let us be honest….every Catholic and any person of goodwill – knows the Teachings of the Catholic Church and the Divine Law – written by God in their very hearts – and what offends God. Let us just pray to God to give us His Grace so that we can do the right thing – prove our love for Him by striving to live our Faith in fidelity.

  • Also, thanks for the picture.

    Our daughter-in-law is expecting our grandchild in July.

    I pray for that little baby, growing, every day.

  • Thank you Foxfier and T.Shaw. I thought the picture was an eloquent rejoinder to the boiler plate defense of the indefensible that Obama issued. Abortion is evil at its most graphic and Obama’s words, as usual, were banal. In his defense of this crime, one of the few consistent stances in his political career, Obama is the living embodiment of Hannah Arendt’s phrase: “The banality of evil.”

  • [email protected],

    I don’t disagree. The ultimate path to all justice, including social justice, is the personal holiness of all the members of society.

    That being stated, my point was to address the cover that is being given to ignore the evil of abortion by equating it with other social issues which are not intrinsic evils. (See Don’s post on Brother Dan above.)

  • At St. Patricks in DC yesterday morning the church was filled to the brim with high schoolers, mostly male who a Dominican priest give an amazing homily on Maximilian Kolbe and how we are to be prepared to die for Christ.There was not a sound made by the kids during the homily. It was a war call. Then we hit the streets and mother nature was not kind, but it did not matter. We are on the side of life; these kids know it. They are the future. God will win in the end.

    Lord, give us holy priests. Priests who can inspire and direct souls toward heaven and towards a love of humanity, even in the smallest form.

    My favorite sweatshirt yesterday was worn by a large group I think from Christendom U. It said: “Death roe survivor.”

  • The picture … there was one on a screen in the center of the route of a quarter standing on its edge with two little hands near the bottom kind of holding on to it or balancing it, definitely showing us dimensions in a heartstopping, dramatic way. And only God knows whose hands they were or whose feet are up there – I was lucky or blessed enough at that moment to focus on the voice of a Priest ahead beginning the third sorrowful mystery and think from behind he looked like Mr. Gingrich …

    (I just had to go back to see the title.) A vote to stop the reason for the subject and photography isn’t a lot to ask when you think of the purpose those two unknown lives had. Heard some young people saying they wanted to tell Obama that his mother was pro-life and wondered what she thought of him. Bill, there’s hope. Your sighs could be prayers, like in the Psalms. Listen to TShaw, Don, Foxfier, elm, and the Marys. Your prayer adds to it. Maybe our salvation depends on remembering the little ones to God. Some on them could be very young grandparents by now since that law.

  • …we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.
    -President Barak Hussein Obama

    When did “our sons” have the “rights, freedoms, and opportunities” to kill someone they found inconveniently in the way of “fulfill(ing) their dreams”? Scott Peterson, call your attorney!

  • Thank you, Philip, for seeing my point on the vital role for us the Faithful to push this campaign to its logical conclusion – i.e. the end of abortion and all the other bestialities the Obama man is ramming down the throats of Americans and to all the other countries where America holds a vice-like control. @T. Shaw, I am 73 heading to 74 and I am determined to be around to America abolish abortion and same-sex pervesions, embryonic stem-cell experiments and euthanasia…..I pray to God every day for this. And to think this man – whose philandering father is my countryman – was the perfect subject for abortion but for the human love and compassion of his betrayed mother….it makes me want to cry.

Christmas is the Time To Nag Your Relatives to Vote for Obama!

Wednesday, December 21, AD 2011

Hattip to Verum Serum.  Sheesh, how more cult like can they get?  Nagging your relatives about politics at family get-togethers, especially over Christmas, strikes me as a good way to drive a stake through family good feeling.  One of the great things about family is that you are thrown in with people you do not choose.  If you like them great, but you tolerate and associate with them even if you do not because they are blood and marriage relatives.  Families help teach us how to get along with people we might not have chosen to associate with, but for the accident of being related.  This mandates tolerance for differences with relatives who interact with us because we are family.  Using a family relationship as an opportunity for political propaganda strikes me as completely wrong-headed, and having a campaign adopt this as an official tactic of the campaign leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Christmas is the Time To Nag Your Relatives to Vote for Obama!

  • The folks that would listen to an ad that told them to drag politics into the holidays already were dragging politics into every family get-together they could, going off of my more obnoxious cousins.

    The delicate dance to figure out what political topics are safe is part of the fun of family!

  • …leaves a bad taste in my mouth…

    More than usual with this sick bunch?

  • Whoever came up with this idea must be the same person who decided that holiday family gatherings are a great opportunity to confront overweight relatives with the health risks of obesity and the need for proper diet and exercise! Yes, I actually heard some self-appointed “expert” say this in a story on NPR last night.

    What next — using Valentine’s Day or your wedding anniversary as an opportunity to change your spouse’s vote?

  • Gosh, this sounds like it is a “Do or Die” desperate strategy by the Obama Campaign Bunch to get him re-elected by whatever means – fair or foul .

  • My wife’s family double secret disowned us for being prolife & voting republican. I won’t have that problem.

  • I dunno. I’d like to hear their reasons why we should allow that good-for-nothing’ useless scoundrel four more years to finish us off.

  • I don’t know about relatives but has happened to me at two different jobs for years. The Dem shill comes in with the latest NPR or Dem talking points and starts his evangelizing.

  • Since most of my family is Catholic (a few in-laws are not or are lapsed) this is not likely to happen. Political discussion usually centers around which GOP candidate is least offensive.

  • Bleh. The tone of that video is so condescending. “Obviously our parents are stupid and old, so I need to educate them.” I wonder how many of those relatives who are coming around are just telling their pompous children what they want to hear so they will shut up.

  • I learned never to argue with infallible ignorance.

  • When the big O got elected I had a dream he had all those who disagreed with him sent to concentration camps ala Wild_in_the_Streets.

  • It’s unbelivable. Remember Al Gore telling kids not to listen to their parents because they were old and all that? This sounds the same. Telling young people to try to change their elders minds is not only unrespectful but tells me that since you are old you do not know what your doing. Mr Obama, We are too wise to be brainwashed!!!

  • We have an ancient saying in our Native Language and Culture which can be loosely translated this way : “Young people THINK they are more intelligent than their elders. The Elders KNOW the young people are not intelligent and lack the wisdom gained over the years”. I believe American parents need to remind their offspring of this Wisdom of our Forefathers.

  • Another beautiful Parable says: “An old man sitting on his stool by the door of his hut sees further than his young son sitting on top of the tallest tree”

10 Differences Between Obama and Jesus

Wednesday, December 21, AD 2011

 

Matthew Archbold started this meme over at Creative Minority Report, and I am going with it:

10.  Jesus cured the sick and the lame.  Obama is lame.

9.    Jesus walked on water.  Members of the Obama cult think Obama walks on water.

8.    Jesus drove the money changers from the Temple.  Obama squeezes them for contributions.

7.     Jesus said “Suffer the little children to come unto me.”  Obama only got the first four words of that quotation.

6.     Jesus was a Jew.  Obama is a (fill in the blank.)

5.     Jesus rode a jackass into Jerusalem.  Obama relied on the votes of jackasses to ride into Washington.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to 10 Differences Between Obama and Jesus

  • 11. Jesus spent 40 days fasting and praying in the desert. Obama spent $4,000,000 feasting and playing in Hawaii for 17 days – while low-to-moderate income Americans fast and pray they can pay electricity and home heating oil bills.

    To be continued.

  • Rev. Wright talks about Obama.

  • 10.a Jesus cures the sick and the lame. Obama establishes Death Panels for elderly sick and lame.

  • 7. Jesus advised us to have filial Faith in Him like that of innocent children. Obama supports, morally and financially, the Planned Parenthood’s, the Slaughterhouses for our unborn babies

  • Jesus really is The One.

If Only the Tsar Knew!

Wednesday, December 14, AD 2011

 

,

 

 

President Obama yesterday made these comments:

President Barack Obama said Tuesday he wishes he knew the full extent of the economic crisis when he took office, if only so he could have let Americans know just how tough the coming years would be.

“I think we understood that it was bad, but we didn’t know how bad it was,” Obama said in an interview with KIRO in Seattle. “I think I could have prepared the American people for how bad this was going to be, had we had a sense of that.”

I found this statement to be remarkable at the end of almost three years into his administration for a few reasons.

First, he acts as if January 2009 was just the day before yesterday rather than almost three years ago.  Most voters are much more concerned with what he has done, and in what he has failed to do, in regard to the economy.   Instead of Obama hearkening back to the state of the bad economy when he was sworn in as a tactic to defend his economic performance, he might be better advised to defend his actual policies.  I do concede that is an immensely difficult task to undertake.

Second, he seems to view his abysmal economic record as primarily one of public relations instead of poor policies.

Third, Obama and his minions have been harping for three years on what a bad economy they inherited.  I do not think they could have done much more on that score.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to If Only the Tsar Knew!

  • Every time that loser opens his mouth he detracts from the aggregate of human knowledge.

  • ” When a politician allows this type of tripe to flourish during his campaign, he better be a success in office in his first term. ”

    Success doesn’t matter. Tripe continues to be the main entree, served by daily talk show hosts to the masses day and night. With 2012 and the appearance of candidates around the corner, it’s the only dish on the menu. Not fun counting the ways tripe is being served.

Obama is Brilliant

Wednesday, November 2, AD 2011

 

I think intellectual agility tends to be one of the most overrated human characteristics in the modern world, while character, courage and morality tend to be underrated.  However, during the 2008 campaign we were constantly told by the media that Obama was brilliant and I assume that it is therefore reasonable to ask for evidence of this brilliance.  Anyone?  Feel free to supply evidence of the President’s brilliance in the comments thread to this post.

Continue reading...

42 Responses to Obama is Brilliant

  • I’d say brilliance applies when you’re a first-time senator with a high absentee record, no executive experience and able to con a substantial majority of voters to support you. Next to Cain and the rest of the GOP mediocrities, Obama looks like a genius.

  • I think the economic meltdown, the lapdog press and the swooning over Obama by most elites in our society had far more to do with Obama’s victory in 2008 than any brilliance on his part.

    I am no fan of Herman Cain Joe in that I think he has only a superficial knowledge of many of the problems that confront the nation, but compared to Obama prior to his election as President, he has a wealth of successful experience as the head of large enterprises:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain

  • I don’t think intellectual agility is overrated – I think its over-diagnosed.

  • Disagree cmatt. We put a premium on verbal dexterity and being mentally fast on one’s feet, hence the popularity of the dreadful lawyer melodramas that infest television. Glibness is all well and good, but it tells us very little about the person other than that he is glib.

  • I like the very last comment in that video, “you’re a racist”.

    These guys are the most empty vesselled people I’ve ever met (outside of Hollywood).

  • Donald, why is the woman always the dumb liberal in these videos? There are plenty of smart conservative ladies out there, and we need an avatar representing our opinions too. You must be sexist! 😉

  • Under Obama we no longer have prisoners in Gitmo, there are no us soldiers in Iraq&Afganistan, other countries love the US more, unemployment is under 9%, the economy is booming, everyone (especially the rich) are paying their fair share, businesses are being responsible citizens, the enviroment is cleaner (think BP spill, etc.), his administration is the most transparent and honest ever with no ties to lobbyists. The list goes on and on. Don, why would you ask such a silly question? It is obvious that you are a religious extremist and racist. It is too bad that you are not smart enough to see how brilliant President Obama is. Maybe when you “grow” you will be able to.

  • “Donald, why is the woman always the dumb liberal in these videos? There are plenty of smart conservative ladies out there, and we need an avatar representing our opinions too. You must be sexist!”

    Actually Mrs. Z I would like to see videos with the roles reversed. I will keep hunting. Youtube is an endless source of amusement along those lines.

  • To paraphrase the most enlighten philosopher and thinker of our times, Forest Gump: “Brilliant is as brilliant does.”

  • We put a premium on verbal dexterity and being mentally fast on one’s feet, hence the popularity of the dreadful lawyer melodramas that infest television.

    I do not think that is the explanation for Juliana Margulies’ current prominence.

  • Don, if making a lot of money is the highest qualification, then Cain’s your man, or Trump, or Warren Buffet or Bill Gates. But success in business does not impress me as much as intelligence and integrity, which I find sorely lacking on both sides. Adlai Stevenson was the last intellectual to run for president and he had holes in his shoes. Money has ruined American politics. Whoever has the most generally wins. America’s god is money and none other.

  • Actually Joe Stevenson was far from an intellectual, although he sounded like one, the same as Obama. As William F. Buckley acidly observed at the time: “Mr. Stevenson is always threatening to read a book.”

  • CatholicLawyer beat me to it.

    With apologies to Mrs. Z and declining numbers of sentient women everywhere: “Admiration is the daughter of ignorance.” Ben Franklin.

  • There are different kinds of intelligence. One can be a bookish person who has an incredible ability memorize stuff and process information – Bill Clinton, for instance – but that same person may not be as adept at synthesizing the information for useful purposes. Others might not be as book smart but are much better at abstract thought.

    If you look at our history, presidents in the latter category have been much better than those of the former sort.

  • The man in Paul’s avatar was likely the most brilliant man ever elected President. His presidency nearly ruined his reputation.

    I’ll take a man like Washington any day, who, though lacking the intellectual chops of Adams, Jefferson, or Madison, surpassed them all in the role of President.

  • If you review some of his ads at Living Room Candidate, you come away impressed with Mr. Stevenson’s willingness to politely step on toes. Wouldn’t happen today.

    Must disagree with Mr. Zummo. H. Truman was a bibliophile, but our better presidents these last 80 years generally did not have intellectual avocations.

  • Don, I think you’re being a bit hard on Adlai, who deserves better than a throwaway line from WFB. Stevenson’s political lineage was impeccable and he attended Harvard and Princeton, worked for a top Chicago conservative law firm (Cutting, Moore and Sidley), otherwise had an impressive resume.

    An eloquent orator, his 1952 speech at the Democrat National Convention electrified the audience. Here is sample of that brilliant oratory:

    “When the tumult and the shouting die, when the bands are gone and the lights are dimmed, there is the stark reality of responsibility in an hour of history haunted with those gaunt, grim specters of strife, dissension, and materialism at home, and ruthless, inscrutable, and hostile power abroad. The ordeal of the twentieth century – the bloodiest, most turbulent age of the Christian era – is far from over. Sacrifice, patience, understanding, and implacable purpose may be our lot for years to come. … Let’s talk sense to the American people! Let’s tell them the truth, that there are no gains without pains, that we are now on the eve of great decisions.”

    Although he couldn’t hold a candle to Ike on TV, Adlai had a good sense of humor and made fun of his “egghead” nickname; in one speech he joked “eggheads of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your yolks!”

    His most famous moment came on October 25, 1962, during the Cuban missile crisis, when he gave a presentation at an emergency session of the Security Council. He forcefully asked the Soviet representative, Valerian Zorin, if his country was installing missiles in Cuba, punctuated with the famous demand “Don’t wait for the translation, answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’!” Following Zorin’s refusal to answer the abrupt question, Stevenson retorted, “I am prepared to wait for my answer until Hell freezes over.” In one of the most memorable moments in U.N. history, Stevenson then showed photographs that proved the existence of missiles in Cuba, just after the Soviet ambassador had implied they did not exist.

  • Stevenson performed credibly in the Cuban missile crisis Joe. He was given to tossing out acerbic one-liners that hurt him. During one of his campaigns for President he was told by one of his more frenzied supporters, if one can imagine a frenzied Stevenson supporter, that he had the support of all thinking voters. Stevenson replied that that was not enough. He needed a majority. Witty and glib and insulting to the voters he was trying to appeal to.

    Joe, you really do not want to get me going on incompetent big firm Chicago attorneys that I have encountered over the years. To his credit Stevenson did flunk out of Harvard Law School, and from what I have seen of several Harvard attorneys over the years, that was probably a wise move on his part!

  • “I’ll take a man like Washington any day, who, though lacking the intellectual chops of Adams, Jefferson, or Madison, surpassed them all in the role of President.”

    Indeed Jay: courage, character and leadership. When the Constitutional Convention was held there was no question that he would be the Chairman of it, despite all the intellectual luminaries who were present. The Scottish proverb could have been applied to Washington his entire life: “Wherever Macgregor sits, there is the head of the table.”

  • I thought this discussion was about the “brilliance” of President Obama not Mr. Stevenson’s own brilliance no matter how bright it may or may not be. Why are we discussing Mr. Stevenson in this post? I almost feel I am being lead astray by Mr. Green’s non-topical posts no matter how intelligent or witty they may be. It seems to be someone is mudding the waters and not dealing with the issue at hand. But I have been wrong in the past and could be wrong in this instant.

    Thank you, Mr. Shaw. I know you have to be quick at The American Catholic because its readers/posters are very intelligent. (No sarcasm intended).

  • I would assume Catholic Lawyer that no one wishes to rise and assert that Mr. Obama is brilliant. Joe did it initially but I doubt he was being serious other than in a left-handed “what a flim-flam artist Obama is” type of way. If no one chooses to carry the affirmative of the question, I do not have concerns for a bit of a tangent. In regard to Stevenson, the wealth of experience he had both in government and in the private sector before running for president in 1952 contrasts strongly with Mr. Obama.

  • In a discussion on the brilliance of Obama, is it any wonder that the topic was exhausted before it started, hence the need to postulate alternatives. 🙂

  • Mr. Lawyer, redirect. I brought up Stevenson as an example of an intellectual candidate — at least by modern standards, and thought it was relevant in the context that Don supplied. Perhaps an “ignore” button on this forum would allow you to blot me out forever. I would not be offended.

  • Don, some salacious Sidney stories would be appreciated. I know someone who worked at Sidley for 40 years and supposedly knows where all the bodies are buried. As this may be off-topic and disrupt CatholicLawyer’s concentration, perhaps a separate post would appropriate.

  • I became convinced of Obama’s intelligence when I read his Con law final exams and there hasn’t been any evidence to the contrary.

  • It’s blinding.
    Inter or Trans, whatever.
    It’s how he executed his buzzword ‘change’.
    It’s how he bailed 1%-ers and the 99%-ers are in line now.
    It’s how it is he who will bring home the military by Christmas, and how he used that word which he otherwise desecrates in the timeline.
    It’s how he noticed the Gulf beginning to fill with oil.
    It’s how he spoke about wanting aspects of women’s hellthcare available to his children.
    It’s his level of vocal respect for any political opposition, role modeling for behavior of the young.
    It’s the level of esteem shown for elderly citizens.
    It’s how he doesn’t give speeches about the national debt reduction plan and ‘jobs’ lately.
    It’s how he warned his campaigners that 2012 wouldn’t be sexy, because why.
    It’s how carefully he looks after the President.
    It’s how he gets the mainstream news to the world.
    It’s how he follows his flavor of the day advisors.
    It’s his sense of humor, such as the days of AttackWatch.
    It’s probably the campaign fundraising guest lists and parties.
    It’s how he’ll be at the G20 for the, uh, USA.
    Isn’t it.
    Character, courage, and morality blinded by the shine.

  • “I became convinced of Obama’s intelligence when I read his Con law final exams and there hasn’t been any evidence to the contrary”.

    Now if he would just release his own grades from law school or college RR, that, and perhaps clearly demonstrate as President that he has any respect for the Constitution.

    It would also help if he clearly demonstrated that he understands the Constitution was not written 20 centuries ago! 🙂

  • Maybe if you read his answers to his Con law exams, you might change your mind.

  • Obama may have a high IQ, though I’m not convinced of that. I do know the man is totally bereft of common sense.

  • Oh Joe, I love you too – in the “love thy enemy” sense of the word. I will never place you on “ignore” – I have been taught that you must know your enemy as you know yourself. You provide insight into how liberals think.

    “Know [the] other, know [the] self, hundred battles without danger; not knowing [the] other but know [the] self, one win one loss; not knowing [the] other, not knowing [the] self, every battle must [be] lost.”
    Sun Tzu quotes (Chinese General and Author, b.500 BC)

  • Lawyer, if we bury the hatchet let it not be in each other. You do misread me, though, because I am probably tack further right than most on TAC but occasionally enjoy a minority or dissenting view just for the sake of argument. And there are times I have strayed a bit on both sides of the center of the political axis on issues. But now, nearly into my 70’s, conservativism is a natural development of any thinking man while as a young man and an idealist I leaned more left.

    As for knowing myself, I quote Socrates: “If I knew myself I would run away.”

  • Burying the hatchet is a very good idea. I can affirm that Joe is no liberal. In some ways I do think he is more conservative than I am, which is absolutely frightening! 🙂

  • Compared to me, you people are liberals.

    Inquiring minds may ponder: If brilliant Obama had a high IQ, perfect SAT/LSAT scores, stellar G.P.A., and/or straight-A report cards at the madrassah those items would not be sealed.

    I bet he, like the smartest woman on Earth, got straight P’s in law school.

    Unlike Crumley, Obama is no traitor to the America and our way of life: it’s not his way of life. Obama is the enemy.

  • If one limits the brilliance measurement as a relative comparison to other politicians, then Obama fares better than if he is compared to a different group – say the brilliant commenters gathered here. Veritable Einsteins!

  • PBW, Bill Buckley used to say “I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.” I would tend to agree with him. In regard to Obama, lacking even the saving grace of academic brilliance I assume since he will not release his grades, I would prefer as president any of our regular contributors or commenters, chosen at random. Certainly the individual selected would be hard pressed to do a worse job in that position than the current occupant, and Mr. Obama would be freed up for his obvious true vocation: World Celebrity For Life.

  • I would tend to agree with him. In regard to Obama, lacking even the saving grace of academic brilliance I assume since he will not release his grades

    He graduated from law school with honors, though his specific transcript has not been published. It is inneresting how the deans at four different institutions have successfully sequestered his files, given the uneven performance of various like officials in regard to G.W. Bush, Albert Gore, and John Kerry.

  • Before the system was reformed in 1999 Art, after Obama’s time, approximately 76% of Harvard law grads each year would usually receive honors. From Harvard Law grads I have known the grading in the institution, at least during the eighties and nineties, was not generally rigorous.

  • I think William Dyer (“BeldarBlog”) had some discussions of this years ago. Mr. Dyer has no time for the President, and never did. His opinion: that Obama graduating magna cum laude indicated he had ample intelligence. A more interesting question is why he was an achiever in that one milieu and not in any other milieux. (Dyer was in particular perplexed by Obama’s contributions to the law review, such as they were (not)).

  • In Obama’s time Art about 30% of the grads at Harvard Law School attained the rank of magna cum laude. (I could have used such a lenient yard stick when I graduated from the U of I law school in 1982!) By Obama’s day the head of the law review at Harvard was elected rather than chosen by merit. Obama was apparently active as an editor but he wrote nothing on his own for the law review, not even a case note, a dreary task as I can attest from my own law school days, which is beyond odd.

  • Correction: Obama did apparently do what is described as a “case comment”, which was unsigned and not attributed to him until the 2008 campaign:

    http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2008/08/obamas-belatedl.html

  • You will not see this in the New York Slimes or on Commie News Net.

    Before he flew home from the G-20 Meetings, Obamagenius insulted French Sarkozy’s physical appearance by telling the gathered heads of state the monkey’s new-born daughter is lucky. She looks like her mother.

    This is the smart diplomacy we has been waiting for, indeed!

  • Obama snubbed Easter 2011.

    Not so the murder cult.

    “President Obama and the First Lady mark the Hajj and Eid al-Adha”

    Michelle and I extend our greetings for a happy Eid al-Adha to Muslims worldwide and congratulate those performing Hajj.

    Thousands of Muslim Americans are among those who have joined one of the world’s largest and most diverse gatherings in making the pilgrimage to Mecca and nearby sites.

    As Muslims celebrate this Eid, they will also commemorate Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son by distributing food to those less fortunate around the world. They join the United States and the international community in relief efforts to assist those struggling to survive in the Horn of Africa and those recovering from the devastating earthquake in Turkey.

    The Eid and Hajj rituals are a reminder of the shared roots of the world’s Abrahamic faiths and the powerful role that faith plays in motivating communities to serve and stand with those in need. On behalf of the American people, we extend our best wishes during this Hajj season.

    Eid Mubarak and Hajj Mabrour. ####