Mulieris Dignitatem

1,000 Days Without A Budget

2012-01-24T15:58:00.000-05:00

West Inspires at March for Life Rally in Washington

2012-01-24T08:50:00.000-05:00

It's Jihad, Farley Towne

2011-12-28T07:29:00.000-05:00

"As A Priest, My Whole Purpose is to Produce Saints": An Hour-Long Interview With Fr. Barron

2011-11-07T20:54:00.000-05:00

"As A Priest, My Whole Purpose is to Produce Saints": An Hour-Long Interview With Fr. Barron

Third Base Politics: Help Ohio Fight Union Bosses and Obamacare!

2011-11-07T08:45:00.000-05:00

Third Base Politics: Help Ohio Fight Union Bosses and Obamacare!: From 2000-2010, Ohio lost 595,200 private industry jobs , faring better than only Michigan and California. In 2010 the state had the 7th-hig...

Causa Nostrae Laetitiae

2011-03-29T12:43:00.000-04:00

Causa Nostrae Laetitiae

Aborted baby cells used to make Pepsi, Nestle, Kraft, and Campbell's tastier

Biotech company using aborted fetal cell lines to test food flavor enhancers

Children of God for Life is calling for a public boycott of major food companies partnering with Senomyx, a biotech company that produces artificial flavor enhancers using aborted fetal cell lines to test their products.

In 2010, the pro-life organization wrote to Senomyx CEO Kent Snyder, pointing out that moral options for testing their food additives could and should be used. But when Senomyx ignored their letter, they wrote to the companies Senomyx listed on their website as "collaborators" warning them of public backlash and threatened boycott. Food giants Pepsico, Kraft Foods, Campbell Soup, Solae and Nestlé are the primary targets of the boycott.

Senomyx website states: “The company's key flavor programs focus on the discovery and development of savory, sweet and salt flavor ingredients that are intended to allow for the reduction of MSG, sugar and salt in food and beverage products....Using isolated human taste receptors, we created proprietary taste receptor-based assay systems that provide a biochemical or electronic readout when a flavor ingredient interacts with the receptor.”

Their collaborators provide Senomyx research and development funding plus royalties on sales of products using their flavor ingredients.

“What they don’t tell the public is that they are using HEK 293 – human embryonic kidney cells taken from an electively aborted baby to produce those receptors”, stated Debi Vinnedge, Executive Director for Children of God for Life, a pro-life watch dog group that has monitored the use of aborted fetal material in medical and consumer products for years.

“They could have easily chosen animal, insect, or other morally obtained human cells expressing the G protein for taste receptors”, she added.

In writing to their collaborators, it took three letters before Nestlé finally admitted the truth about their relationship with Senomyx, noting the cell line was “well established in scientific research".

Both Pepsico and Campbell Soup also responded.

Shockingly, Pepsico wrote: “We hope you are reassured to learn that our collaboration with Senomyx is strictly limited to creating lower-calorie, great-tasting beverages for consumers. This will help us achieve our commitment to reduce added sugar per serving by 25% in key brands in key markets over the next decade and ultimately help people live healthier lives.”

Campbell Soup was more sensitive in their response: “Every effort is made to use the finest ingredients and develop the greatest selection of products, all at a great value. With this in mind, it must be said that the trust we have cultivated and developed over the years with our consumers is not worth compromising to cut costs or increase profit margins."

While Campbell didn’t state they would change their methods, their response, gave Vinnedge hope.

“If enough people voice their outrage and intent to boycott these consumer products, it may convince Senomyx to change their methods”, she noted. “Otherwise, we will be buying Coca-Cola, Lipton soups and Hershey products!”

Bill Ayers at MSU March 24, 2011

2011-03-28T09:14:00.000-04:00

2011-03-13T19:44:00.001-04:00

video platform video management video solutions video player

Sen. Rand Paul on Consumer Choice in Energy Committee Hearing

2011-03-11T08:52:00.000-05:00

NPR Muslim Brotherhood Investigation Part I

2011-03-08T10:00:00.000-05:00

WTC Attack September 11, 2001 from New York Police Helicopter

2011-03-07T13:43:00.000-05:00

Wisconsin GOP Senator Glenn Grothman chased, trapped by hecklers, saved ...

2011-03-02T08:03:00.000-05:00

Planned Parenthood's Bunnies

2011-02-28T12:53:00.000-05:00

Pro-Life Flash Mob in Chicago Surprises "Walk for Choice"

2011-02-28T08:19:00.000-05:00

CNBC's Rick Santelli's Chicago Tea Party

2011-02-24T12:30:00.000-05:00

CAIR Confronts Allen West

2011-02-24T08:12:00.000-05:00

CAIR Confronts Allen West

2011-02-22T12:14:00.000-05:00

Wisconsin Doctor Explains Fake 'Sick' Medical Note

2011-02-20T10:04:00.000-05:00

Paging Dr. Shropshire: You're Guilty of Theft of State Taxpayers' Money

2011-02-20T09:44:00.001-05:00

Madison, Wisconsin—home to fourteen cowardly Democrats who slinked away in the dark of night to cross state lines rather than show up to do the people’s business; home to thousands of unionized teachers who called out sick when they weren’t to protest a budget repair bill meant to keep the state from going bankrupt and home to disgraceful doctors who wrote fake notes to excuse those very teachers from work.
Can you say theft of state taxpayers’ money? These “doctors” are nothing more than charlatans.
What a stellar example of sniveling little socialists you are. Is this what you want your children to see and mimic later in their lives? Really? Really?
Instapundit shares some of the emails he received from doctors who found the actions of their peers reprehensible.
Professor Reynolds says it best, “You could hardly ask for behavior better tailored to lower respect for the medical profession.” Amen, Professor, amen.
I’d like to thank Ann Althouse for capturing for posterity these doctors in action in the video embedded below.Read more: http://nosheepleshere.blogspot.com/2011/02/paging-dr-shropshire-youre-guilty-of.html#ixzz1EVhzdxTE

No Sheeples Here: Paging Dr. Shropshire: You’re Guilty Of Theft Of State Taxpayers’ Money

2011-02-20T09:35:00.000-05:00

No Sheeples Here: Paging Dr. Shropshire: You’re Guilty Of Theft Of State Taxpayers’ Money

Wis Doctors Hand Out Fake Excuses to Protesters

2011-02-19T16:33:00.000-05:00

Pajamas Media » A Letter from a Fearfully Concerned Muslim

2011-02-17T12:05:00.000-05:00

Pajamas Media » A Letter from a Fearfully Concerned Muslim

A Letter from a Fearfully Concerned Muslim
To an American-Jewish friend.
February 11, 2011 - by Salim Mansur

Dear Roger,
Since 9/11 I have been mulling over the words of Georgi Arbatov pinned on the wall above my desk. I don’t believe in conspiracies, and I strive to keep my distance from the sophisticates of the Chomsky school of conspiracy-peddlers. But I do believe in what Barbara Tuchman described so well in The March of Folly. Folly, it seems to me, is the most severe and unforgiving sin of politicians, especially politicians responsible for the security of societies in advanced cultures of relative freedom, such as ours at this time in history. As Martin Walker, then the Moscow correspondent for the Guardian, reported in August 1992, Arbatov said to him: “We are going to do the worst thing we possibly can to America — we are going to take away their enemy.” Arbatov, you might recall, was a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, responsible for keeping track of Soviet-American relations.
Arbatov — now looking back nearly twenty years later in deconstructing his words — seemed to possess a piercing understanding, as student of history, of the American scene, and how it could likely unfold over time in the post-Soviet and post-Communist era. His words to Walker were more insightful than any offered by just about all the left-leaning talking heads and commentators, in the U.S., Canada, and Europe put together. Arbatov understood, given his experience sitting in the privileged seat of the party in Moscow during the Brezhnev period, how the existence of Communist Russia checked the forces of the left in the West, keeping them from gaining influence and power. Now, as Arbatov reflected, since the Soviet Union as a military superpower had collapsed and the threat of Soviet Communism was discarded in the so-called dustbin of history, the spoiled children and beneficiaries of the West’s longest and strongest economic expansion and technological achievements, unparalleled in history, would set forth to do what the Soviet Union could not do — to advance the aim of Communism to wreck liberal capitalism from the inside.
Just ponder how a third-rate community organizer — from the most incestuously corrupt political region in the U.S.; with a record of participation in the most vulgar gathering of Jeremiah Wright posing as a reverend, spouting Fanonian rhetoric and bigotry; with mentors such as the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers; channelling the teachings of Saul Alinsky and Rashid Khalidi of the Chomsky school of self-loathing and sophistry — could advance through the ranks of American politics at an astounding speed, with little or no record of experience in government, to become the 44th president. In one of my columns from 2008 for the Sun Media in Canada, I had written in disbelief, as I watched the primaries unfold, of how American voters could be so beguiled by a charlatan of the Harold Hill type from The Music Man and vote for Obama. I was wrong in my overestimation of reason and experience among American voters as a check on the naivete of the university crowd and the duplicity of Lenin’s “useful idiots” in free societies. One of the lessons from 2008, for me, is this: how can I now scold Egyptians for wanting freedom and democracy behind the banners of the Muslim Brotherhood when their experience with electoral politics is negligible, and their history of 7,000 years offer little guidance for what freedom requires — respect for the other and not mistaking freedom for licentiousness?
There is not a very long arc connecting the joyful news of Soviet disintegration with the painfully distressing slide of American politics framed for posterity in the election of Obama. Arbatov did not nor, even if he had indulged in irresponsible speculation, could have predicted such an eventuality in American politics. But he had it right, it seems to me, for what he meant was the presence of the Soviet Union placed upon liberal democracies, led by the U.S., a discipline and a check upon the excesses and follies of democracy. But once this discipline was removed it would lead to a bacchanalia in the West, the near instant raising of the slogan “end of history” even as the dust from the tearing down of the Berlin Wall had not settled, and this lack of discipline combined with the “flower children” of the sixties coming of age and grasping for power, would bring about a situation, Arbatov imagined, that would do more damage than the old men of the Communist plutocracy could ever deliver without committing suicide of their own.It is on account of the circumstances in which we find ourselves since 9/11 that I fear the West is precariously tilting at the edge of terminal decline. The situation today is dramatically different than the one in 1979. Then, Ronald Reagan, with Thatcher and Pope John Paul II on either side, reversed the slide of American politics and the West — from the debacle of defeat in Vietnam, brought by the fecklessness of the Democrats, to the hostage crisis in Tehran.
The Soviet Union did discipline the West and, ironically, the existing reality of the Soviet Empire gave Reagan the measure needed to re-group and deliver the coup de grace. But after 1992 we have been in the state of enjoying our unrestrained appetite for endless orgy, the zeal that comes to declining bodies from the artificiality of induced eroticism by pills which give to narcissists of the “sixties” generation the pathetic sense of immortality. These are the folks the people have elected to run their lives, protect their cultural legacy, hold back the enemies of freedom, maintain balance of power in strategic and vulnerable regions of the world and, as Burke reminded his own generation, maintain the promise of the present and inheritance of the past as trustees for the unborn generations of the future.
Ten years after 9/11, we, the broad public of liberal democracies, still have not fully grasped the meaning of that horror-filled morning, or understood without any apologetics or polemics the evil nature and ideology of the men who planned and executed the deed. We remain more or less preoccupied with re-litigating the debate over the decision by the Bush administration to take the war declared upon the West into the heartland of the enemy and expunge them; and instead of faulting Bush for not going far enough at home and abroad in defeating the Islamist jihadi assault on the West, for reasons that have everything to do with the nature of our corrupted polity, we have contorted ourselves to find the right mix of appeasement. From the ashes piled high at the end of the Second World War to the re-grouping that was essential to contain the Soviet Union, the passage of time was barely twenty-four months. Ten years after 9/11, the West has as leaders Obama and Cameron, Sarkozy, Berlusconi, and Merkel still clinging to the fantasy that Islamists are merely a Middle Eastern version of Milton and Locke, Tocqueville and Mill, leading the reform of the Islamic civilization that once gave us Alhambra and the Taj Mahal, Omar Khayyam and the tales from the Arabian Nights.
The fault, as Cassius reminds Brutus, is in ourselves, a decaying civilization that will be saved (if it will be) not by the snobs in Washington and New York, London and Paris, Rome and Berlin, but by our version of the unsophisticated children of truckers who are now waking up from the drug-induced stupor of their parents’ and grandparents’ generation. I have hope, the eternal hope of a fearful heart, that the West will survive and yet again gather speed, but how sad are the losses and tears that have piled up — with more to come. They could have been avoided if we, as a people, were not so irresponsible or unfaithful to our history as to place at the head of our societies leaders so unworthy and clueless as the one who so unfittingly occupies the seat of Washington and Lincoln, at the head of this great republic.
Cordially,
Salim
Salim Mansur is a professor of political science at the University of Western Ontario.

Refusing to Suffer Is Refusing to Live

2011-02-10T17:04:00.000-05:00

Refusing to Suffer Is Refusing to Live
Catholic Portal
Refusing to Suffer Is Refusing to Live
When human fear masquerades as compassion, lives cannot be lived to their fullest because the fear is in control.
By Chelsea Zimmerman, February 09, 2011
2
Share
After several years of rigorously defending and promoting the dignity and sanctity of all human life, it has been my observation that one of the supporting pillars of the culture of death (those kneejerk proponents of abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, cloning/ESCR) is a desire to avoid or alleviate human suffering at all cost. A woman with an unwanted pregnancy doesn't want the "burden" of a child; sick people want cures for what ails them or they want to be put out of their misery altogether; what good is imperfection, anyway? We see suffering, more than evil, as the worst thing there is, so much so that we will commit evil acts in an attempt to avoid it, often under the pretext of mercy and compassion.
But a culture that expects life to be lived to its fullness must be able to embrace and make peace with—even find joy in—the normalcy of human suffering.
A few years ago, this expressed sentiment prompted a fellow blogger to ask: why?
I have to admit, she had me stumped. Though I had come up with the connection between the culture of death and society's disdain for suffering, I couldn't exactly explain why the two were so connected. Then, nearly two years later, I came across a section in Fr. Jacques Philippe's book Interior Freedom entitled "Refusing to Suffer Means Refusing to Live":
Suffering should be remedied whenever possible, but it is a part of life, and attempting to get rid of it completely means suppressing life, refusing to live, and ultimately rejecting the beauty and goodness that life can bring us.
Why does hatred of suffering lead to decreased respect for human life? Because refusing to suffer is refusing the totality of living. It is a rejection of life itself.
If anything is certain in this life it is that we all will, at some point, experience suffering. Accidents will happen; people will let us down; our bodies will deteriorate; our loved ones will fade. Suffering is part of human existence and we should reduce or ease it where we can, but eliminating it completely is not within our power. In fact, very often the more we reject and try to avoid suffering, the more we encounter it; as our ability to forebear any difficulty becomes decreased, the smaller and more insignificant trials begin to seem huge and intolerable.
When I was 17 and the doctors told me that I would never walk again, I knew I had two choices. I could wallow in self-pity and sit around moping about my fate and refusing to face life in a wheelchair. Or I could accept the diagnosis, get out of bed, and confront the challenges that come with a disability head on.
I'm not going to lie. The past eleven years have not been easy.
But that doesn't mean they have been "too hard" to take, or that joy has eluded me. I'm still a human being, I'm still alive, and my life still has meaning and infinite value despite my challenges and limitations. What's more, experiencing adversity has provided me with an elite (and extensive) education in the practical living-out of those valuable virtues: humility, patience, courage, and perseverance.
A life without suffering or conflict is one of heaven, not earth. On earth, even Jesus, the God-man, suffered. So did his beloved mother.
In another book, In the School of the Holy Spirit, Fr. Philippe posits that what often prevents us from becoming saints is the difficulty we have in fully accepting everything that happens to us. Though he does not will suffering, which is a consequence of Original Sin, God does, much to our bewilderment, allow it and he invites us to consent to it, not in a sense of passive resignation, but in the trusting, total abandonment that "for those who love God, everything works together for good" (Rom. 8:28).
God's ways are not our ways; he created us and alone knows what is best for us. He is infinitely good and eternally seeks our well-being, so we can be sure that whatever he allows to befall us is never purposeless, but ultimately for our benefit and the good of others.
The Culture of Death is rooted in an inability to meaningfully connect with suffering. Trained by the popular culture to believe that pleasure alone translates into "living life to the fullest," we try to avoid pain rather than move through it, which means we can never triumph over it or transcend it.
We think that by pushing all that is imperfect and difficult out of our sights, we are showing the tenderness of our hearts, when all we are really betraying in our fear, and how it owns us.
But we needn't be owned. Let us trust in Christ who tells us, "do not be afraid, little flock (Lk. 12:32). Take up your cross and follow me. For my yoke is easy and my burden light (Mt. 11:30)." Remember, ours is not a God who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has similarly been tested in every way (Heb. 4:15), who gave himself up unto death for us so that we would not have to suffer alone.
"It is not fleeing from suffering that heals us, but our willingness to accept it, grow and mature through it, and find meaning through union with Christ, who suffered with infinite love" (Pope Benedict XVI, Spe Salvi, 37).

Whitney Houston singing the National Anthem in 1991 (HD)

2011-02-07T11:18:00.000-05:00

No Sheeples Here: The President Who Stood By Our Side: My Tribute To Ronald Reagan

2011-02-05T07:08:00.000-05:00

No Sheeples Here: The President Who Stood By Our Side: My Tribute To Ronald Reagan

Bold child greets Pope at the Vatican

2011-02-02T10:47:00.000-05:00

The Catholic Knight: The Chapel Veil - Veiling or Head Covering - Fully Explained

2011-02-02T09:12:00.000-05:00

The Catholic Knight: The Chapel Veil - Veiling or Head Covering - Fully Explained

American Power: Time Magazine: Obama Loves Reagan

2011-01-31T09:39:00.000-05:00

American Power: Time Magazine: Obama Loves Reagan

No Sheeples Here: President WTF Is NO Reagan

2011-01-31T09:38:00.000-05:00

No Sheeples Here: President WTF Is NO Reagan

Fountain of Elias: A Reflection on St. Joan of Arc

2011-01-29T18:28:00.000-05:00

Fountain of Elias: A Reflection on St. Joan of Arc

A Reflection on St. Joan of Arc
Our Holy Father reflects upon the mystery of the charity of Joan of Arc.
Today I would like to speak to you about Joan of Arc, a young saint from the end of the Middle Ages, who died at age 19, in 1431....We could place her next to the holy women who stayed on Calvary, close to Jesus crucified, and Mary, his mother, while the apostles fled and Peter himself denied him three times.In her times, the Church lived the profound crisis of the great Western schism, which lasted almost 40 years. When Catherine of Siena died, in 1380, there was a pope and an anti-pope. When Joan was born, in 1412, there was a pope and two anti-popes. In addition to this laceration within the Church, there were continuous fratricidal wars between the Christian peoples of Europe, the most tragic of which was the interminable 100 Years War between France and England.Joan of Arc could not read or write, but she can be known in the depth of her soul thanks to two sources of exceptional historical value: the two trials she underwent. The first, the "Trial of Conviction," contains the transcription of the long and numerous interrogations of Joan during the last months of her life (February-May of 1431), and includes the words of the saint herself. The second, the "Trial of Nullity of the Sentence," or of "rehabilitation," contains the testimonies of close to 120 eye-witnesses from all the periods of her life (cf. Procès de Condamnation de Jeanne d'Arc, 3 vol. and Procès en Nullité de la Condamnation de Jeanne d'Arc, 5 vol., ed. Klincksieck, Paris l960-1989)....Joan's passion began on May 23, 1430, when she fell prisoner in the hands of her enemies. On Dec. 23 she was taken to the city of Rouen. Carried out there was the long and dramatic Trial of Conviction, which began in February of 1431 and ended on May 30 with the stake. It was a grand and solemn trial, presided over by two ecclesiastical judges, Bishop Pierre Cauchon and the inquisitor Jean le Maistre, but in reality led entirely by a large group of theologians of the famous University of Paris, who took part in the trial as consultants. They were French ecclesiastics who had political leanings opposed to Joan's, and who thus had a priori a negative judgment on her person and her mission. This trial is a moving page of the history of sanctity and also an illuminating page on the mystery of the Church that, according to the words of the Second Vatican Council, is "at the same time holy and always in need of being purified" ("Lumen Gentium," 8). It was the dramatic meeting between this saint and her judges, who were ecclesiastics. Joan was accused and judged by them, to the point of being condemned as a heretic and sent to the terrible death of the stake. As opposed to the holy theologians who had illuminated the University of Paris, such as St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas Aquinas and Blessed Duns Scotus, of whom I have spoken in other catecheses, these judges were theologians lacking in charity and humility to see in this young woman the action of God. Jesus' words come to mind according to which the mysteries of God are revealed to those that have the heart of little ones, while they remain hidden from the learned and wise who are not humble (cf. Luke 10:21). Thus Joan's judges were radically incapable of understanding her, of seeing the beauty of her soul: They did not know they were condemning a saint.Joan's appeal to the pope's intervention on May 24 was rejected by the court. On the morning of May 30 she received holy Communion for the last time in prison, and immediately after she was taken to her ordeal in the square of the old market. She asked one of the priests to put in front of the stake the cross of the procession. Thus she died looking at Jesus crucified and pronouncing many times and in a loud voice the Name of Jesus (PNul, I, p. 457; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 435). Almost 25 years later, the Trial of Nullity, opened under the authority of Pope Calixtus III, concluded with a solemn sentence that declared the condemnation null and void (July 7, 1456; PNul, II, p. 604-610). This long trial, which includes the statements of witnesses and judgments of many theologians, all favorable to Joan, highlights her innocence and her perfect fidelity to the Church. Joan of Arc was canonized in 1920 by Benedict XV.

Hannity's Gospel

2011-01-19T10:21:00.000-05:00

Mack The Knife-Dinah Shore & Pearl Bailey Sing

2011-01-16T10:16:00.000-05:00

GEICO's R. Lee Ermey, appearing on behalf of Toys 4 Tots & USO unloads o...

2010-12-30T09:29:00.000-05:00

Stewardship 2010 Part 2

2010-12-28T11:48:00.000-05:00

Stewardship 2010 Part 1

2010-12-28T11:47:00.000-05:00

Pentimento: The Pill and its Discontents

2010-12-15T08:49:00.000-05:00

Pentimento: The Pill and its Discontents

The Twelve Days of a Large Family Christmas

2010-12-07T22:01:00.000-05:00

Pearl Harbor Day Reflection

2010-12-07T09:18:00.000-05:00

Pearl Harbor Day Reflection
COLUMBIA, SC, CAMP MCREADY– At roughly the halfway point of my Abbreviated Introduction to the Army course, along comes the Day That Will Live in Infamy. While in Hawaii in July 2010, my wife and I made some time to get down to Ford Island with the then-brand-new camcorder. One profound aspect of the memorials there is the juxtaposition of the USS Missouri museum with the USS Oklahoma memorial:
From Shaun Schafer:
The surprise raid on the U.S. Pacific Fleet and air bases at Hawaii’s Pearl Harbor left 21 ships heavily damaged or sunk. The Oklahoma was one of only three not to return to service.The other two, the USS Arizona and USS Utah, remain on the floor of the harbor. The Arizona, which has a gleaming white memorial astride it midship, remains a tomb for most of its lost crew. The Utah rests on the harbor floor, largely forgotten.The Oklahoma wound up hundreds of miles from the harbor, resting in a grave of her own making, in the crushing depths of the Pacific Ocean.“The way she went down just proves that she had a mind of her own, and was a great lady right to the end,” Goodyear said.
While it’s a great thing that there is no lingering resentment over the Second World War, the neglect of the history bears review.
The rest of the story of BB-37 is the stuff of classical tragedy:“Sold for scrap, she was en route to the West Coast when she mercifully broke her tow and sank. . .” In the background of the shot of the Oklahoma memorial sits the flip side of the coin, USS Missouri:
Sometimes you’re the hero; other times, the footnote, per the Fickle Finger of Fate. I’ve met a few survivors of brushes with greatness. Most understand that the distance between hero and footnote is measured in tiny units of Fortune. Real heros often don’t take their heroism too seriously, grasping that much of it is pure circumstance. Not infrequently, it’s affixed after the fact by non-participants seeking to organize events.Should one’s turn come, one hopes that preparation and Destiny drives toward a Missiouri outcome. A reading of the Book of Job, however, instructs that, sometimes, Oklahoma will be the result.As has been noted:
Then Job arose, and rent his mantle, and shaved his head, and fell down upon the ground, and worshipped,And said, Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.–Job 1:20-21

No Sheeples Here: They Lowered Their Guns On A Miraculous Christmas Eve In 1914

2010-12-05T08:24:00.000-05:00

No Sheeples Here: They Lowered Their Guns On A Miraculous Christmas Eve In 1914

World War I had been raging for a year. One million souls had already perished in the conflict. On Christmas Eve 1914, British and German troops stood face to face in trenches divided by “No Man’s Land” along the Western Front.

The winter of 1914 was bitter. The soldiers, unequipped to face the rigors of the cold and rain, found themselves wallowing in a freezing mire of mud and the decaying bodies of the fallen.

The men entrenched there could not help but have a degree of sympathy for his enemy who was having just as miserable a time as they were.

On the eve of the “Truce”, the British Army was manning a stretch of the line running south from the infamous Ypres, a small Flemish market town, just over the border from France, for twenty-seven miles to the La Bassée Canal.

Numerous support associations on both sides flooded the front with gifts of food, warm clothes and letters of thanks. With their morale boosted and their bellies fuller than normal, and with still so many Christmas goodies on hand, the spirit of the season entered the trenches. A British Daily Telegraph correspondent wrote that on one part of the line the Germans had managed to slip a chocolate cake into British trenches. It was accompanied by a message asking for a ceasefire later that evening so they could celebrate Christmas.

Longing for the warmth of hearth and home, the story goes that German soldiers began singing “Stille Nacht” or Silent Night from their trenches. British troops began to sing Christmas carols too. Thus began the Christmas Truce of 1914.

Along many parts of the line the Christmas Day truce was initiated through sadder means. Both sides saw the lull as a chance to get into No Man's Land and seek out the bodies of their fallen brothers-in-arms and give them a decent burial.

It is comforting to believe that the legacy of the “Christmas Truce”, nearly hundred years later, soldiers and officers who were told to hate, loathe and kill, could still lower their guns and extend the hand of goodwill and the hope of peace on earth that Christmas Eve.

It was one of the few bright moments amid the slaughter of the Great War, in which fourteen million people were killed.

Austrian MP Ewald Stadler adresses Turkish Ambassador with Eng Subs

2010-12-03T09:46:00.000-05:00

No Sheeples Here: Pressing The Local Population Into Unwilling Martyrdom

2010-12-02T14:41:00.000-05:00

No Sheeples Here: Pressing The Local Population Into Unwilling Martyrdom

…and awesomely sending that insurgent to his 72 virgins. Star Trek, Star Wars....take your pick, ‘cuz here we come!

Just in time for Christmas, the U.S. Army has a new present for soldiers battling a fierce insurgency in Afghanistan.

After more than five years of development, American forces are using the XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement System, a pinpoint accurate and programmable grenade launcher that the military expects to be a "game changer" in its counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan.

The ultra-lethal XM25, which looks like something out of a James Cameron sci-fi flick, is a "smart" grenade launcher that carries four small warheads and features an array of sights, sensors, lasers and a short barrel the size of a small cannon.

The weapon fires 25-mm. shells up to 2,300 feet, almost half a mile, and can program the shell to explode at a precise point in space, allowing troops to kill enemies hiding behind walls and rocks and inside trenches or buildings.

For example, if a group of insurgents is hiding behind a wall, a soldier can program one of the XM25's rounds to detonate a few feet past the wall to shower the insurgents with lethal fragmentation from behind.

"With this weapon system, we take away cover from [enemy targets] forever," Lt. Col. Christopher Lehner, the project manager for the weapon, told Fox News. "Tactics are going to have to be rewritten. The only thing we can see [enemies] being able to do is run away."

'The Euro Game Is Up! Just who the hell do you think you are?' - Nigel F...

2010-11-29T11:10:00.000-05:00

78rpm pressing: Faith Of Our Fathers - Bing Crosby

2010-11-27T15:23:00.000-05:00

Royal Guardsmen-Snoopy's Christmas

2010-11-27T15:20:00.000-05:00

Preserving the EU project at any cost

2010-11-27T10:51:00.000-05:00

Amazing Grace - Scottish Bagpipes

2010-11-26T09:53:00.000-05:00

2010-11-21T12:47:00.001-05:00

Today is the last Sunday in Ordinary Time. Next Sunday being the First Sunday of Advent, a new liturgical year begins. This poster, shamelessly swiped from Father Zuhlsdorf's blog, wdtprs.com, is a more than apt reminder of what Advent means to Catholics the world over.

In Father Z's own words, posted today on his blog:
"In the older, traditional calendar there is no special liturgy for this Sunday. This is a poignant way to point toward the seamless cycle of the Church’s representation of the mysteries of salvation. In the newer calendar we are focused also on the end times in the Feast of Christ the king.
We simultaneously long for the Second Coming of the Lord – that is what Advent is about, by the way, the Second Coming in glory and judgment – and we dread it. Early Christians prayed with longing “Come! Lord, Come!” In later centuries the sense of longing was replaced with sober realization of what we will endure on the day of His Coming.
Both of these attitudes can help us in our own day to be concerned with joyful sobriety, sober joy, about the meeting we will have with the Lord when He comes. Do not forget that the last day of your life is going to be an anticipation of the Second Coming.   As Augustine wrote: Qualis in die isto quisque moritur, talis in die illo iudicabitur (ep. 199.2).
In death your life will be laid bare. In the Second Coming itself, the Lord will lay bare all things.   That which we have endured in life with patient perseverance and sometime suffering shall be given explanations.
St. Augustine explained that the Lord’s judgments are obscure to us now, but later they will be made clear. Justice in this life is imperfect. In the life to come it will be perfected.
All that which He has permitted to happen now, will be given reasons and explanations and we will finally see the perfect justice even behind what now is hidden and challenging.
The Church’s year presents us anew with the unchanging mysteries of our salvation. But year year we are a little different and closer to the moment when the Lord’s hidden justice and judgments will be revealed.   Do not be content to leave yourself straying on your life’s path toward your judgment with the knowledge of your saving Faith as it was when you were fresh from catechism as a child. Some people do. Do not leave yourself cold on the this path without the warming effect of works of mercy.
Live in sober joy, or joyful sobriety about the state of your soul even as you follow your mapway toward the Coming Lord through our Holy Church’s mysterious years of waiting."

No Sheeples Here: “Smittyvators”

2010-11-15T09:40:00.000-05:00

No Sheeples Here: “Smittyvators”

“Smittyvators”

Monday, November 15, 2010

The caveman from Cheeselandia, whose obsession with Automotivators and Danica Patrick is renowned, is at it again—this time on a subject close to my heart.

TrogloPundit has some “Smittymotivators” posted at his place to honor the studmuffin we know and love, Chris “Smitty” Smith of The Other McCain. Smitty is being deployed to Afghanistan in time for Christmas.

Smitty’s taking his fedora global and I wanted to join in on the fun.

No Sheeples Here: Sometime They'll Give A War And Nobody Will Come

2010-11-12T11:35:00.001-05:00

No Sheeples Here: Sometime They'll Give A War And Nobody Will Come

Skillful wordsmith, gleeful humorist, devotee of the female form, master of the comma, friend—these are but a few of the descriptives I attach to Smitty of The Other McCain.
I would not swap the favor of kings for the friendship of Chris “Smitty” Smith. I have “known” Smitty for two of the three-and-a-half years I’ve been blogging. I remember reaching out to Smitty when No Sheeples Here was a fledgling site.
Countless times, Smitty and Stacy linked to this blog and helped to drive traffic my way. I owe both gentlemen a great debt for helping to grow my readership.
Often, there would be an email in my inbox from Smitty with an idea for a Photoshop™. Smitty’s sense of humor and his deft use of words would bring a delightful and humorous twist to a story that was breaking on the Intertoobs.
In Cogadh No Sìth Smitty writes, “I hold orders to activate in mid-November and report to Kabul, Afghanistan in time for Christmas. Bandwidth and latitude for skylarking online will not exist until the end of 2011.”
It is difficult for me imagine The Other McCain being bereft of Smitty’s postings.
Smitty is a tender soul. A little over a year ago I received one of those emails from him that I mentioned above. In it, he asked if I would create a graphic in remembrance of LCDR Robert Randolph Elseth for Project 2996.
In his post for September 11, 2009 he wrote of Elseth:
The Crown of Life Bob wore,Invisible yet ever present:Worthy of Christian striving.The unfathomable Will of God,Placing him in the PentagonOn that day is joyous and bitter.Calling him home so soonImmortalizes his memoryWithout hugs for the remaining.Though my wife would object,At the time, I, a bachelor,Would have cheerfully traded places.Did you get that? He would have cheerfully traded places with Bob on that horrible day when the Pentagon was attacked on September 11, 2001. You can almost visualize the tears rolling down Smitty’s face. It was Ralph Waldo Emerson who wrote, “A man's growth is seen in the successive choirs of his friends.”
Smitty is a man of faith. For his impending deployment, Psalms 18:32-36 seems most appropriate:
“It is God who arms me with strength, And makes my way perfect. He makes my feet like the feet of deer, And sets me on my high places. He teaches my hands to make war, So that my arms can bend a bow of bronze. You have also given me the shield of Your salvation; Your right hand has held me up, Your gentleness has made me great. You enlarged my path under me, So my feet did not slip.”
Smitty is a patriot. For us he reminds, “And that the attitude that must be presented to the enemies of liberty; Taliban in Afghanistan, or Progressives closer to home. Thinking you stupid, they will continue to say that you ‘vote against your own interest’, and turn down their bread-and-circus substitutes for Liberty. Liberty ain’t cheap, and rejecting Progressivism may resemble pain for a while. That’s not pain. That’s Socialist weakness leaving the country, and don’t let these liars sell you otherwise. Stand and deliver, the way a Progressive cannot, for, at heart, modern Progressivism is a synonym for cowardice.”
Give the enemy hell while you are in country, Smitty. We will wait right here for you in prayer and thoughts of friendship and thankfulness that men of courage fight so that we may live in freedom. Godspeed.

Ray Stevens - We The People - RayStevens.com

2010-11-02T09:59:00.000-04:00

Cardinal-designate Raymond Burke Discussing Abortion and Voting

2010-10-28T12:00:00.000-04:00

Call Me Senator - From David Zucker

2010-10-28T08:20:00.000-04:00

Reagan - A Time For Choosing

2010-10-27T09:03:00.000-04:00

The Barney Shuffle

2010-10-21T16:45:00.000-04:00

The Problem of Evil

2010-10-10T12:47:00.000-04:00

The Problem of Evil
The Problem of Evil
Posted by Dr. Peter Kreeft • October 10, 2010 • Printer-friendly
The Problem of Evil
The problem of evil is the most serious problem in the world. It is also the one serious objection to the existence of God. No sane person wants hell to exist.
The problem of evil is the most serious problem in the world. It is also the one serious objection to the existence of God.
When Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote his great Summa Theologica, he could find only two objections to the existence of God, even though he tried to list at least three objections to every one of the thousands of theses he tried to prove in that great work. One of the two objections is the apparent ability of natural science to explain everything in our experience without God; and the other is the problem of evil.
More people have abandoned their faith because of the problem of evil than for any other reason. It is certainly the greatest test of faith, the greatest temptation to unbelief. And it's not just an intellectual objection. We feel it. We live it. That's why the Book of Job is so arresting.
The problem can be stated very simply: If God is so good, why is his world so bad? If an all-good, all-wise, all-loving, all-just, and all-powerful God is running the show, why does he seem to be doing such a miserable job of it? Why do bad things happen to good people?
The unbeliever who asks that question is usually feeling resentment toward and rebellion against God, not just lacking evidence for his existence. C. S. Lewis recalls that as an atheist he “did not believe God existed. I was also very angry with him for not existing. I was also angry with him for having created the world."
When you talk to such a person, remember that it is more like talking to a divorce than to a skeptical scientist. The reason for unbelief is an unfaithful lover, not an inadequate hypothesis. The unbeliever's problem is not just a soft head but a hard heart. And the good apologist knows how to let the heart lead the head as well as vice versa.
There are four parts to the solution to the problem of evil. First, evil is not a thing, an entity, a being. All beings are either the Creator or creatures created by the Creator. But every thing God created is good, according to Genesis. We naturally tend to picture evil as a thing—a black cloud, or a dangerous storm, or a grimacing face, or dirt. But these pictures mislead us. If God is the Creator of all things and evil is a thing, then God is the Creator of evil, and he is to blame for its existence. No, evil is not a thing but a wrong choice, or the damage done by a wrong choice. Evil is no more a positive thing than blindness is. But it is just as real. It is not a thing, but it is not an illusion..
Second, the origin of evil is not the Creator but the creature's freely choosing sin and selfishness. Take away all sin and selfishness and you would have heaven on earth. Even the remaining physical evils would no longer rankle and embitter us. Saints endure and even embrace suffering and death as lovers embrace heroic challenges. But they do not embrace sin.
Furthermore, the cause of physical evil is spiritual evil. The cause of suffering is sin. After Genesis tells the story of the good God creating a good world, it next answers the obvious question “Where did evil come from then?” By the story of the fall of mankind. How are we to understand this? How can spiritual evil (sin) cause physical evil (suffering and death)?
God is the source of all life and joy. Therefore, when the human soul rebels against God, it loses its life and joy. Now a human being is body as well as soul. We are single creatures, not double: we are not even body and soul as much as we are embodied soul, or ensouled body. So the body must share in the soul's inevitable punishment—a punishment as natural and unavoidable as broken bones from jumping off a cliff or a sick stomach from eating rotten food rather than a punishment as artificial and external as a grade for a course or a slap on the hands for taking the cookies.
Whether this consequence of sin was a physical change in the world or only a spiritual change in human consciousness—whether the “ thorns and thistles” grew in the garden only after the fall or whether they were always there but were only felt as painful by the newly fallen consclousness-is another question. But in either case the connection between spiritual evil and physical evil has to be as close as the connection between the two things they affect, the human soul and the human body.
If the origin of evil is free will, and God is the origin of free will, isn't God then the origin of evil? Only as parents are the origin of the misdeeds their children commit by being the origin of their children. The all-powerful God gave us a share in his power to choose freely. Would we prefer he had not and had made us robots rather than human beings?
A third part of the solution to the problem of evil is the most important part: how to resolve the problem in practice, not just in theory; in life, not just in thought. Although evil is a serious problem for thought (for it seems to disprove the existence of God), it is even more of a problem in life (for it is the real exclusion of God). But even if you think the solution in thought is obscure and uncertain, the solution in practice is as strong and clear as the sun: it is the Son. God's solution to the problem of evil is his Son Jesus Christ. The Father `s love sent his Son to die for us to defeat the power of evil in human nature: that's the heart of the Christian story. We do not worship a deistic God, an absentee landlord who ignores his slum; we worship a garbageman God who came right down into our worst garbage to clean it up. How do we get God off the hook for allowing evil? God is not off the hook; God is the hook. That's the point of a crucifix.
The Cross is God's part of the practical solution to evil. Our part, according to the same Gospel, is to repent, to believe, and to work with God in fighting evil by the power of love. The King has invaded; we are finishing the mop-up operation.
Finally, what about the philosophical problem? It is not logically contradictory to say an all-powerful and all-loving God tolerates so much evil when he could eradicate it? Why do bad things happen to good people? The question makes three questionable assumptions.
First, who's to say we are good people? The question should be not “Why do bad things happen to good people?” but “Why do good things happen to bad people?” If the fairy godmother tells Cinderella that she can wear her magic gown until midnight, the question should be not “Why not after midnight?” but “Why did I get to wear it at all?” The question is not why the glass of water is half empty but why it is half full, for all goodness is gift. The best people are the ones who are most reluctant to call themselves good people. Sinners think they are saints, but saints know they are Sinners. The best man who ever lived once said, “No one is good but God alone. “
Second, who's to say suffering is all bad? Life without it would produce spoiled brats and tyrants, not joyful saints. Rabbi Abraham Heschel says simply, “The man who has not suffered, what can he possibly know, anyway?” Suffering can work for the greater good of wisdom. It is not true that all things are good, but it is true that “all things work together for good to those who love God.”
Third, who's to say we have to know all God's reasons? Who ever promised us all the answers? Animals can't understand much about us; why should we be able to understand everything about God? The obvious point of the Book of Job, the world's greatest exploration of the problem of evil, is that we just don't know what God is up to. What a hard lesson to learn: Lesson One, that we are ignorant, that we are infants! No wonder Socrates was declared by the Delphic oracle to be the wisest man in the world. He interpreted that declaration to mean that he alone knew that he did not have wisdom, and that was true wisdom for man.
A child on the tenth story of a burning building cannot see the firefighters with their safety net on the street. They call up, “Jump! We'll catch you. Trust us. “ The child objects, “But I can't see you.” The firefighter replies, “That's all right. I can see you.”
We are like that child, evil is like the fire, our ignorance is like the smoke, God is like the firefighter, and Christ is like the safety net. If there are situations like this where we must trust even fallible human beings with our lives, where we must trust what we hear, not what we see, then it is reasonable that we must trust the infallible, all-seeing God when we hear from his word but do not see from our reason or experience. We cannot know all God's reasons, but we can know why we cannot know.
God has let us know a lot. He has lifted the curtain on the problem of evil with Christ. There, the greatest evil that ever happened, both the greatest spiritual evil and the greatest physical evil, both the greatest sin (deicide) and the greatest suffering (perfect love hated and crucified), is revealed as his wise and loving plan to bring about the greatest good, the salvation of the world from sin and suffering eternally. There, the greatest injustice of all time is integrated into the plan of salvation that Saint Paul calls “the righteousness (Justice) of God”. Love finds a way. Love is very tricky. But love needs to be trusted.
The worst aspect of the problem of evil is eternal evil, hell. Does hell not contradict a loving and omnipotent God? No, for hell is the consequence of free will. We freely choose hell for ourselves; God does not cast anyone into hell against his will. If a creature is really free to say yes or no to the Creator's offer of love and spiritual marriage, then it must be possible for the creature to say no. And that is what hell is, essentially. Free will, in turn, was created out of God's love. Therefore hell is a result of God's love. Everything is.
No sane person wants hell to exist. No sane person wants evil to exist. But hell is just evil eternalized. If there is evil and if there is eternity, there can be hell. If it is intellectually dishonest to disbelieve in evil just because it is shocking and uncomfortable, it is the same with hell. Reality has hard corners, surprises, and terrible dangers in it. We desperately need a true road map, not nice feelings, if we are to get home. It is true, as people often say, that “hell just feels unreal, impossible.” Yes. So does Auschwitz. So does Calvary.

We The People

2010-10-04T07:38:00.000-04:00

God Bless The USA by Lee Greenwood

2010-10-02T18:52:00.000-04:00

Courtesy Of The Red, White And Blue (The Angry American)

2010-10-02T18:49:00.000-04:00

Have You Forgotten?

2010-10-02T18:41:00.000-04:00

Courtesy of the Red White and Blue (The Angry American)

2010-10-02T18:40:00.000-04:00

Works and Days » From the Unbelievable to the Passé

2010-10-01T10:26:00.000-04:00

Works and Days » From the Unbelievable to the Passé
From time to time I stop and wonder how the unbelievable can become the accepted. Let me list four arbitrary, but still representative, examples of what I mean.
1) Embracing unworkable statism.
Everywhere one looks statism is a failure. Contrast resource-rich Venezuela with Chile. Juxtapose Cuba to Colombia. Of course, compare Dark Age North Korea with the 21st-century South. Look at the UK in 1954 and 1990.
They are rioting in Europe not to embrace socialism, but in petulant fashion to find someone somehow to pay for it — as if “they” and “them” are partying in some remote Aegean island, with vaults of stashed euros.
Whether hard communism or soft socialism, statism does not work. We all know why — it goes against human nature, rewarding mediocrity and punishing merit, professing egalitarianism for the masses, while the operators of the system, whether the old Soviet apparatchiks or the new crony EU Brussels bureaucrats, satisfy their appetites like capitalists. Ultimately, it is simply like coasting on a bike uphill. The last hard peddles are simply not enough to push the bike and rider over the hill: finally the brilliant small manufacturer, the lean contractor, the enterprising farmer, the late-into-the-night engineer — they cannot carry any longer the clerk, the auditor, the regulator, the tax man, and the bureaucrat who wish not merely to piggy-back onto the biker, but to try to stop his peddling even as they demand to get over the crest.
Yet we are finishing a second year of absorbing banks, insurance companies, auto manufacturers, and the health care system, borrowing trillions to redistribute in new entitlements, with more lust for equality of ends notions like cap and trade and immigration amnesty. Any House member who went along with all this and lives outside a blue-gerrymandered district or San Francisco or Chicago cannot run on the Obama agenda.
The entire statist protocol polls well below 50%. Past leftist candidates like Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, George McGovern, or Walter Mondale could not get elected on their visions; those who did (Carter and Clinton) either imploded after a single term or triangulated and so found a way to a two-term presidency despite never getting 50% of the popular vote.
Statism versus free markets is about as easy to understand as the difference between Singapore and Greece, and yet here we go again. This weird suicidal statist impulse seems for Obama to trump almost every other consideration: he may well destroy the Democratic Party for a decade just when it was recovering; he has so terrified private enterprise that trillions of dollars in capital are simply sitting out his first two years, waiting for the end of his congressional majorities, and hence his agenda to implode.
All this goes on as Obama sees the EU running away from precisely what he wishes to implement, while at home a high-tax, high-entitlement, redistributive economy like California has managed to destroy the most richly endowed human and natural landscape — agriculture, tourism, high-tech, oil and gas, Hollywood, Napa Valley, Silicon Valley — in the nation. And yet here we continue down into the abyss.

2) Higher education.
Most of what we are told about universities is untrue. America’s reputation for higher learning excellence (in business, sciences, medicine, engineering, and finance) is despite not because of the humanities and social sciences. Current research in the liberal arts (the portfolio the English or sociology prof is tenured on) increasingly has almost no relevance to the general public or applicability to teaching or even scholarly merit.
Diversity is Orwellian: the university is the most politically intolerant and monolithic institution in the country, even as it demands the continuance of tenure to protect supposedly unpopular expression. Even its emphases on racial diversity is entirely constructed and absurd: Latin Americans add an accent and a trill and they become victimized Chicanos; one-half African-Americans claim they are more people of color than much darker Punjabis; the children of Asian optometrists seek minority and victim status.
Meanwhile on the labor front, liberal faculties prove far more illiberal than K-Mart. Part-time faculties now account for 40% of the units offered at many universities, earning 30-40% of the wages per unit of full professors, and mostly without benefits. There is no outrage from those who customarily damn CEOs from the lounge. Tuition rises faster than both inflation and the cost of health care, and yet the twin promises of a BA degree are no longer kept: today’s graduates are not so likely to get a choice job, and are not certified as literate in English or competent in math.
At some point, all this cannot go on, and we will have the academic version of September 15, 2008 — as parents no longer choose to take on $200,000 in debt to send their children to 4-year liberal arts schools, in which they will be likely indoctrinated that they should oppose the very American institutions that created the wealth and freedom that fuel their colleges and pay their faculties.
We have in a way already reverted to the sociology of the 19th century of an elite and a non-lettered mass, but without its benefits. One-hundred years ago, very few went to college. Only a well-schooled elite did, as the rest learned through the school of hard knocks. (My grandfather never went to college, but used to chant to me when I came home from college his high-school Latin “amo-amas-amat” as he irrigated the vineyard at 82.) Today we try to graduate almost everyone, in the process ensuring that for 4-6 years they are not apprenticing at anything other than Starbucks, “The Poetics of the Low-rider,” and university psycho-dramas over dating and oogling. I wonder whether today’s entering freshman is any better educated than someone in 1890 who was farming at the same age. I note that 50% of incoming freshmen at the CSU system must take remedial math and English. I suppose the new Obama student loan take-over in part is designed to protect the status quo, ossified university that staffs his administration and provides the fire for so many of his agendas.

3) Technology.
I remember as a little boy going to the Big Fresno Fair to see the “picto-phone,” huge monstrosities that we were told one day would allow us to phone and simultaneously see the other person on the other end of the line. Then quietly in the 1970s all that disappeared and the idea became Edsel-like.
But wait — suddenly without as much as a whimper one can Skype across the globe for free. Is not that a revolution in the human experience that has transpired without notice?
The current technological revolution is stealthy like that. The advancing pace of change is geometric but not the human reaction to it, which devolves to quiet indifference. So we look at terrorists in Waziristan from Las Vegas and decide in judge/jury/executioner fashion whether the big face on the screen lives or dies that nano-second. And sigh? I fly to an airport, have a minute, and access over 60 million words of the corpus of ancient Greek literature in between flights. Big deal?
The strange thing is that none of this has been quite factored into fossilized metrics that supposedly quantify the standard of living, poverty rates, GDP, etc. In the grocery line not long ago, two teens were chatting in Spanish to relatives by iPhone in distant Mexico. Are they impoverished or enjoying a privilege exclusive to royalty just forty years ago? Today’s Kia is more comfortable and electronically sophisticated than the Rolls and Bentley of just 20 years ago — and available to drive off to anyone with a credit card for the down payment. Surely, our social and political barometers of success and failure have simply not caught up to the technological revolution, more like horse-and-buggy calibrations trying to quantify gasoline engines.

4. The Plutocratic party?
I cannot fathom how the Democratic Party became run by those who live lives nothing remotely similar to what they profess. Yes, I know the Roosevelt-Kennedy tradition of limousine liberals, but today’s chasm between word and deed is stunning — and never remarked on. Are we to believe that prep-schooled and Ivy Leagued millionaire Barack Obama is the blue-collar face of the Democratic Party, while one of twelve children John Boehner is some sort of J.P. Morgan insider rich man? No wonder that Obama must fake his cadences, bowl, and try to eat cabbage instead of arugula.
The Al Gore, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros phenomenon is baffling. The best I can make of it goes something like this. Once someone makes enough money truly to be exempt from worries over taxation (but even Kerry proved that $1 billion does not quite end the impulse to dodge sales taxes), or is deeply burrowed within government so that almost everything is free or subsidized, then some sort of human desire to help the “other” kicks in as a sort of penance for the enjoyment of privilege.
How could Barack Obama, community organizer par excellence, send his kids to Sidwell Friends? How does Bill Gates, Sr. tour the country, hectoring to re-impose inheritance taxes? Did Al Gore need the extra Montecito home or John Kerry the $7 million yacht (cf. “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money”)? Why did the Clintons shake down corporations for gifts to their DC home and Bill’s library?
Stranger still is this new Democratic emperor/bread-and-circus alliance. The very wealthy promise largess to the poorer on the premise that both despise the culture of the aspiring, the one in condescending disdain, the other in bitter envy. Jimmy Carter laments, near life’s end, the unfairness of it all, as the ignorant never appreciated his godhead. John Kerry wails about how a slogan or two misled us from his message. Obama re-channels the poor clueless clingers trope from the Ground Zero mosque to the upcoming election. “What’s the matter with Kansas?” is the gnashing of the well-off who cannot understand why the less well-off don’t join them in redistributing their far smaller incomes.
The final irony? Lost in all this sanctimonious moralizing by the Bill Maher/Michael Moore/George Soros left is that there is redistribution going on constantly. In every extended family someone has done pretty well. What happens? He loans money to cousins. She puts up a nephew in the extra bedroom, gives a lot to her church, pays for bats at Little League, takes her daughter’s fellow Brownies to pizza, or co-signs the nephew’s car loan.
The upper-middle-class is not greedy, but they do have three reservations about the Obama pie-slicing: they want to have a little say in the distribution; they better than Obama know how much they can afford to give; and they sense that something for nothing is not a neutral act, but a sort of evil in creating dependency and destroying initiative — all for that selfish feeling of benefaction among elites that comes from handing out someone else’s money.
No, I cannot quite believe how quietly and without audit America’s moneyed and cognitive elites became such hectoring populists — with the constant assumption they could still live, school, work, and marry largely among like kind — oh so distant from the objects of their concern.

#links#links

2010-09-30T15:16:00.001-04:00

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

devout gratitude to God for having placed these heavenly spirits of great sanctity and dignity at the service of man...
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray; and do thou, O prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan and all the other evil spirits who roam about the world, seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

Blessed Saint Gabriel, Archangel We beseech you to intercede for us at the throne of divine mercy: As you announced the mystery of the Incarnation to Mary, so through your prayers may we receive strength of faith and courage of spirit, and thus find favor with God and redemption through Christ Our Lord. May we sing the praise of God our Savior with the angels and saints in heaven forever and ever. Amen. Pietro Perugino

Blessed Saint Raphael, Archangel, We beseech you to help us in all our needs and trials of this life, as you, through the power of God, didst restore sight and gave guidance to young Tobit. We humbly seek your aid and intercession, that our souls may be healed, our bodies protected from all ills, and that through divine grace we may become fit to dwell in the eternal Glory of God in heaven. Amen. Macrod Oggiono

Wounded Warrior Indoor Obstacle Course Test (IOCT)

2010-09-29T14:28:00.000-04:00

The 5 Biggest Lies about Liberalism

2010-09-29T08:37:00.000-04:00

The 5 Biggest Lies about Liberalism

The 5 Biggest Lies about Liberalism
5. Multiculturalism - If you haven't seen the billboards yet, liberals love multiculturalism, they embrace all races and religions because they believe in diversity. True? Nope.Liberals follow the left's paradigm of waging class warfare. Their interest in minorities extends only to enlisting some disenfranchised groups in their class warfare. Contrary to all the multicultural billboards, liberals are primarily interested in unsuccessful minorities, because they can frighten them, exploit them and farm them as voting blocks. Successful minorities such as Asians, Indians and Jews are wanted only as window dressing. And get the short end of the stick when a real issue comes up.
Multiculturalism is really only class warfare disguised as opposition to bigotry. Take away all the historical revisionism about the Democratic party's ugly civil rights history and the empty slogans about diversity, and what you have left is naked political opportunism. The Democratic party trafficked in racism when it suited them (and still does) and dons the halo of tolerance when it suits them now. The left was equally at home working both sides of the street, and the views of great socialists from Jack London to Karl Marx on race, differed little from those of the Nazi party.Multiculturalism isn't a philosophy, it's a political organization tactic to bring the groups they consider part of the working class under one umbrella. It's the same old class warfare organizational tactics applied to race and ethnicity. The goal of these tactics is not empowerment, but to create a voting bloc of people who have been convinced that they're doomed to helplessness, without the leadership of the left "fighting" on their behalf.Liberals can still be and often are bigots. Their bigotry is just informed by political necessity. As a bonus, having the "diversity" brand allows them to describe the opposition as bigots, without ever being called out for their own bigotry.

4. Feminism - We all know of course that liberals are the biggest feminists out there, except when they're running against a woman. Or when a woman accuses their candidate of rape or sexual harassment. Like multiculturalism, owning the feminist brand has been convenient. And it was easy enough to manage once feminism became a wholly owned product of academia, funded by liberal groups like the Ford Foundation. This brand of feminism has as much to do with equal rights for women, as African Studies have to do with equal rights for African-Americans. They're basically little more than ways to repackage the agenda politics of the far left in identity colors. That way socialism can be dressed up as a civil rights agenda, and opposition to it becomes racism or sexism.
That leads us to the absurd spectacle of academic feminists declaring that successful female candidates who don't share their politics are not feminists, but male candidates who do, are. Dig down to their real definition of feminism, and it turns out to be liberalism. None of this has anything to do with women, just as multiculturalism has nothing to do with race. Take away the disguises, and you end up with the same old ideology marketed to target groups as a political organizing tactic. It's no different than selling cereal, except the cereal is red and comes with a few dozen textbooks. Liberals are not interested in empowering women, except to work for them or vote for them. There is no philosophical commitment here to equality for women, only a sales pitch for liberalism.

3. Friends of the Poor - We know liberals are against poverty, right? Otherwise why all that talk of making the rich pay their fair share. But if you actually look at socialist countries, the poor aren't exactly coming out ahead. What's the problem? The problem is that liberals are not into enriching the poor, but removing what they consider the upper class, and turning over control of the economy to themselves. But a centrally planned economy leads to more poverty, not less. Take away the ability to go up the economic ladder, and how can poverty end?It can't. But ending poverty was never the idea. Wealth redistribution is a neat catchphrase, but the reality is that the rich and the middle class are purged to make way for a new rich and middle class composed of party members. Their brand of equality is not about helping the poor, but putting themselves in charge and imposing an artificial standard of fairness in order to build a perfect society. Before Communism came to Russia, the poor begged on the street. After Communism, begging was illegal and the poor were deported to labor camps as parasites. Because once society is made equal, anyone who's still unequal must be an exploiter or a parasite.
You can't end poverty, except through opportunity, and that's the one thing their social system doesn't offer. It's why America under Obama is poorer than ever. Jobs aren't created by confiscating wealth, but by encouraging free enterprise. But when the goal isn't to create jobs, but to create a static society where everyone knows their place, then their way is best. All totalitarian movements are at their heart, reactionary. Even if they're cloaked in red t-shirts and rock concerts. And reactionary movements are often spearheaded by an upper class trying to deny social mobility to the working class. And when you take a magnifying glass to liberalism, that's exactly what it looks like. Of course this isn't an original observation. Orwell's Oceania in 1984 worked on the same exact principle. Orwell was warning about the rise of a totalitarian left with no regard for human rights. But it's already here.

2. Pro-Peace - The left is peaceful in the same way that active volcanoes are gentle, and tsuanmis are a good way to cool off after a long summer day.Look around the world at the left of center regimes, and you come away with a horror show of constant conflicts. (The left explains this as the result of vast conspiracies by reactionary forces against the freedom loving peoples of the world and their friendly dictators.) And then count how many liberals wear t-shirts with King or Gandhi on them, and how many wear t-shirts with Che on them.If you read the official talking points, you would have no idea that America fought most of its wars in the 20th century under Democratic Presidents. Or that the enthusiastic revolutionaries of the USSR and China between them accounted for more dead, than would have been produced by a nuclear war.
But being pro-peace is yet another talking point. The left is not pro-peace, it's against wars being fought by their political opponents. Take a measure of how much coverage anti-war protests received under Bush, and how much coverage they receive under Obama. The war hasn't gone away, even the protests haven't entirely gone away (mostly by the same Marxist-Trotskyist groups that were running them all along) but the coverage has gone down the rabbit hole. Then let's take a walk back to WW2, when American liberals went from being anti-war when Hitler invaded Poland, to being pro-war when he invaded the Soviet Union. The Trotskyists of the era remained anti-war and the Communist party in the United States helped the authorities deal with them. Because suddenly war was in their interest.The liberal position on war is that they are against it, unless they are for it. And then when it's over, they are against it, because it didn't accomplish all their goals. Liberals were against WW2, before they were for it, but then they were against it, once those GI's weren't wearing down German tanks anymore, but blocking Soviet tanks from "liberating" the rest of Europe. Liberals were for Israel, when England was against Israel, but they were against Israel, when Arab tanks forwarded from the Soviet Union were being blown up by the damned Israelis. An easy way to sketch out the liberal position on a war, is to check the political ideology of the government fighting it and how it accords with their own politics, the political ideology of the enemy they are fighting against, and the effect on any left wing regimes. Add all that up and you get the liberal position on the war. The further left you go, the higher the bar goes. Liberals will support wars by liberal governments against developed countries they consider reactionary. They will generally oppose all wars by conservative governments. They will generally oppose wars by liberal governments against undeveloped countries, sometimes even when those countries are reactionary, unless the government conducting the war is far to the left. There are ideological complications and rivalries in the mix. There's also the human factor. Some American liberals did support the American invasion of Afghanistan initially, but the left never did. A handful of liberals actually thought the American program was within their own ideology, but they were primarily British, and were quickly ostracized for it. On the other hand, George Galloway, who openly supported Saddam, is still considered a hero of the people. Because as bad as Saddam worse, the general agreement is that America was worse, because it represents capitalism and people with jobs. Which are not things the left likes.And there you have it. The left's commitment to peace. Or rather a commitment to anti-war rallies, when the war in question doesn't seem to be in their interest, and isn't being waged to protect a left-wing country, or a group that the left is allied with.

1. Patriotic - Every now and then liberals like to claim that they're patriotic. Usually around an election. Of course they're not patriotic in the "wear a flag on your lapel" kind of way. They're more patriotic in the "point out everything wrong with your country and then threaten to move to Canada if you don't win the election" way. Which is fine. America has seen patriots like that before. They used to wear green coats and moved to Canada, right around the time the last British troops left New York on Evacuation Day.Occasionally when in power liberals will actually try to brand their opponents as traitors or unpatriotic, but like a dog trying to talk, it never sounds right. Mostly they have to defend themselves against charges of being unpatriotic, particularly when they've been caught attending a church whose rousing hymn is "God Damn America". It's a challenge being patriotic, when you don't believe in American Exceptionalism, or even the value of the Nation-State. When you think that the world would run better if everyone just listened to what the UN tells them to do. When you think that its history is the story of how rich Europeans murdered all the natives and built smokestacks over their graves in order to plunder South America of its fruit-- being patriotic really requires contortionism that would put any circus acrobat to shame.
That's probably why liberals don't do the patriotism thing very well. It's hard to spit in someone's face one day and then hug them the next. For liberal politicians, patriotism is one of those unfortunate election season things they try to get through as quickly as possible. And hope no one asks them if they believe in the Constitution. When they're forced to, they will say something vague about America's heritage of tolerance, and imply that the WW2 GI's were fighting for socialism, civilian trials for terrorists and opposition to tort reform. They're most comfortable around the Civil War and WW2. Anything outside that comfort zone makes them itchy. They will pose next to Old Glory when they have to, if they have a relative who fought in a war, they will bring him up. If he's not dead, they will drag him out. If he is dead, they will dig him up. But just don't ask them any questions about the application of their vaunted patriotism. Or why if they're so patriotic, they can't actually get behind their country in wartime.Of course they will answer that true patriotism means undermining your country in wartime. Which means that Benedict Arnold was the original patriot.Take away these 5 and what do you have left? Nothing but a political ideology that seeks power and will use any rhetoric and trick to get it. And that is the real face of modern day liberalism.

No Sheeples Here: A Less Free America Is Everybody’s Problem

2010-09-28T08:55:00.000-04:00

No Sheeples Here: A Less Free America Is Everybody’s Problem

Mike Pence - The Constitution and the Presidency

2010-09-25T15:06:00.000-04:00

RightChange.com-John Boccieri-Ohio-Congress

2010-09-24T09:26:00.002-04:00

Wednesday Open Thread: Hale Edition

2010-09-22T08:51:00.001-04:00

Wednesday Open Thread: Hale Edition

Today, in 1776, soldier and spy Nathan Hale was executed by the British. His purported last words were, “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.”

The American Spectator : Mike Pence's Hillsdale College Speech on the Presidency

2010-09-21T09:06:00.000-04:00

The American Spectator : Mike Pence's Hillsdale College Speech on the Presidency

Mike Pence's Hillsdale College Speech on the Presidency

By Rep. Mike Pence on 9.20.10 @ 8:08PM

The prepared text of the speech Indiana Republican Rep. Mike Pence delivered Monday night at Hillsdale College.

President and Mrs. Arnn, Mr. John Cervini, Mr. David Bobb, Elliot Gaiser, College Republicans and each and every one of the faculty and students of Hillsdale College here today.… As I am sure you know, honor is what allows us to do what is right despite the cost. Even greater honor is required to do what is right in the face of superior power. And the greatest honor is to stand strong even if it means standing alone.
The long fight of Hillsdale College, standing alone -- then and now for the proposition that all men are created equal, then with Frederick Douglass, now with Clarence Thomas; then and now in the conviction that, as Americans are not horses, we were not born to have saddles placed on our backs, by anyone, at any time, and for any reason…. This long fight, you have fought for love of ideas that did not come in dreams, or as Reagan said, did not "spring full bloom" from your brow, but "came from the heart of a great nation," rose in a time of unprecedented stress and genius, and since the founding kept this country whole, prosperous, safe, just, free and good.
It is therefore a high honor for me to stand before you in this place so closely associated with the founding of the Republican Party in opposition to the unforgivable sin of slavery; this place where statesmanship is taught as an art, and where right conduct is seen as its own reward. I thank you, and may God bless you for your bravery and courage.
I rise to pay a debt of honor and a debt to history. My subject today is the presidency, and my hope is that you see that institution in a new light and never despair of the republic.
***
The presidency is the most visible thread that runs through the tapestry of the American government. More often than not, for good or for ill, it sets the tone for the other branches and spurs the expectations of the people. Its powers are vast and consequential, its requirements -- from the outset and by definition -- impossible for mortals to fulfill without humility and insistent attention to its purpose as set forth in the Constitution of the United States.
Isn't it amazing, given the great and momentous nature of the office, that those who seek it seldom pause to consider what they are seeking? Rather, unconstrained by principle or reflection, there is a mad rush toward something that, once its powers are seized, the new president can wield as an instrument with which to transform the nation and the people according to his highest aspirations
But, other than in a crisis of the house divided, the presidency is neither fit nor intended to be such an instrument. When it is made that, the country sustains a wound, and cries out justly and indignantly. And what the nation says -- the theme of this address... What it says, informed by its long history, impelled by the laws of nature and nature's God... What it says quite naturally and rightly, if not always gracefully, is that we as a people are not to be ruled and not to be commanded. It says that the president should never forget this; that he has not risen above us, but is merely one of us, chosen by ballot, dismissed after his term, tasked not to transform and work his will upon us, but to bear the weight of decision and to carry out faithfully the design laid down in the Constitution and impassioned by the Declaration of Independence.
***
The presidency must adhere to its definition as expressed in the Constitution, and to conduct defined over time and by tradition. While the powers of the office have enlarged, along with those of the legislature and the judiciary, the framework of the government was intended to restrict abuses common to classical empires and to the regal states of the 18th century.
Without proper adherence to the role contemplated in the Constitution for the presidency, the checks and balances in the constitutional plan become weakened. This has been most obvious in recent years when the three branches of government have been subject to the tutelage of a single party. Under either party, presidents have often forgotten that they are intended to restrain the Congress at times, and that the Congress is independent of their desires. And thus fused in unholy unity, the political class has raged forward in a drunken expansion of powers and prerogatives, mistakenly assuming that to exercise power is by default to do good.
Even the simplest among us knows that this is not so. Power is an instrument of fatal consequence. It is confined no more readily than quicksilver, and escapes good intentions as easily as air flows through mesh. Therefore, those who are entrusted with it must educate themselves in self-restraint. A republic -- if you can keep it -- is about limitation, and for good reason, because we are mortal and our actions are imperfect.
The tragedy of presidential decision is that even with the best choice, some, perhaps many, will be left behind, and some, perhaps many, may die. Because of this, a true statesman lives continuously with what Churchill called "stress of soul." He may give to Paul, but only because he robs Peter. And that is why you must always be wary of a president who seems to float upon his own greatness. For all greatness is tempered by mortality, every soul is equal, and distinctions among men cannot be owned; they are on loan from God, who takes them back and evens accounts at the end.
It is a tragedy indeed that new generations taking office attribute failures in governance to insufficient power, and seek more of it. In the judiciary this has seldom been better expressed than by Justice Thurgood Marshall's dictum that, "You do what you think is right and let the law catch up." In the Congress, it presents itself in massive legislation, acts and codes thousands of pages long and so monstrously over-complicated that no human being can read through them in a lifetime -- much less understand them, much less apply them justly to a people that increasingly feel like they are no longer being asked, they are being told. Our nation finds itself in the position of a dog whose duty it is not to ask why, because the "why" is too elevated for his nature, but simply to obey.
America is not a dog, and does not require a "because-I-said-so" jurisprudence to which it is then commanded to catch up, or legislators who knit laws of such insulting complexity that they are heavier than chains; or a president who acts like, speaks like, and is received as a king. The presidency has run off the rails. It begs a new clarity, a new discipline, and a new president.
The president is not our teacher, our tutor, our guide or ruler. He does not command us, we command him. We serve neither him nor his vision. It is not his job or his prerogative to redefine custom, law and beliefs; to appropriate industries; to seize the country, as it were, by the shoulders or by the throat so as to impose by force of theatrical charisma his justice upon 300 million others. It is neither his job nor his prerogative to shift the power of decision away from them, and to him and the acolytes of his choosing.
Is my characterization of unprecedented presumption incorrect? I defer to the judgment of the people, which they will make with their own eyes, and ears. Listen to the exact words of the leader of President Obama's transition team and perhaps his next chief-of-staff: "It's important that President-Elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one." Or, more recently, from the words of the latest presidential appointment to avoid confirmation by the Senate, the new head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau wrote last Friday, "President Obama understands the importance of leveling the playing field again."
"Take power… Rule... Leveling." Though it is now, this has never been and should never again be the model of the presidency or the character of the American president. No one can say this too strongly and no one can say it enough until it is remedied. We are not subjects, we are citizens. We fought a war so that we do not have to treat even kings like kings, and -- if I may remind you -- we won that war. Since then, the principle of royalty has, in this country, been inoperative. Who is better suited or more required to exemplify this conviction, in word and deed, than the President of the United States?
***
The powers of the presidency are extraordinary and necessarily great, and great presidents treat them sparingly. For example, it is not the president's job to manipulate the nation's youth for the sake of his agenda or his party. They are a potent political force when massed by the social network to which they are permanently attached. But if the president has their true interests at heart he will neither flatter them nor let them adore him, for in flattery is condescension and in adoration is direction, and youth is neither seasoned nor tested enough to direct a nation. Nor should it be the president's business to presume to direct them. It is difficult enough to do right by one's own children. No one can be the father of a whole continent's youth.
Is the president, therefore, expected to turn away from this and other easy advantage? Yes. Like Harry Truman who went to bed before the result on election night -- he must know when to withdraw, to hold back, and to forgo attention, publicity, or advantage.
No finer, more moving, or profound an understanding of the nature of the presidency and the command of humility placed upon it has ever been expressed than by President Coolidge. He, like Lincoln, lost a child while he was president, a son of sixteen. "The day I became president," Coolidge wrote, "he had just started to work in a tobacco field. When one of his fellow laborers said to him, 'If my father was president I would not work in a tobacco field,' Calvin replied, 'If my father were your father you would.' "
While in the White House, President Coolidge's son contracted blood poisoning from an incident on the South Lawn. Coolidge wrote, "What might have happened to him under other circumstances we do not know, but if I had not been president.…" And then he continues, "In his suffering he was asking me to make him well. I could not.
"When he went, the power and glory of the Presidency went with him."
A sensibility such as this, and not power, is the source of presidential dignity, and must be restored. It depends entirely upon character, self-discipline, and an understanding of the fundamental principles that underlie not only the republic but life itself. It communicates that the president feels the gravity of his office and is willing to sacrifice himself; that his eye is not upon his own prospects but on the storm of history through which it is his responsibility to navigate with the specific powers accorded to him and the limitations placed upon them not merely by man in his design but by God in His.
***
The modern presidency has drifted far from the great strength and illumination of its source: the Constitution as given life by the luminous and passionate Declaration of Independence, the greatest political document ever written. The Constitution, terse, sober, and specific, does not, except by implication, address the president's demeanor, but this we can read in the best qualities of the founding generation, which we would do well to imitate. In the Capitol Rotunda are heroic paintings of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the victory at Saratoga, the victory at Yorktown, and, something seldom seen in history: a general, the leader of an armed rebellion, resigning his commission and surrendering his army to a new democracy. Upon hearing from Benjamin West that George Washington, having won the war and been urged by some to use the army to make himself king, would instead return to his farm, George III said, "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world." He did, and he was.
To aspire to such virtue and self-restraint would in a sense be difficult, but in another sense it should be easy -- difficult because it would be demanding and ideal, and easy because it is the right thing to do and the rewards are immediately self-evident.
A president who slights the Constitution is like a rider who hates his horse: he will be thrown, and the nation along with him. The president solemnly swears to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. He does not solemnly swear to ignore, overlook, supplement, or reinterpret it. Other than in a crisis of morality, decency, and existence, such as the Civil War, if he should want to hurry along the Constitution to fit his own notions or designs, he should do so by amendment rather than adjustment, for if he joins the powers of his office to his own willful interpretation, he steps away from a government of laws and toward a government of men.
Is the Constitution a fluctuating and inconstant document, a collection of suggestions the purpose of which is to stimulate debate in a future to which the Founders were necessarily blind? Progressives tell us that even the Framers themselves could not reach agreement in its regard. But they did agree upon it. And they wrote it down. And they signed it. And they lived by it. Its words are unchanging and unchangeable except -- as planned -- by careful amendment. There is no instruction to the president to override the law and, like Justice Marshall, let it catch up to his superior conception. Why is this good? It is good because the sun will burn out, the Ohio River will flow backwards, and the cow will jump over the moon 10,000 times before any modern president's conception is superior to that of the Founders of this nation.
Would it be such a great surprise that a good part of the political strife of our times is because one president after another, rather than keeping faith to it, argues with the document he is supposed to live by? This discontent will only be calmed by returning the presidency to the great first principles. The president should regard the Constitution and the Declaration like an obsessed lover. They should be on his mind all the time, the prism through which the light of all questions of governance passes. Though we have -- sometimes gradually, sometimes radically -- moved away from this, we can move back to it. And who better than the president to restore this wholesome devotion?
***
And as the president returns to the consistent application of the principles in the Constitution, he will also ensure fiscal responsibility and prosperity. Who is better suited, with his executive and veto powers, to carry over the duty of self restraint and discipline to the idea of fiscal solvency? When the president restrains government spending, leaving room for the American people to enjoy the fruits of their labor, growth is inevitable. As Senator Robert Taft wrote, "Liberty has been the key to our progress in the past and is the key to our progress in the future.… If we can preserve liberty in all its essentials, there is no limit to the future of the American people."
Whereas, at home, the president must be cautious, dutiful, and deferential, abroad, his character must change. Were he to ask for a primer on how to act in relation to other states, which no holder of the office has needed to this point, and were that primer to be written by the American people, whether of 1776 or 2010, you can be confident that it would contain the following instructions:
"The President of the United States of America bows to no man. You do not bow to kings. When in foreign lands, you do not criticize your own country. You do not argue the case against the United States, but, rather, the case for it. You do not apologize to the enemies of the United States. Should you be confused, a country, people, or region that harbors, shelters, supports, encourages, or cheers attacks upon our country, the slaughter of our children, our mothers, our fathers, our sisters, and brothers… are enemies of the United States. And, to repeat, you do not apologize to them."
Closely related to this, and perhaps the least ambiguous of the president's complex responsibilities, is his duty as Commander-in-Chief of the military. In this regard there is a very simple rule, unknown to some presidents regardless of party:
If… and it is perhaps the biggest "if" any president can face, for it will follow not just him but hundreds of thousands or millions of others, not just for the rest of their lives but, in cost of blood and souls, beyond life itself.
If… and it is an "if" that requires long and deep thought, tremendously hard labor at determining the truth of things, a lifetime of education, the knowledge of a general, the wisdom of a statesman, and the heart of an infantryman….
If… after careful determination, intense stress of soul, and the deepest prayer….
If, then, you go to war, then, having gone to war, by God, you go to war to win.
You do not cast away American lives, or those of the innocent noncombatant enemy, upon a theory, a gambit, or a notion. And if the politics of your own election or of your party intrude upon your decisions for even an instant -- there are no words for this.
More commonplace, but hardly less important, are other expectations of the president in this regard. He must not stint on the equipment and provisioning of the Armed Forces, and if he errs it must be not on the side of scarcity but of surplus. And he must be the guardian of his troops, taking every step to avoid the loss of even a single life.
The American soldier is as precious as the closest of your kin -- because he is your kin, and for his sake the president must, in effect, say to the Congress and to the people: "I am the Commander-in-Chief, it is my sacred duty to defend the United States, give our soldiers what they need to complete the mission and come home safe, whatever the cost." Of all the hard choices that Congress may have to make to ensure this, which one of these things alone or in combination is more terrible than the sacrifice of our children or the defeat of our nation?
If, in fulfilling this duty, the president wavers, he will have betrayed his office, for this is not a policy, it is probity. And it is not an expedient artifact of my imagination, it is written on the blood-soaked ground of Saratoga, Yorktown, Antietam, Cold Harbor, The Marne, Guadalcanal, the Pointe du Hoc, the Chosin Reservoir, Khe Sanh, Iraq, Afghanistan, and a thousand other places in our history, in lessons repeated over and over again.
***
The presidency, a great and complex subject upon which I have only touched, has become symbolic of overreaching. There are many truths that we have been frightened to tell or face. If we run from them, they will catch us with our backs turned and pull us down. Better that we should not flee but rather stop and look them in the eye.
What might our forebears say to us, knowing what they knew, and having done what they did? I have no doubt that they would tell us to channel our passions, simply speak the truth and to do what is right, slowly and with resolution; to work calmly, steadily and without animus or fear; to be like a rock in the tide, let the water tumble about us, and be firm and unashamed in our love of country.
I see us like those in Philadelphia in 1776. Danger all around, but a fresh chapter, ready to begin, uncorrupted, with great possibilities and -- inexplicably, perhaps miraculously - the way is clearing ahead. I have never doubted that Providence can appear in history like the sun emerging from behind the clouds, if only as a reward for adherence to first principles. As Winston Churchill said before Congress on December 26, 1941, "He must indeed have a blind soul who cannot see that some great purpose and design is being worked out here below, of which we have the honor to be the faithful servants."
A long time ago, during the tortured history of Rome, in the fourth century, A.D., Emperor Constantius (son of Emperor Constantine, and of mixed virtue) was faced with an ultimatum backed by what appeared to be a military force impossible to resist. Failure and defeat seemed certain to everyone. But in the morning, when his answer was due, he said to his assembled troops: "Last night, after I retired to rest, the shade of the great Constantine, embracing the corpse of my murdered brother, rose before my eyes, [and] his well-known voice forbade me to despair of the republic."
We, too, have the voices of shades that emerge from the past. We too, have what Lincoln in his First Inaugural called, "the mystic chords of memory stretching from every patriot grave." They bind us to the great and the humble, the known and the unknown -- and if I hear them clearly, what they say is that although we may have strayed, we have not strayed too far to return, for we are, every one of us, their descendants. The sinews are still there, quite lively, waiting to flex. We can still astound the world with justice, reason and strength. I know this is true, but even were it not we could not in decency stand down, if only for our debt to history, the debt we owe to those who came before, who did great things, and suffered more than we suffer, and gave more than we give, and pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor -- for us, whom they did not know. For we "drink from wells we did not dig" and are "warmed by fires we did not build," and so we must be faithful in our time as they were in theirs.
Many great generations are gone, but I see them in my mind's eye, and by the character and memory of their existence they forbid us to despair of the republic. I see them crossing the prairies in the sun and wind. I see their faces looking out from steel mills and coal mines, and immigrant ships crawling into the harbors at dawn. I see them at war, at work and at peace. I see them, long departed, looking into the camera, with hopeful and sad eyes. And I see them embracing their children … who became us. They are our family and our blood, and we cannot desert them. In spirit, all of them come down to all of us, in a connection that, out of love, we cannot betray.
They are silent now and forever, but from the eternal silence of every patriot grave there is yet an echo that says, "It is not too late, keep faith with us, keep faith with God, and do not, do not ever despair of the republic."

Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana is chairman of the House Republican Conference

Photoshop of the Day by No Sheeples Here

2010-09-20T20:02:00.001-04:00

#links#links#links

No Sheeples Here: Tea Party Taking Out The Trash?

2010-09-17T21:56:00.001-04:00

No Sheeples Here: Tea Party Taking Out The Trash?

Friday, September 17, 2010

From The Boston Herald we learn that Senator John Kerry (D-MA) sent out an email stating that, “The news from Delaware is crystal clear: It’s Sarah Palin’s party now,” Kerry wrote in a fund-raising e-mail titled “Delawow!” He went on to say, “We have to fight back. Click here to contribute right now to make sure we defeat the Tea Party extremists.”
Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds merrily noted, “I think the Tea Party couldn’t ask for any better publicity than to be denounced by a millionaire who dodges paying taxes on his yacht.”
The Tea Party is taking out the trash and Peggy Noonan opines on why it’s time for the Tea Party:
“…at this moment we are witnessing a shift that will likely have some enduring political impact. Another way of saying that: The past few years, a lot of people in politics have wondered about the possibility of a third party. Would it be possible to organize one? While they were wondering, a virtual third party was being born. And nobody organized it.”
[snip]
”So far, the tea party is not a wing of the GOP but a critique of it. This was demonstrated in spectacular fashion when GOP operatives dismissed tea party-backed Christine O'Donnell in Delaware. The Republican establishment is ‘the reason we even have the Tea Party movement,’ shot back columnist and tea party enthusiast Andrea Tantaros in the New York Daily News. It was the Bush administration that ‘ran up deficits’ and gave us ‘open borders’ and ‘Medicare Part D and busted budgets.’"
America is still a democratic republic, not an aristocracy. “We The People” are concerned with restoring the United States Constitution to its rightful place in our government. The Tea Party is only interested in preserving the country this regime is hell-bent to “fundamentally transform.”
Noonan’s exit question is, “Will the center join arms and work with the tea party?”
They’d better or the career freeloaders with be tossed out with the trash.
Today is Constitution Day. Please enjoy the embedded video below. God bless America.Read more: http://nosheepleshere.blogspot.com/2010/09/tea-party-taking-out-trash.html#ixzz0zqHA7y3N

JACKIE EVANCHO AVE MARIA TOP FOUR AMERICAS GOT TALENT.mp4-sep-14-2010

2010-09-15T12:16:00.000-04:00

Le Fleur de Lys too: The Catholic Caveman...

2010-09-15T12:04:00.000-04:00

Le Fleur de Lys too: The Catholic Caveman...

The Catholic Caveman...
This is one of those articles which will find it into my Cathecism class......More on the Religion of PeaceSo with all the hullabaloo about the Quran burning, I think we have lost sight of something. First as I understand it muslims are to follow the 10 Commandments. Their prophet Mohammed who inspired, was recorded, or wrote (not clear which) the Hadith contradicts the 10 Commandments. We all know the 8th Commandment, "Thou Shalt not Bear False Witness Against thy Neighbor". Some of us have learned that muslims are not only "allowed" to lie, but are encouraged to lie in order defeat the unbeliever (non-muslims). See link for explanations.http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/011-taqiyya.htmAs a Catholic I know of no instance where it is acceptable for me to lie. If I do I must confess my sin because I have put myself outside of God's grace. If I compound that lie by committing the act with the full awareness that I can just go to the closest Priest and confess that would be a presumption of God's mercy. This is also a sin which cannot be absolved unless spoken in a confessional as well to wit your confessor could choose not to grant absolution. That would be extreme but that is the chance you would be taking. In either case regardless of the forgiveness one would receive we learn that we are damaging our souls each time we sin. A Priest once told me that sin is like a nail that gets put into a fresh piece of drywall. When you go to confession the nail gets pulled out but the hole is still there, it cannot be repaired until purgatory. Catholics understand that ANY sin harms the soul and that there are no exceptions to that. Frankly any faith that tells you that you can use the tools of satan (death, force, and deciet) in order to win converts or destroy opposition is being decieved. Muslims must begin to think long and hard on who would benefit if they were lead astray from the 10 Commandments. There is only one I know of and that is Satan. Should this man burn the Quran? In my opinion no, but not because it would offend muslims. I don't think he should because in the end it will make it harder to convert muslims. Thanks and a tip of the beret to the Catholic Caveman.Jhesu+Marie,Brantigny
Posted by Brantigny at 2:27 PM

Castle vs O'Donnell

2010-09-14T12:56:00.000-04:00

While I am NOT a citizen or native of the state of Delaware, as a conservative I would NEVER vote for a RINO, who, while serving as DE's Representative at large voted to impeach President Bush. Why would I vote for a RINO in the mold of NY 23's Dede Scozzafavva, who withdrew from the primary after she dropped precipitously in the polls.

I would vote for Christine O'Donnell, who as the Republican Senate candidate in 2008, won 35 % of the vote in a state where McCain won only 37%. She was running against Bite Me Biden, for heavens sake, who was also on the Presidential ticket as the VP. I think she will clean up this year, in a midterm election against a no name Dem, in a year in which Republicans are going to vote in droves in order to save their country and in which Dems will sit on their hands, hoepfully ins shame.

This primary race shows only one thing- that Establishment Republicans are completely out of touch with their base and in love with their own reflections in the mirror and where they stand on the social scene in DC>

Margaret Thatcher 'the Lady's not for turning'

2010-09-14T09:33:00.000-04:00

Speech Geert Wilders Ground Zero New York City 11th September 2010

2010-09-13T13:55:00.000-04:00

Why Kneel for Communion

2010-09-13T12:03:00.000-04:00

Why Kneel for Communion

Why Kneel for Communion
Benedict XVI wants it that way, at the Masses he celebrates. But very few bishops and priests are imitating him. Yet this is one reason why churches were given ornate floors. A guide to the discovery of their significance by Sandro Magister
ROME, September 13, 2010 – The image above is a partial panorama of the immense mosaic that covers the floor of the cathedral of Otranto, on the southeast coast of Italy.Walking across it from the entrance to the sanctuary, the faithful have as a guide the tree of salvation history, a history that is sacred and profane at once, with episodes from the Old Testament, from the Gospels, from the chronicle of Alexander the Great and the cycle of King Arthur.The mosaic is from the twelfth century, an era in which the churches had no chairs or pews, and the faithful were able to see the entire floor. Even when they were not adorned with figurative art, the floors of churches incorporated expensive materials and elaborate designs. They were walked upon. Prayed upon. Knelt upon in adoration.Today kneeling – especially on a bare floor – has fallen into disuse. So much so that Benedict XVI's desire to give communion to the faithful on the tongue, and kneeling, is cause for amazement.Kneeling for communion is one of the innovations that pope Joseph Ratzinger has introduced when he celebrates the Eucharist.But rather than an innovation, this is a return to tradition. The others are placing the crucifix at the center of the altar, "so that at the Mass we are all looking at Christ, and not at each other," and the frequent use of Latin "to emphasize the universality of the faith and the continuity of the Church."In an interview with the English weekly "The Catholic Herald," master of pontifical ceremonies Guido Marini has confirmed that the pope will stick with this style of celebration during his upcoming trip to the United Kingdom.In particular, Marini has announced that Benedict XVI will recite the entire preface and canon in Latin, while for the other texts of the Mass he will adopt the new English translation that will enter into use in the entire English-speaking world on the first Sunday of Advent in 2011: this because the new translation "is more faithful to the original Latin and of a more elevated style" compared with the current one.The attraction that the Church of Rome exercised over many illustrious English converts of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries – from Newman to Chesterton to Benson – was in part the universalism of the Latin liturgy. An attraction to a solid and ancient faith that today is moving many Anglican communities to ask for admission to Catholicism.The "reform of the reform" attributed to pope Ratzinger in the liturgical field is taking place partly in this way: simply, and with the example given by him when he celebrates.But among the standard-setting practices of Benedict XVI, the one least understood – so far – is perhaps that of having the faithful kneel for communion.This is almost never done, in any of the churches all over the world. In part because the communion rails at which one knelt to receive communion have been abandoned or dismantled almost everywhere.But the sense of church flooring has also been lost. Traditionally, the floors were very ornate precisely in order to act as a foundation and guide to the greatness and profundity of the mysteries celebrated.Few today realize that these beautiful and expensive floors were also made for the knees of the faithful: a carpet of stones on which to prostrate oneself before the splendor of the divine epiphany.The following text was written precisely to reawaken this sensibility.Its author is Monsignor Marco Agostini, an official in the second section of the secretariat of state, assistant master of pontifical ceremonies and a scholar of liturgy and sacred art, already known to the readers of www.chiesa for his enlightening commentary on the "Transfiguration" by Raphael.The article was published in "L'Osservatore Romano" on August 20, 2010.__________________

KNEELERS OF STONE
by Marco AgostiniIt
is striking how much care ancient and modern architecture, until the middle of the twentieth century, devoted to the floors in churches. Not only mosaics and frescoes for the walls, but painting in stone, inlaid, marble tapestries for the floors as well.I am reminded of the variegated "tessellatum" of the basilica of Saint Zeno, or of the floor of Santa Maria in Stelle in Verona, or of the vast, elaborate floors of the basilica of Theodorus in Aquileia, of Saint Mary in Grado, of Saint Mark in Venice, or the mysterious floor in the cathedral of Otranto. The shining, golden cosmatesque "opus tessulare" in the Roman basilicas of Saint Mary Major, Saint John Lateran, Saint Clement, Saint Lawrence Outside the Walls, of Santa Maria in Aracoeli, in Cosmedin, in Trastevere, or of the episcopal complex of Tuscania or of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican.And then there is the inlaid marble in Santo Stefano Rotondo, San Giorgio al Velabro, Santa Costanza, and Saint Agnes in Rome, and of the basilica of Saint Mark in Venice, of the baptistry of Saint John and of the church of San Miniato al Monte in Florence, or the incomparable "opus sectile" of the cathedral in Siena, or the white, black, and red shield designs in Sant'Anastasia in Verona, or the floor of the grand chapel of Bishop Giberti or of the eighteenth-century chapels of the Madonna del Popolo and of the Sacrament, also in the cathedral of Verona, and, above all, the astonishing and sumptuous stone carpet of the Vatican basilica of Saint Peter.In reality, careful attention to the floor is not only a Christian concern: there are striking mosaic pavements in the Greek villas of Olynthus or Pella in Macedonia, or in the imperial Villa Romana del Casale in Piazza Armerina in Sicily, or those of the villas of Ostia or of the Casa del Fauno in Pompei, or the ornate Nile mosaic of the shrine of Fortuna Primigenia in Palestrina. But also the pavement in "opus sectile" of the senatorial curia in the Roman Forum, the fragments from the basilica of Giunio Basso, also in Rome, or the marble inlays of the "domus" of Cupid and Psyche in Ostia.Greek and Roman attention to flooring was not evident in the temples, but in the villas, the baths, and the other public places where the family or civil society gathered. The mosaic of Palestrina was also not in a place of worship in the strict sense. The cell of the pagan temple was inhabited only by the statue of the god, and worship took place outside, in front of the temple, around the sacrificial altar. For this reason, the interiors were almost never decorated.Christian worship is, on the other hand, an interior worship. Instituted in the upper room of the cenacle, decorated with rugs on the second floor of the home of friends, and propagated at first in the intimacy of the domestic hearth, in the "domus ecclesiae," when Christian worship took on a public dimension it turned the home into a church. The basilica of San Martino ai Monti was built on top of a "domus ecclesiae," and it's not the only one. The churches were never the place of a simulacrum, but the house of God among men, the tabernacle of the real presence of Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament, the common home of the Christian family. Even the most humble of Christians, the most poor, as member of the mystical body of Christ which is the Church, in church was at home and was master: he walked on sumptuous flooring, enjoyed the mosaics and frescoes on the walls, the paintings around the altars, smelled the perfume of the incense, heard the joyful music and singing, saw the splendor of the vestments worn for the glory of God, savored the ineffable gift of the Eucharist that was administered to him from golden vessels, moved in procession and felt part of the order that is the soul of the world.The floors of the churches, far from being an ostentatious luxury, in addition to constituting the walking surface had other functions as well. They were certainly not made to be covered up by pews, which were introduced relatively recently with the intention of making the naves of the churches suitable for listening comfortably to long sermons. The floors of the churches were supposed to be fully visible: in their depictions, their geometrical designs, the symbolism of their colors they preserve Christian mystagogy, the processional directions of the liturgy. They are a monument to the foundation, to the roots.These floors are primarily for those who live and move in the liturgy, they are for those who kneel before the epiphany of Christ. Kneeling is the response to the epiphany given by grace to a single person. The one who has been struck by the brilliance of the vision falls prostrate to the ground, and from there sees more than all around him who have remained standing. They, worshiping, or acknowledging that they are sinners, see reflected in the precious stones, in the golden tiles that were sometimes used in ancient floors, the light of the mystery that shines from the altar, and the greatness of the divine mercy.To consider that those beautiful floors were made for the knees of the faithful is emotionally moving: a perennial carpet of stones for Christian prayer, for humility; a carpet for rich and poor without distinction, a carpet for pharisees and publicans, but which the latter can appreciate above all.Today the kneelers have disappeared from many churches, and there is a tendency to remove the communion rails at which one could receive communion while kneeling. And yet in the New Testament, the act of kneeling is present every time the divinity of Christ appears to a man: one thinks of the Magi, of the man born blind, of the anointing in Bethany, of the Magdalene in the garden on the morning of Easter.Jesus himself said to Satan, who wanted to make him kneel wrongfully, that it is only to God that one's knees must bend. Satan is still forcing the choice between God and power, God and wealth, and is tempting even more profoundly. But in this way glory will not be given to God at all; knees will bend to those whom power has favored, to those to whom the heart has been bound through an act.A good training exercise to overcome idolatry in life is to return to kneeling at Mass, which is moreover one of the ways of "actuosa participatio" spoken of by the last council. The practice is also useful to realize the beauty of the floors (at least the older ones) in our churches. Some of them might even bring the urge to remove one's shoes, as Moses did before God when he spoke to him from the burning bush.______________

The newspaper of the Holy See from which the article was reprinted:> L'Osservatore Romano

Geert Wilders 9/11 Ground Zero Speech

2010-09-13T08:41:00.000-04:00

Geert Wilders 9/11 Ground Zero Speech

September 12, 2010
Geert Wilders 9/11 Ground Zero SpeechAndrew G. Bostom
Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician under threat of death from radical Islamists, gave a speech yesterday at Ground Zero that all Americans should pay attention to. You can watch a video of it here. (see also: Islam Continues to Strengthen Geert Wilders' Case) The text is as follows:
Dear friends,
May I ask you to be silent for ten seconds? Just be silent and listen. Ten seconds. And listen... What we hear are the sounds of life in the greatest city on earth. No place in the world, no place in human history, is as richly varied and vibrant and dynamic as New York City. You hear the cars, you hear the people, you hear them rushing to their various destinations, you hear the sounds of business and of pleasure, you hear the cheers, you hear the cries, the buzzing sounds of human activity. And that is how it should be. Always.
Now close your eyes - I know it's a beautiful day, but close your eyes. I have been told that this day nine years ago was just such a beautiful day -- and remember, or try to remember, or try to imagine the sounds which were heard here on this spot under this same blue sky exactly nine years ago. The sound of shock, the sound of destruction, the sound of panic, the sound of pain, the sound of terror.
Did New York deserve this? Did America deserve this? Did the West deserve this? What, my friends, would you say to people who argue that New York, that America, that the West had itself to blame for those horrible sounds? There are people in this city who argue this. And they are angry because we are gathered here today to commemorate, to make a stand, to draw the line.
My friends, I have come from the other side of the Atlantic to share your grief for those who died here nine years ago.I have not forgotten how I felt that day. The scenes are imprinted on my soul, as they are on yours. But our hearts were not broken in the same way as the hearts of the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives here. Many relatives of the victims are here in our midst today. I wish to take this opportunity to express my deepest and most heartfelt condolences to them and to all of the people of New York and America.
Darryl Worley - Have You Forgotten?
Humbly, I stand here before you as a Dutchman and a European. I, too, however, cannot forget. How can anyone forget? Let me remind you of the words from Darryl Worley's 9/11 song.
Have you forgotten how it felt that day? To see your homeland under fire And her people blown away Have you forgotten when those towers fell? We had neighbors still inside going thru a living hell
Worley's response is our response: No, we will NEVER forget. We are here today because we have not forgotten all the loved ones that were lost and those left to carry on. And neither has the world. When the forces of Jihad attacked New York, they attacked the world.
Among those lost were people from 55 nations, people of every religion and every persuasion. No place on earth had a more multi-ethnic, multi-racial, and multi-lingual workforce than New York's proud towers. That is exactly why they were targeted. They constituted an insult to those who hold that there can be no peaceful cooperation among people and nations without submission to Sharia; to those who wish to impose the legal system of Islam on the rest of us. But New York and Sharia are incompatible.
New York stands for freedom, openness and tolerance. New York's Mayor recently said that New York is "rooted in Dutch tolerance". Those are true words. New York is not intolerant. How can it be? New York is open to the world. Suppose New York were intolerant. Suppose it only allowed people of one persuasion within its walls. Then it would be like Mecca, a city without freedom. Whatever your religion, persuasion or gender is, in New York you will find a home. In Mecca, if your religion isn't Islam, you are not welcome.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf claims the right to build a mosque, a house of Sharia here - on this hallowed ground. But, friends, I have not forgotten and neither have you. That is why we are here today. To draw the line. Here, on this sacred spot. We are here in the spirit of America's founding fathers. We are here in the spirit of freedom. We are here in the spirit of Abraham Lincoln, the President who freed the slaves. President Lincoln said: "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves." These words are the key to our survival. The tolerance that is crucial to our freedom requires a line of defense.
Mayor Bloomberg uses tolerance as an argument to allow Imam Rauf and his sponsors to build their so-called Cordoba Mosque. Mayor Bloomberg forgets, however, that openness cannot be open-ended. A tolerant society is not a suicidal society. It must defend itself against the powers of darkness, the force of hatred and the blight of ignorance. It cannot tolerate the intolerant - and survive. This means that we must not give a free hand to those who want to subjugate us. An overwhelming majority of Americans is opposed to building this mosque. So is an overwhelming majority everywhere in the non-Islamic world. Because we all realize what is at stake here. We know what this so-called Cordoba mosque really means.
Imam Rauf maintains that American secular law and Sharia law are based on the same principles. He refuses to condemn terrorists because he says terrorism is "a very complex question". He says America is "an accessory to the crime that happened on 9/11." "In fact," he literally said, "in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA."He also says that "terrorism will only end when the West acknowledges the harm it has done to Muslims."
That is why this man should not play the game he has in mind here in Manhattan. His "Blame the West, Blame America"-message is an insult. Americans - and by extension, all of us whose civilization was also attacked on 9/11/2001 - are not to blame for what happened here nine years ago today.
Osama bin Laden is not made in the USA. The West never "harmed" Islam before it harmed us. Most Americans do not want this so-called Cordoba Mosque to be built here. They understand that it is both a provocation and a humiliation. They understand the triumphant narrative of a mosque named after the Great Mosque of Cordoba which was constructed where a Christian cathedral stood before the land was conquered by Islam.
An overwhelming majority of Americans is opposed to building an Islamic cultural center close to Ground Zero. There is no lack of mosques in New York. There are dozens of buildings in which Muslims can pray. It isn't about a lack of space for prayers. It's about the symbolic meaning.
We who have come to speak today, object to this mosque project because its promoter and his wealthy sponsors have never suggested building a center to promote tolerance and interfaith understanding where it is really needed: In Mecca - a town where non-Muslims are not even allowed to enter, let alone build churches, synagogues, temples or community centers. So why should we do that?
Ordinary Americans object to the mosque project because currently no fewer than ten major multi-million dollar mosque projects are being planned in the United States as well as dozens in Europe, while not a single church is allowed in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia,while Jews are not even allowed to move their lips in prayer on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem,while the oldest Christians in the world, the Copts, are not free to renovate their churches, let alone to build one in Egypt.
My friends, that is why we are here today. What happens in New York must be seen in the perspective of the world. The events nine years ago made an enormous impact everywhere. Most people shared your pain, but, unfortunately, some did not. Nine years ago, when the news of the terrible atrocity in New York reached Europe, Muslim youths danced in the streets.
In a poll, two thirds of the Muslim immigrants in the Netherlands expressed partial or full understanding for the 9/11 terrorists.If a mosque were built here on Ground Zero such people would feel triumphant. But we, we will not betray those who died on 9/11. For their sakes we cannot tolerate a mosque on or near Ground Zero. For their sakes loud and clear we say: No mosque here! For their sakes, we must draw the line. So that New York, rooted in Dutch tolerance, will never become New Mecca.
But, let us also express our gratitude for the heroes of 9/11, those who went down in that Pennsylvania field, those who were standing freedom's watch at the Pentagon, and those who were here in New York nine years ago to risk and lose their lives for the victims. Friends, in honor of these victims, these heroes and their families, I believe that the words of Ronald Reagan, spoken in Normandy on the 40th anniversary of D-Day, resonate with new purpose on this hallowed spot.
President Reagan said: "We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free." And, we, too, will always remember the victims of 9/11 and their loved ones who were left behind;We, too, will always be proud of the heroes;We will always defend liberty, democracy and human dignity;In the name of freedom: No mosque here!

Never Forgive, Never Forget « The Camp Of The Saints

2010-09-11T13:11:00.001-04:00

Never Forgive, Never Forget « The Camp Of The Saints

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle;be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil.May God rebuke him, we humbly pray.And do thou, O prince of the heavenly host,by the power of Godthrust into hell Satan and all the evil spiritswho prowl about the world for the ruin of souls.Amen.

Pudding Presentation At Blogcon Humor Panel

2010-09-11T13:01:00.000-04:00

George W. Bush - 9/11 Bullhorn Speech

2010-09-11T12:46:00.000-04:00

Kevin Cosgrove - 9/11

2010-09-11T12:21:00.001-04:00

Kevin Cosgrove - 9/11

2010-09-11T12:21:00.000-04:00

What Does The Prayer Really Say?»Blog Archive » Ground Zero Mosque: a “Rabat”, not a “Cultural Center”

2010-09-11T12:10:00.000-04:00

What Does The Prayer Really Say?»Blog Archive » Ground Zero Mosque: a “Rabat”, not a “Cultural Center”

Ground Zero Mosque: a “Rabat”, not a “Cultural Center”
CATEGORY: The Drill, The future and our choices — Fr. John Zuhlsdorf @ 9:35 am
Some time ago, at the recommendation of the great Fr. Welzbacher of St. Paul, I read Andrew McCarthy’s The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America. It was an excellent preparation, or propaedeutic, for the controversy over the proposal to build the mosque complex at Ground Zero in Manhattan. And, yes, I think 51 Park Place qualifies as "ground zero" in the sense that landing gear from one of the airplanes struck the building. As I listened and read about the "Cordoba House" proposal something about it sounded familiar. McCarthy described how militant Islamists of the Brotherhood developed centers for young muslim men which included an athletic program component. The nickle dropped. (Cf. Chapter 4. "Eliminating and Destroying the Western Civilization from Within".)Today over breakfast coffee… I saw in the New York Post an article by Amir Taheri, which you should know about. Amir Taheri is author of 11 books on the Middle East, Iran and Islam. Let’s have a look with my emphases and comments.
Islam center’s eerie echo of ancient terrorBy AMIR TAHERILast Updated: 8:35 AM, September 10, 2010Should there be a mosque near Ground Zero? In fact, what is pro posed is not a mosque—nor even an "Islamic cultural center."In Islam, every structure linked to the faith and its rituals has a precise function and character. A mosque is a one-story gallery built around an atrium with a mihrab (a niche pointing to Mecca) and one, or in the case of Shiites two, minarets.Other Islamic structures, such as harams, zawiyyahs, husseinyiahs and takiyahs, also obey strict architectural rules. Yet the building used for spreading the faith is known as Dar al-Tabligh, or House of Proselytizing.[NB] This 13-story multifunctional structure couldn’t be any of the above.The groups fighting for the project know this; this is why they sometimes call it an Islamic cultural center. But there is no such thing as an Islamic culture.Islam is a religion, not a culture. Each of the 57 Muslim-majority nations has its own distinct culture—and the Bengali culture has little in common with the Nigerian. Then, too, most of those countries have their own cultural offices in the US, especially in New York.Islam is an ingredient in dozens of cultures, not a culture on its own.In theory, at least, the culture of American Muslims should be American. Of course, this being America, each ethnic community has its distinct cultural memories—the Iranians in Los Angeles are different from the Arabs in Dearborn.[Start taking notes if you have to…] In fact, the proposed structure is known in Islamic history as a rabat—literally a connector. The first rabat appeared at the time of the Prophet.The Prophet imposed his rule on parts of Arabia through a series of ghazvas, or razzias (the origin of the English word "raid"). The ghazva was designed to terrorize the infidels, convince them that their civilization was doomed and force them to submit to Islamic rule. Those who participated in the ghazva were known as the ghazis, or raiders.After each ghazva, the Prophet ordered the creation of a rabat—or a point of contact at the heart of the infidel territory raided. The rabat consisted of an area for prayer, a section for the raiders to eat and rest and facilities to train and prepare for future razzias. [The "athletic" component I alluded to earlier.] Later Muslim rulers used the tactic of ghazva to conquer territory in the Persian and Byzantine empires. After each raid, they built a rabat to prepare for the next razzia.[NB:] It is no coincidence that Islamists routinely use the term ghazva to describe the 9/11 attacks against New York and Washington. The terrorists who carried out the attack are referred to as ghazis or shahids (martyrs).[CONCLUSION:] Thus, building a rabat close to Ground Zero would be in accordance with a tradition started by the Prophet. To all those who believe and hope that the 9/11 ghazva would lead to the destruction of the American "Great Satan," this would be of great symbolic value.[Shift gears.] Faced with the anger of New Yorkers, the promoters of the project have started calling it the Cordoba House, echoing President Obama’s assertion that it would be used to propagate "moderate" Islam.The argument is that Cordoba, in southern Spain, was a city where followers of Islam, Christianity and Judaism lived together in peace and produced literature and philosophy.In fact, Cordoba’s history is full of stories of oppression and massacre, prompted by religious fanaticism. It is true that the Muslim rulers of Cordoba didn’t force their Christian and Jewish subjects to accept Islam. However, non-Muslims could keep their faith and enjoy state protection only as dhimmis (bonded ones) by paying a poll tax in a system of religious apartheid.If whatever peace and harmony that is supposed to have existed in Cordoba were the fruit of "Muslim rule," [NB:] the subtext is that the United States would enjoy similar peace and harmony under Islamic rule. [That is why "Cordoba" was chosen: to symbolize the goal of subjugation of the USA to Sharia Law.]A rabat in the heart of Manhattan would be of great symbolic value to those who want a high-profile, "in your face" projection of Islam in the infidel West.This thirst for visibility is translated into increasingly provocative forms of hijab, notably the niqab (mask) and the burqa. The same quest mobilized hundreds of Muslims in Paris the other day to close a whole street so that they could have a Ramadan prayer in the middle of the rush hour. [These open demonstrations are escalating.]One of those taking part in the demonstration told French radio that the aim was to "show we are here." "You used to be in our capitals for centuries," he said. "Now, it is our turn to be in the heart of your cities."Before deciding whether to support or oppose the "Cordoba" project, New Yorkers should consider what it is that they would be buying.

The Ground Zero mosque project is more in line with a rabat, which is built for Muslim raiders - NYPOST.com

2010-09-11T12:06:00.000-04:00

The Ground Zero mosque project is more in line with a rabat, which is built for Muslim raiders - NYPOST.com

Should there be a mosque near Ground Zero? In fact, what is pro posed is not a mosque -- nor even an "Islamic cultural center."
In Islam, every structure linked to the faith and its rituals has a precise function and character. A mosque is a one-story gallery built around an atrium with a mihrab (a niche pointing to Mecca) and one, or in the case of Shiites two, minarets.
Other Islamic structures, such as harams, zawiyyahs, husseinyiahs and takiyahs, also obey strict architectural rules. Yet the building used for spreading the faith is known as Dar al-Tabligh, or House of Proselytizing.

TOWER: The Ground Zero project doesn't fit the traditional minaret.
This 13-story multifunctional structure couldn't be any of the above.
The groups fighting for the project know this; this is why they sometimes call it an Islamic cultural center. But there is no such thing as an Islamic culture.
Islam is a religion, not a culture. Each of the 57 Muslim-majority nations has its own distinct culture -- and the Bengali culture has little in common with the Nigerian. Then, too, most of those countries have their own cultural offices in the US, especially in New York.
Islam is an ingredient in dozens of cultures, not a culture on its own.
In theory, at least, the culture of American Muslims should be American. Of course, this being America, each ethnic community has its distinct cultural memories -- the Iranians in Los Angeles are different from the Arabs in Dearborn.
In fact, the proposed structure is known in Islamic history as a rabat -- literally a connector. The first rabat appeared at the time of the Prophet.
The Prophet imposed his rule on parts of Arabia through a series of ghazvas, or razzias (the origin of the English word "raid"). The ghazva was designed to terrorize the infidels, convince them that their civilization was doomed and force them to submit to Islamic rule. Those who participated in the ghazva were known as the ghazis, or raiders.
After each ghazva, the Prophet ordered the creation of a rabat -- or a point of contact at the heart of the infidel territory raided. The rabat consisted of an area for prayer, a section for the raiders to eat and rest and facilities to train and prepare for future razzias. Later Muslim rulers used the tactic of ghazva to conquer territory in the Persian and Byzantine empires. After each raid, they built a rabat to prepare for the next razzia.
It is no coincidence that Islamists routinely use the term ghazva to describe the 9/11 attacks against New York and Washington. The terrorists who carried out the attack are referred to as ghazis or shahids (martyrs).
Thus, building a rabat close to Ground Zero would be in accordance with a tradition started by the Prophet. To all those who believe and hope that the 9/11 ghazva would lead to the destruction of the American "Great Satan," this would be of great symbolic value.
Faced with the anger of New Yorkers, the promoters of the project have started calling it the Cordoba House, echoing President Obama's assertion that it would be used to propagate "moderate" Islam.
The argument is that Cordoba, in southern Spain, was a city where followers of Islam, Christianity and Judaism lived together in peace and produced literature and philosophy.
In fact, Cordoba's history is full of stories of oppression and massacre, prompted by religious fanaticism. It is true that the Muslim rulers of Cordoba didn't force their Christian and Jewish subjects to accept Islam. However, non-Muslims could keep their faith and enjoy state protection only as dhimmis (bonded ones) by paying a poll tax in a system of religious apartheid.
If whatever peace and harmony that is supposed to have existed in Cordoba were the fruit of "Muslim rule," the subtext is that the United States would enjoy similar peace and harmony under Islamic rule.
A rabat in the heart of Manhattan would be of great symbolic value to those who want a high-profile, "in your face" projection of Islam in the infidel West.
This thirst for visibility is translated into increasingly provocative forms of hijab, notably the niqab (mask) and the burqa. The same quest mobilized hundreds of Muslims in Paris the other day to close a whole street so that they could have a Ramadan prayer in the middle of the rush hour.
One of those taking part in the demonstration told French radio that the aim was to "show we are here." "You used to be in our capitals for centuries," he said. "Now, it is our turn to be in the heart of your cities."
Before deciding whether to support or oppose the "Cordoba" project, New Yorkers should consider what it is that they would be buying.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/islam_center_eerie_echo_of_ancient_iRTMW6TprkULnaA1Nqi9xM#ixzz0zEnPUh9e

This Is Where We Begin to Say No - National Review Online

2010-09-10T10:18:00.000-04:00

This Is Where We Begin to Say No - National Review Online

Andrew C. McCarthy

September 8, 2010 4:00 A.M.

This Is Where We Begin to Say No On the Ground Zero mosque, Americans reject the opinion elites that empower the Islamists.
A tectonic shift is in motion: How fitting that its focal point is Ground Zero, the inevitable fault line between Islam and the West.
Only the blink of an eye ago, uttering the unpleasant truth that in terms of doctrine there is no such thing as “moderate Islam” resulted in one’s banishment from what our opinion elites like to call the “mainstream,” by which they mean the narrow-minded, viciously defended circle of their own pieties and fictions. You could say it, but your skin had better have an extra coat or two of thick: You were in for a fusillade of rage, the likes of which our candor-phobic elites would never dream of unleashing at our Islamist enemies — no matter how clearly those enemies announced their intention to destroy us.
The fusillade still comes, but now its blows only glance. The elites and their mainstream have been exposed as frauds: Being on the wrong side of enough 70-30 issues will do that to you.
It should never have gotten this far. Sponsors of the Ground Zero mosque neither own the property in question nor possess the means to build and operate the palatial Islamic center they envision. The more light that shines on their record of murky real-estate dealings and the dubious circumstances of their limited stake in the Ground Zero property, the more questions arise. In a more sensible world, those questions would get answered before we plunged into a rancorous public debate. That hasn’t happened, though. In spite of the implacable determination of the mayor (and the attorney general who would be governor) to look the other way, the issue has galvanized the public. What has long bubbled beneath the surface did not need much more heat to boil over.
For the better part of two decades, Americans have been murdered by Islamists and then lectured that they are to blame for what has befallen them. We have been instructed in the need for special sensitivity to the unceasing demands of Islamic culture and falsely accused of intolerance by the people who wrote the book on intolerance. Americans have sacrificed blood and bottomless treasure for Islamic peoples who despise Americans — and despise us even more as our sacrifices and gestures of self-loathing intensify. Americans have watched as apologists for terrorists and sharia were made the face of an American Muslim community that we were simultaneously assured was the very picture of pro-American moderation.
Americans have had our fill. We are willing to live many lies. This one, though, strikes too close to home, arousing our heretofore dormant sense of decency. Americans have now heard Barack Obama’s shtick enough times to know that when he talks about “our values,” he’s really talking about his values, which most of us don’t share. And after ten years of CAIR’s tired tirades, we’re immune to Feisal Rauf, too.
We look around us and we see our country unrivaled by anything in the history of human tolerance. We see thousands of thriving mosques, permitted to operate freely even though we know for a fact that mosques have been used against us, repeatedly, to urge terrorism, recruit terrorists, raise money for terrorists, store and transfer firearms, and inflame Muslims against America and the West. As Islamists rage against us, we see Islam celebrated in official Washington. As we reach out for the umpty-umpth time, we find Muslim leaders taking what we offer, but always with complaint and never with reciprocation. We’re weary, and we don’t really care if that means that Time magazine, Michael Bloomberg, Katie Couric, Fareed Zakaria, and the rest think we’re bad people — they think we’re bad people, anyway.
So finally we’re asking: Where is this “moderate Islam” you’ve been telling us about? Why would a self-proclaimed bridge-builder insist on something so patently provocative and divisive? How can we be sure that if imam Rauf builds his monument on our graveyard, it won’t become what other purportedly “moderate” Islamic centers have become: a cauldron of anti-American vitriol?
It turns out that there are no satisfactory answers. When finally pressed on the taxonomy of moderate Islam, the best our elites can do — besides shouting “Islamophobia!” — is debate whether there ever was a “golden age” of Islamic tolerance. They have to confess that the Islamists — whom they’d like us to see as a handful of “extremists” but who are in truth a mass movement — are in the ascendancy. It is embarrassingly obvious that while some of us have been working to defeat Islamism in our midst, our elites are of the incorrigibly progressive mindset that counsels accommodating them — in the delusion that they will be appeased rather than encouraged to become more aggressive. That is precisely the mindset that makes an Islamist think: Maybe now is the time for a $100 million mosque at Ground Zero.
“Moderate Islam” is a dream, not a reality. It is a dream with potential, because there are millions of Muslims who are moderate people, and because there are dedicated Muslims working to transform their faith into something that is institutionally moderate. But they work against great odds. They confront Islamists whose dedication to theocratic principles is deeply and undeniably rooted in Islamic scripture. And they confront American opinion elites who, wittingly or not, serve as the lifeline of the Islamists.
The reformers’ slim chance at prevailing hinges on the American people’s will to say “no” to our self-anointed betters. Ground Zero, once again the site of epic Islamist overreach, may be remembered as the place where we started to say “no.”
— Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.

Works and Days » ‘Like a Dog’: The Origins of Barack Obama’s Petulance

2010-09-10T09:59:00.000-04:00

Works and Days » ‘Like a Dog’: The Origins of Barack Obama’s Petulance
I would be miffed too if I were Obama
Obama in just twenty months has developed a reputation for being petulant, unusually sensitive to the normal run-of-the-mill criticism. His latest pushback was his strangest so far: “And they’re not always happy with me. They talk about me like a dog. That’s not in my prepared remarks, it’s just — but it’s true.”
Given that Obama has previously called out talk radio critics by name — Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh — attacked everything from limb-lopping surgeons to vacationing at Las Vegas, and in condescending fashion tsk-tsked those who attend Glen Beck rallies, rural Pennsylvanians, and his own “typical white person” grandmother who raised him, his thin-skin touchiness seems inexplicable.
Surely the most powerful man in the world knows that when you elevate talk radio critics to near-equal adversaries, then one cannot complain that they press their now high-profile serial attacks even further.
Add that his team has indulged in invective like few recent administrations — whether Obama’s own slur against the stereotyping and stupidly acting police, Eric Holder’s collective denunciation of Americans as “cowards,” Van Jones’ various hysterics (e.g., polluting and mass-murdering whites, Bush in on 9/11, etc.), Anita Dunn’s attacks against Fox News, or the generic “Bush did it” chorus.
The wonder is not that Obama is angry at criticism, but why he is so surprised in a weird “how dare they?” fashion.
Various explanations come to mind. Like the early presidential years of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, Obama has experienced a radical drop in approval ratings. His preconceived notions about the world abroad have proven shockingly therapeutic. He must be disappointed that an Ahmadinejad or Putin is not swayed by his charisma and does what he pleases, which is mostly to oppose America and its interests whenever he can. Messianic disappointment with an unappreciative lesser world can explain a lot.
Keynesian economics did not pan out. Pundits without the responsibility of governance, who advised him to borrow trillions, now abandon him for not borrowing more trillions. He must be confused why he is both being attacked by friends and yet unable to borrow his way to recovery.
Yet Obama’s petulance, I think, more likely derives from a certain surprise — leading to anger — that originates from novel and sudden demands for accountability. Quite simply, no one has dared question Obama before — much less press him for deeds to match his mellifluous words.
Did he really think he could talk his way through four years of the American presidency?
Apparently, he did, and apparently he was almost right — given that rhetoric and sophistry earned him the presidency in the first place. In what follows, I hold some empathy for Obama’s pique; you see in some sense those around him suddenly changed the rules, and what in the past had been habit and custom no longer quite applied.An Old Story
This is an old story with a long heritage. We know Obama got into Columbia; we have no idea what he accomplished there — or whether his undergraduate transcript merited admission to Harvard Law School. Obama may have charmed his way into Harvard Law Review, but in brilliant fashion he seems to have guessed rightly that once there he would be singularly exempt from the usual requirements of quantifiable achievement.
A part-time visiting law professorship at the University of Chicago Law school rarely leads to a permanent tenure-track position, much less a tenured billet– and never without a body of published articles and books. In Obama’s case those protocols simply did not apply. He was not only offered whatever he wanted, but as Justice Kagan reminded us, Obama was courted by Harvard Law School as well.
Most candidates for state office do not sue to remove their opponents from the ballot. Obama petitioned (successfully) that most of them be disqualified in 1995. It is likewise rare for the sealed divorce records of a front-running primary rival to be mysteriously leaked, prompting a veritable uncontested nomination. But after Democratic rival Blair Hull imploded from such revelations, so did Obama’s general election Republican opponent Jack Ryan, who dropped out of the race after his divorce proceedings were eerily likewise exposed. Lightning does strike twice in the same place for the blessed Obama.
Obama had served in the Senate for about two years, when he announced his candidacy for the presidency. That too is rare, but not unprecedented; what was singular was his claim that he was a bipartisan uniter, when, in fact, he compiled the most partisan voting record among 100 senators of either party. He sponsored no major legislation; his memoirs reflected others’ interest in him, not his own record of lawmaking. His themes were winning over adherents rather signature accomplishments.
The exotic name, the mixed racial heritage, and the street cred cool, juxtaposed to the nerdy professorial sermonizing, trumped the need to author or repeal significant laws or create lasting community institutions — or to leave any footprint of achievement at either the University of Chicago, the Illinois legislature, or the U.S. Senate. Running for office or courting appointments or angling for promotions seemed divorced from worry about doing anything when such wishes were granted. Obama’s tragedy is that there is nothing left he can run for, no further adulatory confirmation for just being Obama. Performance for the first time in his life is now all that counts.
Names and images matter in America. Just as a hypothetical moderately attractive blond but empty “Pam Hill” would not earn the high profile accorded to her double-ganger Paris Hilton of similar non-achievement, so too a Barry Dunham does not catch on in the progressive political world in the manner of a Barack Obama.
Nobel Peace Prizes traditionally are awarded to those after a lifetime of activism, often after some exposure to danger, or at least a sizable body of inspirational literature. Obama simply had no such record. He is our collective Peter Sellers of Being There. To paraphrase the embarrassed awards committee, Obama was granted the prize more on his symbolic potential, rather than on the basis of anything he did. Like hundreds of other liberal elites, the Nobel committee seemed to draw more personal fulfillment and satisfaction for bequeathing the award than did Obama in receiving it.
Yes, Race Was a Factor
Throughout the Obama presidential odyssey, an enthralled media variously dubbed him a “god,” confessed to tingling sensations when he spoke, and in vicious fashion turned on any politician who tried to question Obama’s actual record of achievement — whether Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin.
There is no need to pursue the journalistic malfeasance that allowed the president of the United States to be inaugurated without any real past scrutiny. Suffice to say that any future presidential candidate who promises to cool the planet and lower the rising seas will be laughed out of contention — even if he puts “yes, we can” into Latin on his pre-presidential seal.
Race was a factor. Here the left is correct in assessing its importance in evaluating Obama, although not quite in the way they think. At various times, a disturbing racialist trope emerged that suggested white liberals were enthralled almost solely by Obama’s mixed heritage, his diction, and comportment. Not to mention the overall sense that he was a moderate and charismatic African-American that knew precisely how to put anxious well-meaning folks like themselves at ease — and that this was simply not true of the majority of other African-American politicians, and that this in and of itself would suffice.
Promoting Obama offered blanket exemption from even the suggestion of prejudice — a sort of cheap flip of a “get out of jail free” card than ensured liberal elites could otherwise pursue their sheltered lives without guilt or worry over demands for daily interaction with most African-Americans. Elect Obama, worry not what he did — and at last live guilt-free lives in seclusion.
That is a serious charge that should not be made lightly, but the emphasis on Obama’s diction, pigment, and appearance — rather than his actual record — is not my own.
Joe Biden, for example, blurted out, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” Apparently Biden meant that the antithesis of Obama’s profile — a non-mainstream African-American, who spoke a southern patois and who did not appear bright and clean and handsome — most definitely was not to be a storybook candidate and perhaps likely to put off white liberals like Biden. (Note that Biden did not mention any particular achievement of Obama, merely the impression that he made on those like himself.)
Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was perhaps cruder even than Biden. It was reported that he had characterized Obama as a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” Again, Reid’s implied antithesis — a dark-skinned African American who spoke with a Negro dialect all the time — would probably offend progressives like Reid. (Note here that Harry Reid seems to have been the first serious observer to publicly describe one of Obama most off-putting characteristics — the near cynical fashion in which he turns on not slightly, but entirely, different cadences and intonations to cater to particular crowds.)
Progressive Condescension
In short, Obama seems aware that a particular cadre of influential white liberals has traditionally accorded him deference not warranted by actual achievement, but rather by his projection of a progressive persona, as crudely outlined by a Biden or Reid — and that this by now is a normal course of events rather than an aberrant experience. Hence his anger that all that has at last begun to end.
It is hard to think that an Elena Kagan, dean of Harvard Law School, would have gushed over the rather undistinguished legal record of Barack Obama, had he been either a well published but obese white Harvard Law graduate, or a conservative African-American antipode to the Biden-Reid stereotype, perhaps in the Clarence Thomas mold. After all, it was not just Obama’s appearance or skin color or cadences that so impressed Biden and Reid and won over liberal Americans, but his politics as well that earned him an exemption not accorded even to an equally professional appearing Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice.
Now What?
But enough speculation over motives for the origins of Obama’s strange and growing petulance. All that matters for the country is that the current president of the United States seems surprised that as our chief executive he is earning scrutiny not previously accorded him — and that he finds that demand for accountability both exasperating and abjectly unfair. Thus this week’s latest “like a dog” whine.
For some reason, Obama believed that those who expected after his campaign promises a real upturn in the economy, or fiscal responsibility, or inspired foreign policy would be satisfied, as they had in the past, merely with soaring rhetoric and superficial reassurance. When they were not, and voiced such displeasure, as ingrates they had supposedly reduced Obama to canine-like status.
There is no need to add that abroad an Ahmadinejad, Assad, or Putin does not care a bit for the supposed personal chemistry or ethnic profile of Obama. Whether he was “clean” or not would be an absurdity to them. We sense only that those authoritarian sorts seem so far to like the idea that Obama speaks ambiguously about his country’s past and future, and appears more comfortable in pondering alternatives than making decisions.
Given all that, it is understandable both why America is very worried about what it has wrought — and why Barack Obama is miffed and lashes out.
You would too if both accountability and criticism were novel experiences at 49

A New Jersey: Remember November Part I

2010-09-10T09:06:00.000-04:00

Governor Christie Responds To Teacher During Town Hall

2010-09-10T08:56:00.000-04:00

The Hugh Hewitt Show

2010-09-09T10:02:00.000-04:00

The Hugh Hewitt Show

Mark Steyn's Return From Walkabout
Friday, September 03, 2010
HH: Boy, am I glad to welcome back Mark Steyn, Columnist To the World. You can also catch up on what he’s been up to at www.steynonline.com. Mark, welcome back, I hope you’ve had an enjoyable summer.
MS: Yes, yes, I have, and I’m glad to be back, Hugh.
HH: We’ll miss you for a couple of weeks after this, and then you’ll be back regularly. I have to assure the audience. I was listening to you sitting in for Rush today, Mark, and I heard you talking about Imam Rauf’s book tour. And I couldn’t stop laughing when you mentioned it’s just not fair, he doesn’t have to do 2 in the morning FM radio spots with the hate radio jock in the middle of nowhere like the rest of us who schlep books.
MS: Yeah, no, I’m astonished by this.
HH: (laughing)
MS: The State Department bought 3,000 copies of his book, and then flies him to Cairo to promote the book. So unlike you and me, he gets his book tour paid for by the United States taxpayers. I cannot understand this. It’s amazing to me. People talk about, and even Republicans do this. We had this with Trent Lott and that crowd a couple of years back. They kept saying well, there’s no more fat to cut out of the federal budget. Sorry, we’ve cut it all out. We’ve cut it all. Sorry, I think when you’re buying 3,000 copies of some imam’s vanity publishing exercise, and flying him to Cairo to promote it, I don’t think the United States taxpayers should be paying for that, and I’m sick of all that stuff. I want someone to take and ax to that kind of federal spending, and let’s pare things back to stuff the government is meant to do, which isn’t to pay for authors to go on book tours all over the Middle East.
HH: You know who’s really mad about that is Jim Wright, because when he did a vanity press, and had his friends arrange to buy it, the IRS frowned on that.
MS: That’s right. (laughing) And the whole thing with Imam Rauf, by the way, I don’t get it, because it’s supposed to be like a, he’s covered by the State Department’s multi-faith outreach program. What is multi-faith about sending a Muslim imam to the Middle East to talk to other Muslim imams? Where’s the multi part of the multi-faith bit? There is just so much waste, so much waste. Every…and it’s perhaps because I’ve been overseas, and I’ve been in jurisdictions that do not enjoy the bountiful scale of government that the United States does, but I’ve become madder and madder about this stuff in the 48 hours I’ve been back. It’s driving me nuts.
HH: Yeah, I’ve missed you through this whole Mosque debate, because there was a lot of obvious punch lines to be delivered. But here we stand at the end of the summer. Orrin Hatch I think came out for it yesterday. I’ve had on E.J. Dionne, I’ve had on Nicholas Kristof. The left or the people who defend the Mosque, they don’t really have an argument, Mark Steyn. They don’t have a way to distinguish between Imam Rauf’s project and a dyed in the wool, I’m with the Blind Sheikh guy who wants to build one right next to the crater. They don’t know how to distinguish anything.
MS: No, and they’re pointing out, they’re pointing out stupidities as well. I mean, the fact is yes, obviously, Constitutionally speaking, legally speaking, if a guy wants to buy a building and put a particular project in it, he’s entitled to do that. This pompous twerp, Bloomberg, who I think has come to embody the particular stupidity of the American ruling class, because it’s a very parochial kind of stupidity. Presuming to lecture his knuckle-dragging, moronic constituents on how they don’t apparently understand the United States Constitution? It’s nothing to do with that. There are all kinds of things that are Constitutional and are legal, but are not necessarily appropriate. There’s some big row going on at the moment between some church that’s across the street from a strip club, and the church congregants are taking the license plates of the strip club attendees, and the strippers are now protesting outside the church. Yes, there’s a perfect legal right for a strip joint to open up next to a church. But maybe it’s not the greatest idea in the world. And this whole stupid legalistic way of looking at it is actually part of what is killing American initiative and American energy. Societies operate on less legalistic understandings of what is appropriate.
HH: Now Mark Steyn, in the couple of months you’ve been on vacation, or actually abroad, President Obama has grown increasingly weary-looking, right to the point where on his speech this week, I began to think he is going to be a one-termer by choice. Has that thought crossed your mind yet?
MS: Well, it’s interesting what people mean by that. A lot of people think he’s going to be a one-term president. The interesting thing is whether he’s going to be a one-termer, as you say, by choice, like a James K. Polk. In other words, he figures he’s going to do what he needs to do in four years, and then he’s going to move on. And I said sometime last year, I think, that what I found odd about him is that he’s the first American president I can think of who gives the impression that the job is too small for him.
HH: Yup.
MS: And he’s just kind of killing time in it until something more commensurate with his abilities comes along. And given that his entire view of the world, as John Bolton likes to say, he’s the post-American president for a post-American world, the idea that he would be focused on reelection in the way a conventional politician such as Bill Clinton is, I think is not really part of his thinking. I think he’s much rather utterly transform the United States, and then swan off after a couple of years, and go be a secretary-general of the United Nations with enhanced powers, or whatever racket has been cooked up for him in those years. So I think you’re right. The idea of being a one-term president by choice, and making that one term far more consequential than any two-term president’s is.
HH: He is already transformed America to the extent we’ve got people like Rand Paul and Joe Miller nominated in Kentucky and Alaska, and leading, Mark Steyn. Do you think that we still have more to go in terms of the surge in general revulsion about how far to the left this country has gone? Or have we peaked?
MS: No, I don’t think so. I think in a sense, there’s still a lot of people waking up to it. I mean, for example, his approval rating, Obama’s approval rating, is at about 40%. I think actually, that overstates it some. I think it still has some way to fall. I mean, the big problem, the big problem being simply the multi-trillion debt he is piling on a very relatively small number of people. I mentioned on the radio yesterday that I was just doing some back of the envelope calculations, and it had occurred to me that not only has this level of spending outspent America, in other words, this scale of government spending has outspent what America has, but it may in fact have outspent the entire planet’s. I mean, the level of debt Obama’s piled up presumes that the rest of the planet will want to put 20% of its GDP into U.S. Treasuries. HH: Yup.
MS: There’s no evidence for that, and that is not going to happen.
HH: No, it’s not.
MS: So these people are going to have to sort of, I think, still have some waking up to do.
HH: And that’s very ominous for what happens next year. Let me ask you, Mark, I had John Boehner on Monday, and the transcript for the audience is posted at Hughhewitt.com, and I asked the Leader whether the Republicans were prepared to move quickly, if they understood the need for speed. Do you get a sense that the GOP, Beltway division, is in touch with, aligned with, and is committed as the country’s populist, conservative revolt wants them to be? To cut spending, extend the tax cuts, and rebuild the DOD and repeal Obamacare?
MS: No, I don’t think so. I think there are some people, obviously, there are people like Jim DeMint who are committed to that, and there are some of these newly-nominated candidates who are committed to that. But I listened to Trent Lott, who cashed in his rolodex for a big time lobbyist job, and Trent Lott is saying oh, we don’t want 60 Jim DeMints in the Senate. We are going to need to do some serious hacking away at the size of the federal government. Otherwise, I think this is do or die for the Republican Party. If people vote in the Republicans on a tide of revulsion at what the Democrats have done, and the Republicans just settle back and we’re back to 2004 all over again, I think the Republican Party will have blown their last chance, and we will, I have to be cautious here, because I believe it’s a condition of my Green Card that I’m not allowed to foment armed insurrection against the government of the United States.
HH: (laughing)
MS: But with that stipulation, I think we will be pushing the temperament of the people in a revolutionary direction, and that is something that the Republicans ought to understand.
HH: Last question, Mark Steyn. You’ve been away for a couple of months on your walkabout. Do you come back more or less optimistic about the future of the United States than when you left?
MS: Well, I am optimistic, because my big point is that this is still the only Western nation where when things head south, people don’t say why doesn’t the government do more for me. They do, as we’re seeing in primaries across the land, they say no, I can do just fine if you guys in Washington would just, and in the State Capitols, would just get your hand out of my pocket. That is a very American message. It’s not something you hear a lot of in Greece or in most other parts of the Western world.
HH: Mark Steyn, it’s great to have you back. www.steynonline.com, America. Mark will be gone for a couple of weeks, and then he’ll be back again.
End of interview.

Expect A Typically Torpid Tea Party Take On That

2010-09-08T08:51:00.000-04:00

Expect A Typically Torpid Tea Party Take On That

By Jane Jamison
Cry for us, too, Argentina?
The Obama administration is making a “stealth” move to nationalize private retirement accounts, just as Argentina did in late 2008, to resolve national debt.
( Video news report of nationalization of pensions in Argentina )
Word got out through a non-descript announcement August 26 of a Labor Department committee hearing on September 14 and 15:
Today the U. S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) released the agenda for the upcoming joint hearing with the Department of the Treasury on lifetime income options for retirement plans. Accompanying the agenda are copies of the witnesses’ requests to testify and testimony outlines.
“Lifetime income options” is a rather cynical euphemism, according to coin dealer/columnist, Patrick Heller, who alerted his readers to the upcoming hearing last week.
“I don’t like speaking in tabloid-style terms, but the unstated agenda of these hearings, as I understand it, is to push for the US government to eventually nationalize (confiscate) all assets in private Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and 401K plans!
The US government is desperate to get its hands on private assets to help cover soaring budget deficits and debts, and this is simply the largest and easiest piggy bank that could be seized. The Investment Company Institute estimates that at the end of 2008 that there were $3.613 trillion of assets in IRAs and $2.350 trillion of assets in 401K plans.”
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the U.K. Telegraph sounded the warning gong in October, 2008, in an article titled, “Who’s Next?” just after the socialist Argentine president Christina Kirchner made good on two years of threats and repositionings, and nationalized a large pool of private pensions.
“My fear is that governments in the US, Britain, and Europe will display similar reflexes. Indeed, they have already done so. The forced-feeding of banks with fresh capital – whether they want it or not – and the seizure of the Fannie/Freddie mortgage giants before they were in fact in trouble (in order to prevent a Chinese buying strike of US bonds and prevent a spike in US mortgage rates), shows that private property can be co-opted – or eliminated – with little due process if that is required to serve the collective welfare. This is a slippery slope.”
Of course, no one in the Obama administration is going to label this a “move to nationalize IRAs and 401Ks.” That would be too traumatizing, too much, too soon, and would create immediate blowback. Instead, we will be “softened up” with talk about Value-Added Tax (VAT) of 20% or more, and demonizing of predatory investment brokers who are “victimizing” pensioners. The dreaded “deficit commission” report looms in December.
Just as Argentina’s nationalization of private pensions was at least two years in coming, we have had our advance warnings. Congressman George Miller (D-Calif.) held hearings two years ago, just before President Obama was elected, to discuss removing the tax-exempt status of retirement contributions, and mandatory 5% contributions by employers ( in addition to Social Security and Medicare) for employee retirement accounts.
There was very little coverage of these hearings, timed as they were two weeks before the election. Rush Limbaugh and some bloggers covered the issue. Wall Street Journal wrote two weeks after the election about it:
“At a hearing last month, Mr. Miller put the 401(k) system into play. Under the current system, employers match employee contributions that aren’t taxed until redeemed, an indirect subsidy worth some $80 billion today. “We have to start to think about in Congress . . . whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that’s not generating what we now say it should,” Mr. Miller said. “For a taxpayer investment of this size, we must ensure that the structure of 401(k)s adequately protects the nest eggs of participating workers.”
The administration has been trotting around “experts” such as Dr. Teresa Ghilarducci of the Schwartz Economic Policy Analysis Center to get the message out about “spreading the wealth,” and “protecting investors.” Her message has prompted some writers, such US NEWS Money’s James Pethokoukis to call her “the most dangerous woman in America.” She told conservative talk show host Mark Levin in 2008 that taxpayers should “trust” that her proposed government retirement accounts would be just as “safe” as Social Security is now.
Ghilarducci is funded by the Rockefeller foundation.
Wall Street Journal, 2008:
“Her plan would end the tax breaks for 401(k)s; she proposes instead to give all workers an annual $600 inflation-adjusted tax credit for retirement and force them to invest 5% of their pay into a government-run retirement account managed by the Social Security Administration. She called the 401(k) “a failed experiment.”
As banking reform was “sold” to us as “consumer protection,” we will be told we must be protected from our own stupid decisions or bad choices (or not) with more government “oversight” and “market protections” of our retirement monies.
Another job-killing, revenue-raising (or busting) bill goes hand-in-glove with this:
S 3760, introduced August 5 by Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) would require that employers of workers currently not covered by any retirement program pay 3% of compensation into mandatory, automatic IRA accounts. That would also have the effect of increasing the assets that the US government could then seize.
The only “consolation,” if there is any, is that the timing of this hearing on the pre-emptive pension “grab” comes less than two months before the November election. If the voters know the facts, surely this will send them in droves to vote Democrats out of Congress and maybe….stave off this attack on private American wealth.
That is the question: Will the truth get out to the public in time to make a difference?

Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) is from the east bay of San Francisco and is up for re-election against Republican Rick Tubbs
Update: Linked by: TheOtherMcCain and Lonely Conservative

One Nation Under God - Jon McNaughton

2010-09-08T08:15:00.000-04:00

The Forgotten Man - Jon McNaughton

2010-09-08T08:13:00.000-04:00

No Sheeples Here: Palin Derangement Syndrome Outbreak: There Are Still Five A’s in Raaaaacism

2010-09-06T15:05:00.000-04:00

No Sheeples Here: Palin Derangement Syndrome Outbreak: There Are Still Five A’s in Raaaaacism

Cross-posted with permission from Robert Stacy McCain
“With enough courage, you can do without a reputation.”– Rhett Butler, Gone With the WindSome things are predictable — i.e., that the Palin-haters would decide it was a good time to recycle the old SPLC/LGF attacks on me in order to exploit my interview with Todd Palin for a guilt-by-association smear. When Rachel Maddow tried the same trick last fall — based on my friend Lynn Vincent’s collaboration with Sarah Palin on Going Rogue — I made a few points in my response:I don’t have to explain myself or prove a negative…There is no obligation for me to speak a word in my own defense.Earlier this year, I described the Left’s tactics in dealing with an LGF attack on Dennis Prager:
Bad Faith – The accusation that conservatives are motivated by bad faith (mala fides) is essential to the Left’s attacks. Stigmatizing and marginalizing conservatives is much easier than debating them. Cogent arguments about policy become unnecessary to advancing the Left’s political agenda if they can dismiss its opponents as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.
The Ransom Note Method – By carefully selecting “evidence” of bad faith, the Left is able to present a distorted image of its conservative targets. Out-of-context quotes and controversial biographical data are cherry-picked and re-assembled (in the manner of a kidnapper assembling a ransom note) to present the target in the most damning possible light. This method is particularly effective against conservative talk-radio personalities who engage in polemic battle with leftists. This is why Media Matters devotes such enormous resources to monitoring talk radio in hopes of grabbing a 40-second “gotcha” sound-bite.
The ‘Links and Ties’ Method – More than simple guilt-by-association, the Links-and-Ties Method involves presenting a chain of incidental connections to suggest a sympathy of views that does not actually exist. To wit: Target A once spoke at Event B which was sponsored by Group C, co-founded by Person D who once made controversial statement E. By this method, it is implied that Target A actually endorses Statement E.
Telescoping and Telepathy – The actions, statements and associations of a conservative target acquire a trans-temporal permanence in the smear attacks of the Left. Once a target is associated (however incidentally) with controversy, this association can be repeated endlessly as evidence of bad faith, no matter how many years intervene. Furthermore, if the target is associated in Year X with a respectable person or organization that becomes controversial in Year X+5, that association can be cited in Year X+10 as evidence against the target – even if the target had no involvement in the cause of controversy. Finally, all evidence of bad faith accumulated by these methods is presented as indicative of the target’s deepest and unwavering personal convictions, as if the accuser were possessed of telepathic mind-reading abilities.
Deny, Denounce, Repudiate – The key to these attack methods is the presumption of the target’s guilt. The accuser, having carefully selected the evidence to be discussed in the manner of a prosecutor making an indictment, demands that the target deny the accusation, denounce the bad-faith views involved, and repudiate the persons and organizations to whom he has been connected by the links-and-ties method. As anyone who has been targeted by such attacks can attest, it’s rather like being accused in one of Stalin’s infamous Moscow “show trials.”
What is at the root of this game is the accuser’s moral authority to act as Grand Inquisitor. The accuser arrogates to himself the unquestionable righteousness to judge the accused, who is then expected to attempt to prove his innocence.If you play that game, you’re accepting the accuser’s authority.The idiocy of the accusation that I am a “white supremacist” ought to be obvious: What, exactly, does “white supremacist” mean in 2010? Have I ever advocated any such policy? Do I hatefully derogate non-whites or espouse some bizarre theory of racial superiority?I do not and never have.Remember that it is not sufficient proof of such a serious charge to say that, over the course of a long career, I have occasionally made ill-c0nsidered statements or that I have associated with people whose reputations may be even worse than my own. In the first instance, I’ve written many thousands of words which my accusers never bother to cite – e.g., my 2008 feature about Lt. Col. Allen West or my April profile of Vernon Parker — and in the second instance, a journalist necessarily makes a wide range of acquaintances.I don’t like being told what to think or what to say, and I don’t make a habit of letting other people decide who I can be friends with. Some of my conservative friends can’t understand why I’m friends with that horrible reprobate Dave Weigel, for example, while my liberal friends — and I do have some of those — are shocked that I’m friends with that nasty Dan Riehl fellow. (I may even be part of Dan’s “ilk“!)Having many friends who can vouch for my bona fides — people of good reputation who know me personally and never once had cause to think of me as a racist hatemonger — I expect that many voices will defend me from the likes of Phil Munger, an instigator of this latest attack.Hate is against my religion. If I am commanded to pray for my enemies, why then should I hate entire races of people whom I’ve never met and who have done me no harm?If I do not hate, neither will I fear. There are important stories I need to be covering, and I’ve got better things to do than to seek vengeance on a bunch of pissant “progressives” whose only claim to fame is their vicious obsession with the Palins. I’m past caring what such people think of me, but if I am called on to fight in defense of the good name of the Palins, I’m prepared again to invoke the war oath of Clan Cameron:
Chlanna nan con thigibh a so’s gheibh sibh feoil!“Sons of the hounds, come here and get flesh!”
And there are still five A’s in raaaaacism

Ronald Reagan on adoption and abortion

2010-09-03T13:58:00.000-04:00

Tea at Trianon: Freedom of Religion vs. Freedom of Worship#links#links

2010-09-03T09:31:00.000-04:00

Tea at Trianon: Freedom of Religion vs. Freedom of Worship#links#links

Archbishop Chaput explains the difference.
The Enlightenment-derived worldview that gave rise to the great murder ideologies of the last century remains very much alive. Its language is softer, its intentions seem kinder, and its face is friendlier. But its underlying impulse hasn’t changed -- i.e., the dream of building a society apart from God; a world where men and women might live wholly sufficient unto themselves, satisfying their needs and desires through their own ingenuity. This vision presumes a frankly “post-Christian” world ruled by rationality, technology and good social engineering. Religion has a place in this worldview, but only as an individual lifestyle accessory. People are free to worship and believe whatever they want, so long as they keep their beliefs to themselves and do not presume to intrude their religious idiosyncrasies on the workings of government, the economy, or culture.Now, at first hearing, this might sound like a reasonable way to organize a modern society that includes a wide range of ethnic, religious and cultural traditions, different philosophies of life and approaches to living.But we’re immediately struck by two unpleasant details.First, “freedom of worship” is not at all the same thing as “freedom of religion.” Religious freedom includes the right to preach, teach, assemble, organize, and to engage society and its issues publicly, both as individuals and joined together as communities of faith. This is the classic understanding of a citizen’s right to the “free exercise” of his or her religion in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It’s also clearly implied in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In contrast, freedom of worship is a much smaller and more restrictive idea.Second, how does the rhetoric of enlightened, secular tolerance square with the actual experience of faithful Catholics in Europe and North America in recent years?In the United States, a nation that is still 80 percent Christian with a high degree of religious practice, government agencies now increasingly seek to dictate how Church ministries should operate, and to force them into practices that would destroy their Catholic identity. Efforts have been made to discourage or criminalize the expression of certain Catholic beliefs as “hate speech.” Our courts and legislatures now routinely take actions that undermine marriage and family life, and seek to scrub our public life of Christian symbolism and signs of influence.In Europe, we see similar trends, although marked by a more open contempt for Christianity. Church leaders have been reviled in the media and even in the courts for simply expressing Catholic teaching. Some years ago, as many of you may recall, one of the leading Catholic politicians of our generation, Rocco Buttiglione, was denied a leadership post in the European Union because of his Catholic beliefs.

Tea at Trianon: September Massacres#links#links

2010-09-03T09:29:00.000-04:00

Tea at Trianon: September Massacres#links#links

Thursday, September 2, 2010

September Massacres
Let us not forget the September Martyrs. (Thanks to Richard.)
As the Revolution moved on, its leadership came more and more into the hands of extremists. In 1792, the radical Jacobins determined to punish with death not only the aristocrats, but clergy who had refused the oath.
The “non-jurors” - those who had refused the oath - were arrested en masse in August, 1792, and herded into several Parisian monasteries out of which the resident monks had been driven. These prisoners were priests, bishops and religious from many dioceses. Then on September 2, a band of violent armed men, perhaps 150 in number, was sent by the “Committee of Vigilance” to one after the other of these temporary prisons. One detail arrived at the Abbey of St. Germain just when a number of prisoners got there, transferred from other places of detention.
The executioners shot them down in cold blood. Then they went to the old Carmelite monastery, where another group of cutthroats joined them. They ordered all the prisoners to come out into the garden, even the oldest and most disabled. The clerics had already discussed once more the question of taking the oath, and all had agreed they could not and would not subscribe to it.
Now the gang fell upon the first priests they met and cut them down. Then they called out, “The Archbishop of Arles!” Archbishop John du Lau of Arles was praying in the chapel. When summoned, he came out and he said, “I am he whom you seek.” Thereupon, they cracked his skull, stabbed him and trampled him underfoot. Then the leader set up a “tribunal” before which the imprisoned were herded and ordered to take the oath. All refused; so, as they passed down the stairway, they were hacked to pieces by the murderers. The bishop of Beauvais had earlier been wounded in the leg. When summoned, he answered, “I do not refuse to die with the others, but I cannot walk. I beg you to have the kindness to carry me where you wish me to go.” For a moment, his courtesy silenced the assassins. But, when he, too, refused the oath, he was killed like the rest.
Later on the purge was carried out elsewhere in France. Some 200 clergymen fell that September, and they were only a small percentage of the 1500 clergy, laymen and laywomen who were massacred in 1792 alone.
Pope Pius XI beatified 191 of the priest martyrs, in 1926, assigning to them the title of “Blessed John du Lau and Companions, Martyrs.”

No Sheeples Here: Uncle Sam Will See You Now Or How ObamaCare Will Ruin Doctor/Patient Relationships FOREVER

2010-09-03T08:54:00.000-04:00

No Sheeples Here: Uncle Sam Will See You Now Or How ObamaCare Will Ruin Doctor/Patient Relationships FOREVER

Thursday, September 02, 2010
#fullpost{display:inline;}
In late July, I had an appointment with my regular physician. I have been seeing him for twenty-plus years. He is the same doctor who has taken excellent care of me since I was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes in March of 2006.
Before my diagnosis, I may have visited him two times a year for a case of the sniffles, but diabetes made it necessary to see him every three months to insure I was managing my diabetes to prevent or reduce the complications associated with that chronic disease.
I could never have imagined ending my relationship with him.
At the conclusion of my visit, he literally broke my heart. He advised me that my last appointment ever with him would be in October of this year. He confided that ObamaCare was forcing him to end his practice because of the ways in which the new law would impact his ability to render the best possible care for his patients.
Most people assumed that the American Medical Association represented most of the doctors in this country. In fact, the AMA represents less than 20 percent of all physicians in the United States. And yet as the organization’s leadership moved more to the left, it held a near monopoly on media attention on issues pertaining to public health. No longer.
Docs4PatientCare is challenging the AMA’s stranglehold on health care matters, just as other groups once challenged the right of the left-leaning American Bar Association to determine what judges are and are not qualified for the United States Supreme Court. How Docs4PatientCare managed to barge its way into the closed-door meetings of Washington offers a lesson to other groups seeking to have a voice in their federal government.
Writing an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal, Dr. Hal Scherz is countering this election year ruse.
Scherz writes, “My colleagues and I at Docs4PatientCare are enlisting thousands of doctors in an unorthodox and unprecedented action. Our patients have always expected a certain standard of care from their doctors, which includes providing them with pertinent information that may affect their quality of life. Because the issue this election is so stark—literally life and death for millions of Americans in the years ahead—we are this week posting a ‘Dear Patient’ letter in our waiting rooms.”
Facing a nationwide backlash, Democratic congressional candidates have a new message for voters: We know you don't like ObamaCare, so we'll fix it.
"Despite countless protests by doctors and overwhelming public opposition—up to 60% of Americans opposed this bill—the current party in control of Congress pushed this bill through with legal bribes and Chicago style threats and is determined now to resist any 'repeal and replace' efforts. This doctor's office is non-partisan—always has been, always will be. But the fact is that every Republican voted against this bad bill while the Democratic Party leadership and the White House completely dismissed the will of the people in ruthlessly pushing through this legislation."
The letter's final lines are the most important:
"Please remember when you vote this November that unless the Democratic Party receives a strong negative message about this power grab our health care system will never be fixed and the doctor patient relationship will be ruined forever."
Scherz concludes, “America's doctors have millions of personal interactions each week with patients. We have political power. And we intend to use it by working to defeat those who have disrupted and gravely endangered the best health-care system in the world.”
Waiting Room Letter

You might also like: Read more: http://nosheepleshere.blogspot.com/2010/09/uncle-sam-will-see-you-now-or-how.html#ixzz0yTExnJIS

Carrie Underwood - Jesus Take the Wheel/How Great Thou Art - CMA Fest 2010

2010-09-03T08:07:00.000-04:00

HT Father Z

2010-09-02T08:35:00.002-04:00

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

The "Virtus" of Bad Liturgy

I’m teaching CCD at my parish this year. It’s exciting and a little nerve-wracking, because I have the second graders – First Confession AND First Communion! We’re using the Ignatius Press Faith and Life series, which looks like a great text.

Last night, I did my mandatory Virtus training. The moderator was very good – she’s the principal of our local Catholic School, but the videos themselves were pretty terrible.

The information was superficial and out of date, especially with respect to technology. Even the discussion of ‘warning signs’ was nothing new or unexpected- after a year and a half of following the Legion saga, I’m apparently pretty well-informed about child abuse and the tricks molesters use to groom children. (Hey, maybe the bishops should make an updated video, featuring Father Maciel!)

One thing really jumped out at me. Periodically, the video showed scenes of parts of the Liturgy to emphasize the idea that we as a Church must “Protect God’s Children.” The baptism scenes were fine, but every other scene showcased an example of Bad Liturgical Practice.

We saw: A girl taking a glass chalice filled with the Precious Blood from a lay minister, drinking it herself, and then passing it back to the lay minister.

A bishop filmed in front of a bookcase holding clay chalices.

An apparent Mass which involved children processing in holding multi-colored burlap banners.

A really bad folk choir.

Children being sent out of Mass for a ‘Children’s Liturgy of the Word.’

As I watched, I wondered what message the Bishops were trying to send by including bad liturgy in the Virtus video.

1. Was it supposed to evoke warm fuzzy feelings? “Why, that parish is just like MY parish!” It didn’t, because those liturgical abuses wouldn’t fly around here.

2. Was it supposed to show us what the Bishops think a parish SHOULD look like? If so, I weep for our Church.

3. Or was it something more subtle? Was it supposed to help us make the connection between Liturgical abuse and sexual abuse? After all, if we can’t treat the body of our Lord and Saviour with respect, why would we treat the bodies of our neighbors with respect? Is there a short, slippery slope that runs between sloppiness at Mass and sin?

I have a feeling that the makers of the video were aiming for 1 and 2. But I think our pope would probably point to number 3. When we take Mass and the Eucharist seriously and let all our relationships flow forth from that first, essential relationship as Christ, we cannot use other people as objects. When the Mass goes, everything else starts to go too.

Of course, abuse can happen in ‘Good Liturgy’ settings too – because good liturgy can not be our goal. Our goal is to love and adore Christ. I think that a reverent liturgy flows naturally from a love of Christ in the Eucharist and a realization that we’re in the presence of God. (For instance, I noticed my 6-year-old’s behavior at Mass has improved DRAMATICALLY since we started attending Children’s adoration once a month.) If you have a nice-looking Liturgy, but no love, it’s just an empty pageant.

On the other hand, most awful liturgies are also empty pageants, focused on the congregation instead of the Divine.

In the end, I did learn something at Virtus training. Father Z is right. “Save the Liturgy, Save the World.” It’s not a coincidence that the pope who is focused on cleaning up the filth of abuse in the Church is also focused on cleaning up the Liturgy. If we can’t respect God, we won’t respect each other.

Posted by Deirdre Mundy at 8:39 AM

Labels: adoration, catholic, ccd, Faith and Life, Father Z is right, ignatius, liturgical abuse, Mass, sex abuse, virtus

5 comments:

Pam said...

I am a daily reader of Fr. Z's blog. I am also a convert. I volunteered for many years as the catechist taking the children out for Children's Liturgy of the Word. I am interested in why that is a liturgical abuse. Our liturgies are full of abuses and I hoped I could instill a love for God and Truth by teaching them.

Question 2: Please explain why a communicant taking the cup of the Precious Blood and consuming then handing it back to the EMHC is a liturgical abuse.

Thanks for answering my questions.

September 1, 2010 2:19 PM

Anonymous said...

As posted on WDTPRS:

It is interesting that one of the “markers” designating potential child abusers is an attitude that “The rules don’t apply to me.” That certainly could apply equally to retrogressive and progressive liturgical styles.

With respect to attempts to correlate clergy sexual abuse with retrogressive vs. progressive styles, it would be very difficult to design such a study; but perhaps not impossible. For my bachelor’s thesis I did create a BMVT scale which was used to correlate various scales of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule with the degree of Marian Devotion of seminarians. The study was later validated at the master’s level.

I doubt, however, that the designers of the John Jay study would go to the expense of creating a retro v. progressive scale. The validity of such a scale would surely be called into question.

Therefore, we are left with anectodal data. I suspect that most priets know a handful of retrogressive priests who have been removed due to sexual abuse of minors, and a handful of progressive priests as well. In the absence on data indicating the contrary, there is no reason to doubt that with respect to liturgical stlyes of presiders pedophilia and ephebophilia are equal opportunity proclivities.

With respect to “Mommy,” her liturigal pet peeves are trival, petty and absurd. Her complaints:

“Communion under both forms.” Not an abuse, it is permitted if not preferred.

“A Glass Chalice.” The Virtus video was created prior to the current GIRM.

“A Lay Minister.” Permitted, not an abuse.

“Girl taking the cup and handing it back.” The correct manner of distrubion of the Precious Blood.

“Bishop filmed with ceramic chalices in the background.” The chalices were not in use, they were on a book shelf.

“Banners.” They are not prohibited. Tasteless perhaps, but not an abuse.

“Bad Folk Choir.” A matter of taste, not prohibited.

I suspect that “Mommy” knows all of this, and was making a crude attempt at sarcasm.

Pinning sexual abuse of children on priests with a liturgical style she does not like is ugly and mean-spirited.

This woman would not be teaching PSR at my parish, and she certainly would not be responsible for second grade sacramental prep.

September 1, 2010 3:37 PM

Deirdre Mundy said...

Anon-

-I hadn't realized that the video was pre-GIRM. The age would also explain some of the dated technology information in the program. Perhaps the group that made the video might consider an update.

-As far as taking the Chalice, drinking, and handing it back, I've had some bad experiences with spilling of the Precious Blood. I guess it makes me a litte nervous. Obviously, lay ministers are allowed to help with communion.

-The procession with banners in the video is not just tasteless - if it occured during a Mass it would be distracting and inappropriate. The focus of the Mass should be the worship of God, not putting our own creativity on display.

-If children want to make banners and march with them, there are times OUTSIDE of the liturgy when they can do this. Mass is not the place.

-I assumed the ceramic chalices were NOT just decorative. I apologize if I was wrong.

- While Liturgical music is a matter of taste, I'd argue that it's more difficult to have a REVERENT liturgy when you have a folk choir. And the music helps signify the seriousness and solemnity of an occasion.

-How many brides choose to march down the aisle to a foot-stomping, hand-clapping folk tune? Shouldn't the Wedding Feast of the Lamb be as important as our OWN weddings?

Pam - with respect to Childrens' Liturgy of the Word - I think there are several problems.

1. The early Church did have a tradition of dismissing Catechumens. However, our children are NOT Catechumens. At their baptism, they are full members of the Church and so should be encouraged to celebrate Mass with the whole Church.

2. It's important for them to hear the Word of God as part of the COMMUNITY, with their Parents. A "children's liturgy" would be more appropriate for after Mass, or during Sunday School.

3. Often the Children's Liturgy ends after the Profession of Faith and the petitions-- so we're also denying the children a chance to learn and reaffirm the tenets of our faith, and a chance to pray for the needs of the parish.

4. The age cut-off is an issue. Children in first and second grade are preparing for First communion and should be able to sit through Mass and listen to the readings. If they've gotten in the habit of leaving to go to 'Children's Liturgy' then this preparation for the sacraments will seem like a punishment-- they're losing 'fun time' at Mass.

The Catholic Church is CATHOLIC. All ages should worship together. Our children are full members of the Church and we should treat them as such. Also, how will they LEARN to listen to God's word in the Mass if we don't give them the chance to practice?

I realize the people involved in Children's liturgy are well-intentioned and really enjoy sharing their faith with children. I just don't think that the proper time for this faith sharing is DURING Mass, when families ought to be worshipping together.

September 1, 2010 4:00 PM

nazareth priest said...

Anon: The terms "retrogressive" and "progressive" need to be defined, yeah?

Are you a sociologist?

Anyway...apart from the "liturgical abuses"...there are definite "warning signs" in both "classes" of priests...a certain "clericalism" defines both (whether you like it or not)...the most "progressive" priest can be a real "authoritarian", worse than anything prior to VII; the "retrogressive" priest can indeed, be pastoral, compassionate and even, loving? But he can also be a predator and a jerk.

Sorry to burst your bubble, there.

Stereotyping is not going to help us at all; what we need is for priests/deacons/religious/lay ministers to take seriously the "call to holiness", live it, and inspire others to do so.

This VIRTUS program is just so much crap...a way to make money for some, for others to feel like they're "doing something", and for others to promote an absolutely "un-Catholic" agenda.

If folks would have really been watchful, discerning, and used their common sense, much of this could have been prevented (in the program I was required to attend, a son of a permanent deacon spoke of how he would take little girls into the bathroom to "wash off paint", while abusing them...that should have sent off warning signals to anybody with half a brain...an adolescent male, taking little girls into a bathroom, ALONE?)...who needs a "program" to figure that one out?

Anyway, I'm rambling.

Deirdre, keep up the great work!

September 1, 2010 5:18 PM

Deirdre Mundy said...

I posted this in the combox at Father Z's -- Posting it here too..

Hmm... I wasn't thinking as much of a direct correlation for individuals (Father used a glass chalice! He must be a pervert!) as much as a bigger correlation - for Dioceses, Nations, and the Church as a whole. (Because, obviously, if it was a person by person correlation, Benedict's efforts to renew the Liturgy would be worthless against the 'filth', not part of a two-pronged attack.)

However, the Dioceses with the biggest problems (Boston and LA, for example) also seemed to have a loss of the sense that the Eucharist is really the center of our faith-- every thing ought to be centered on and flow out from our adoration of the Person Christ in the Real Presence --

Bad Liturgy of any stripe treats Christ as a 'thing' not a person, and as a means to our own self-glorification, rather than as God.

Also, after reading "Looking at the Liturgy" (Aidan Nichols. From Ignatius Press.) I'm convinced that the problems did not magically appear at Vatican 2 -- in fact, an overly utilitarian sense of the Liturgy pervaded the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Benedict is not the FIRST pope to try to redirect our gaze to God and to remind us that the Liturgy is about adoration and worship. I'm hoping he'll be more successful than some of his predecessors, because he seems to have a clear idea of the steps he needs to take.

So, no, it's not a question of "Banners are bad! The priest is bad!" It's more along the lines that we as a Church/Nation/diocese/etc. have lost the sense that the whole POINT of the Liturgy is the adoration of Our Lord and Savior. We treat Him as a tool. "Oh, I go to Mass to get the graces I need to fufill my ministries." But really, the intense love of Christ needs to come FIRST. Adoration and Contemplation need to be the START.

When using the Liturgy as a way to meet goals is the norm, can we really be shocked when some people's goals are sinful rather than noble?

September 2, 2010 4:38 AM