Support This Website! Shop Here!

Friday, July 22, 2016

Why Ted Cruz Supported Trump

Cruz supported Trump. He didn't formally endorse Trump, but then, he never promised to formally endorse Trump.

But Cruz's support for Trump was a lot greater than anyone could have expected.
Ted Cruz told everyone to vote for the principled conservative who supports the constitution.
We deserve leaders who stand for principle. Unite us all behind shared values. Cast aside anger for love. That is the standard we should expect, from everybody.
And to those listening, please, don't stay home in November. Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.
That perfectly describes Trump, right?

Wait... what?!?!

Trumpkins argue it does NOT describe Trump?


Oh... Wow.....

Thursday, July 21, 2016

Madame President

Before Trump ran for President, he pulled a Loretta Lynch and asked Bill Clinton's permission to run against Hillary. His own staffers admit Trump never intended to be President, he just wanted free publicity. During the campaign itself, Trump reneged on his promise to support the eventual GOP nominee. Last month, June 2016, Trump hinted that he had no intention of being President. As for electoral support, Trump has no coat-tails  and provides no support for down-ticket candidates - the only candidate he has endorsed has been a pro-abort who lost by 30 points.

And then there are the polls. Notice how George W. Bush beat Kerry? George was frequently in the lead, in the run-up to July, and dominated the election from September onward.

McCain was ahead of Obama at least a few times prior to July, but was not able to beat Obama at all in the polls between April and July. He got a short-lived bounce only because of his Palin pick for VP, but predictably ended up losing.

Romney didn't even do as well as McCain. Apart from a couple of very short-lived blips immediately prior to the election, Romney NEVER beat Obama in the year of polling leading up to the conventions. Not once.

Like Romney, Trump has NEVER beaten Clinton in the polling. Not once. Not ever. Trump is doing worse against Clinton than McCain did against Obama. Trump is arguably doing at least as badly or worse against Clinton than Romney did against Obama.

From the beginning, all the evidence tells us Trump intended to at least use the presidential run as a personal publicity campaign and at best divide the field by destroying the Republican's best candidate(s) while handing the election to his friends, the Clintons. Trump crowned his achievements by deliberately destroying Ted Cruz' convention speech, permanently undermining the natural Republican leader and thereby assuring downstream chaos among Republicans for years to come. In fact, Trump arguably and deliberately sabotaged the entire Republican convention.

Those who believe any of Donald Trump's lies, or who still believe Donald can win, have been Trumpwinked. A person is Trumpwinked when they believe a con man/politician, e.g., Donald Trump.

The facts are quite clear.
A vote for Trump has always been a vote for Hillary.
The destruction is complete.
Hillary Clinton is our next president.

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Modesty and Scandal, Part 2

There is a lot of evidence that women engage in "slut-shaming" much more than men. It isn't that women are concerned about modesty, rather, women don't like the competition. Women form groups to ostracize and bully "outsider" women, and "modesty shaming" is one way to accomplish that goal.

If traditionalist women were really interested in following ancient norms, then traditionalist women would encourage men to wrap their hands in clothes to avoid touching female skin. In fact, this was arguably one of the reasons both sexes wore gloves whenever they appeared in public.

Despite the fact that gloves were, for centuries, considered an essential part of a public wardrobe, I have never heard a "modesty" warrior argue that glove-less women are dressed immodestly. Which makes me think this isn't about "modesty", it is actually about females using "virtue-signalling" to crush the female opponents in the competition for snagging and holding onto a mate. That is, the women are not actually interested in modesty, rather, they are interested in signalling how good they are, and how trashy their opponents are.

Do I need to point out that this is not  a Christian motivation?
Yes, I probably do.
Which is why this follow-up to my earlier post on the correct Christian attitude is necesssary.

On Modesty and Scandal

Saturday, July 09, 2016

Truth in Religion

Fr. Michael Muller is quite, quite, quite wrong.

People only believe in other religions because every religion, to be believed, must contain some seed of truth. Insofar as any religion contains any truth, that truth is Christ.

So, to say "I respect every religion" is another way to say, "I see the kernel of truth that is Christ which shines forth in that religion."

True, every non-Catholic Faith has much which is not Christ, much of every religion is falsehood. Where there is falsehood, we see Truth twisted, Christ whipped, crucified and crowned with thorns within, and yet that seed of Christ's blood is what attracts them. And that much we not only CAN respect, but we MUST respect, for Christ is there, calling out through the blood and suffering which wraps every other religion like a shroud, His life lies within or no man would follow.

“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Why The 2nd Amendment is Dead

This is where advocating for a citizen's right to own guns falls apart.

We have the right to bear arms - that is clear, it is in the Constitution, not just the 2nd Amendment, but also in Article 1, Section 8.

BUT, if we really have the right to bear weapons, if that right is truly given to us so, as the Declaration of Independence insists "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it," then we must have the right to overthrow the government.

But if the citizens have the right to overthrow the government, then the citizens at some point have the right to shoot cops and other government employees.

I am neither willing to personally shoot cops and other government employees, nor to have other people do it in my name. I've never met a gun's rights advocate who actually wanted to do either.

So, the 2nd Amendment is functionally a dead letter.
As long as guns' rights advocates hold the sentiment expressed in the meme above, buying a gun is like buying a Lotto ticket - it gives you the chance to dream that you are your own man, while you pretend to ignore the reality that you are really just two dollars poorer.

What's Wrong With Panhandling?

So, I'm still not clear on where the problem lies.
What, exactly, is wrong with panhandling?  It's a sales job with constant exposure to the weather, pure commissions, no benefits. It's a tough job. Why do people look down on it?

 People get upset because a panhandler gets into his truck at the end of the day and drives home to a quarter million dollar house. So what? So, I am supposed to be upset about successful panhandlers? It's street theater. Actors get paid millions for pretending to be murderers, psychopaths, etc. They sell us on the idea that they actually ARE these things and we pay them handsomely.

Why can't street actors turn a few bucks? Some of these guys are better than Keanu Reeves... alright, ALL of them are better than Keanu Reeves. So, if I can live with Reeves having a million dollar house, why should I be upset if a panhandler has a quarter-million dollar house?

Like any good movie, pan-handlers sell emotions. They sell us feelings, about themselves and us. We get to feel superior to someone today. We get to have pity on someone today. We get to give them a five-dollar bill or a pizza and feel like we are good people. No matter what our boss says, our spouse says, that girl that dumped us says, we get a chance to feel better about ourselves. That's what they are selling, and they stand out in all kinds of weather to give us that chance.

 Panhandling takes hard work, skill, perseverance. They get rejected more in an hour than an office worker does in a week. So, again I ask: what's wrong with panhandling?

Wednesday, July 06, 2016

How Comey Saved the Oligarchy

Everyone is on about how Comey saved Hillary from prosecution, but everyone is missing the larger picture: by acting in this purely political fashion, Comey saved the entire entrenched oligarchy from prosecution.

Remember how the Trump University trial was originally scheduled to begin July 7, the same day the Republican convention was to start? Well, that changed in May. Trump used the existing rigged judicial system to get the trial date moved to November 28. Trump can't have an embarrassing trial take place at an economically or politically embarrassing time, now can he?  Trump is too big, too important, to be troubled by picayune little fraud trials. Better for all concerned if no little people stood in the way of his ambitions. So, in May, even as the trial judge is moving the trial date, Trump deflected attention to the way the system is rigged in his favor by ... wait for it... complaining that the system is rigged against him.

Now that Comey has declared Clinton off-limits to the law, now that the rigging of the system is on display for all to see, Trump has the complete deniability he has always claimed. By declaring Clinton off limits, Comey has declared every last one of the oligarchs safe.

You see, no matter who tries to bring Trump to trial, Trump can now say "It's all political! It's a rigged system! That's why they are after me! I'm pure as the New York slush!" By clearly showing the world exactly how rigged the system is, Comey has effectively denied the validity of every trial motion that could ever be brought against any of the oligarchs. Oligarchs can never again be convicted of anything.

Every powerful person can use the Trump-Clinton-Comey defense ("The system is rigged against me!") no matter what the situation may be. The oligarch's sycophants will then take up the chant and shout down whoever points out that the evidence of guilt is actually quite clear. Every trial can now be reduced to a political witch-hunt, every shred of evidence is just an irrelevant fact blown out of proportion by people out to get the oligarch, no reasonable prosecutor would ever use such tainted material, and if any prosecutor ever did, that person is, by definition, on a McCarthyite witch hunt.

By illuminating how rigged the system is, Comey has declared every oligarch with sycophants and a power base (which is all of them) off-limits.

What we saw done successfully as a one-off tactic with Ken Starr and Bill Clinton has now been turned into federal policy. We are officially a banana republic. Trump and Clinton couldn't be happier with how this has turned out. It's a win-win for the nation! We should be thanking Comey: he has finally made America safe for oligarchs.

Thursday, June 30, 2016

The Original Rad-Trads

"It is outrageous! The Vatican Council was so imprecise that anyone could use the conciliar documents to promote heresy if they wanted! And Pope Francis is even worse! I don't even want to read what he says anymore, because it doesn't make any sense!"

This is the mating call of the rad-trad. They use it to find dates, rally their families, and collect beer-drinking buddies on the back porch. It is an old call that goes all the way back to 325 AD.

Yes, if we use rad-trad principles, we can see that the first failed council was the Council of Nicaea, the first failed Pope was St. Sylvester I. Why? Well, we need look no farther than that dastardly word "homo- ousion".

In 300 AD, the "normalcy bias" for that word was that it stank of heresy, which it did. While the word had at first been used in a licit sense, Paul of Samosata had used it to argue that the Father and the Son are one Person, not two distinct Persons. He was condemned for the idea, and the word fell into ill odor as a direct result. In fact, the word was a touchstone for the Arian heresy, the heresy which built upon Paul of Samasota's error, and the very heresy which the Council was called to discuss. Yet, despite its bad reputation, this arguably imprecise, heretic-associated word was used in the Nicene Creed. Worse, to add injury to insult, not only was the word considered imprecise because of its heretical past, its use also constituted the first time a creed had ever used a non-Scriptural word. It was a complete mess.

But the council didn't stop there. It also dared to make changes to the ancient liturgy, laying its conciliar hands even upon the dating of the mother of all feasts, the date of the Easter celebration! What new craziness was this?  The Council of Nicaea ruled that all churches should follow a single rule for Easter, which should be computed independently of the Jewish calendar, as at Alexandria. However, in its typically imprecise way, the council did not make any explicit ruling about the details of the computation. It was several decades before the Alexandrine computations stabilized into their final form, and several centuries beyond that before they became normative throughout Christendom.

"Why did the Council even go there? Why did the Pope sign off on such foolishness? Why couldn't they have been precise, so there would be no confusion?"

The rad-trads of the 300s were the Coptic Christians. Their dislike of the documents and distrust of the Pope became so great that the Copts would schism off within less than a century, Although they eventually accepted the liturgical changes, they couldn't stand the - from their point of view - virtual heresy of the Christians who used this nonsense word in the liturgy and the creed.

So, like today's traditionalists, the Coptic Christians refused to trust the council and the Popes. As a direct result of their obstinate refusal to submit to ecclesial authority and use a little Christian charity in their dealings with Rome, they suffered some rather disturbing consequences. Within 300 years of their rejection of the council, they were overrun by Muslims and are, today, barely hanging onto Christian Faith in Egypt. More than one historian has argued that the Muslim takeover of North Africa was due in no small part to the immobilization of the Copts that resulted from their inability to deal with theological heresies following their split with Rome. Though they are closer to unity with Rome than any of our separated brethren, to this day they are still separated from the Church.

We have the world we live in today because the rad-trads of the 300s simply couldn't find a way to accept a new way of phrasing ancient truths. They refused to have faith in a Pope and a council who used language they weren't comfortable with.

It is normal for every council to have its "rad-trad" community. Let us hope that the 21st century group fares better than the Copts have.