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!
13 September 2010
11 September 2010
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.
What Does The Prayer Really Say?»Blog Archive » Ground Zero Mosque: a “Rabat”, not a “Cultural Center”
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.
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
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
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
10 September 2010
This Is Where We Begin to Say No - National Review Online
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.
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
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
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
09 September 2010
The Hugh Hewitt Show
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.
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.
08 September 2010
Expect A Typically Torpid Tea Party Take On That
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
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
06 September 2010
No Sheeples Here: Palin Derangement Syndrome Outbreak: There Are Still Five A’s in Raaaaacism
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
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
03 September 2010
Tea at Trianon: Freedom of Religion vs. Freedom of Worship#links#links
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.
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
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.”
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
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
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
02 September 2010
HT Father Z
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)