Support This Website! Shop Here!

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

The Ax Gets Laid

This is easily the worst set of "scientific" reasoning I've seen in the last year.

First, we are told, based on the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health that virginity pledges don't work. Two groups of teens matched for religious views were divided into two groups - pledge-takers and non-pledge-takers. They were checked five years later to see how much effect the pledge had.
Both groups lost their virginity at an average age of 21, had about three lifetime partners, and had similar rates of STDs. "And the majority were having premarital sex, over 50 percent," says Rosenbaum. Overall, roughly 75 percent of pledgers and non-pledgers were sexually active, and about one in five was married.
In short, virginity pledges - the teen sex version of the altar call conversion - don't seem to work. For a Catholic, this should not be a surprise. Why should such a pledge work?

After all, altar calls don't work.

We've known for decades that the Protestant altar call, a once-saved, always-saved, spur-of-the-moment decision to give your life to Christ, doesn't stand the test of time. Ecclesial communities, fundamentalist and/or evangelical Christian groups who depend on them to run up membership always find that they have "converted" thousands of people in the course of a year, but none of them actually stick. The number of regular attendees simply doesn't increase.

So, the belief that a one-time virginity pledge is going to make a huge difference is really based on a flawed Protestant understanding of the human person.

But the "scientists" who ran the study had larger ideological axes to grind. The purpose of the study was to promote contraception, and darned if they didn't find out that pledge-takers were less likely to use contraception. Here's their worry:
Rosenbaum is concerned that abstinence-only sex education programs that promote virginity pledges may also promote a negative view of condoms and birth control. The result may be teens and young adults who are less likely than their peers to protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancies.
Ok, I don't get it. The teens in question apparently didn't remember that they took a pledge, or didn't put much weight on that pledge later in life, according to the article.

Yet the training which caused them to take the pledge lightly, even though the pledge was very heavily emphasized, caused them to disregard contraceptive use?

How does that work?

Did the teens disregard the pledge because it WAS heavily promoted, but they disregarded birth control because it WAS NOT heavily promoted? They paid attention to the negative birth control part of the lesson, but dozed during the positive virginity pledge part? Every day?

Isn't it a lot more likely that these kids had a pretty negative view of contraception even before the training, which is why they took the pledge? Isn't it possible they saw what contraception was doing to the marriages their own parents were involved in and didn't really like the results?

But, no, we aren't allowed to walk down that road. It must have been the TRAINING that created such negative attitudes. Kids don't know nothin' unless we teach them:
"Studies find that kids in abstinence-only programs have negative, biased views about whether condoms work," she says. Since such programs promote abstinence only they tend to give only the disadvantages of birth control, she says. Teens learn condoms don't protect you completely from human papillomavirus (HPV) and herpes, which is true, but they may not realize that they protect against all the "fluid-based STDs," she says. "People end up thinking you may as well not bother using birth control or condoms."
Well, yeah. And they would have good reason to think that using birth control or condoms is not worth the bother. Here's the kicker, hidden in the last sentence, fourth paragraph from the bottom:
The new study does not suggest that virginity pledges are harmful, says Andrew Goldstein, M.D., an obstetrician and gynecologist at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, because they were not associated with an increase in STDs or unplanned pregnancies.
So, if the young people who were NOT using contraception had the same rate of STDs and unplanned pregnancies as the young people who WERE using contraception, what does that say about contraception?

Wouldn't it be safe to conclude that contraceptives are as useless as virginity pledges?

Not if you have an ax, I suppose.

Here's a story about a researcher who looked at the VERY SAME DATA and came to dramatically different conclusions...

Update Two:
Another interesting take on the study from the Wall Street Journal (hat tip to Jordanes). It includes this observation:
Most parents appreciate that a pledge of virginity -- a one-time event that might be made at an emotional moment in a teen's life -- is not some talisman that will magically shield their sons and daughters from the strong and normal desires that grow as they discover their sexuality.
It also points out a radically important aspect of the study that I failed to notice: since the two cohorts being studied were matched for religious and conservative views, a large chunk of the teen population available to the study was left out of the analysis. To be precise, the kind of activity engaged in by non-religious, non-conservative teens was ignored.

When EITHER of the two study cohorts are compared to the general teen population, we find that BOTH conservative, religious cohorts acted more responsibly towards their own sexuality than did the non-religious, non-conservative teens who were left out by the researchers.

So, my original point holds: the virginity pledge is almost identical to an altar call.

But what no one noticed - except, apparently, for me - was that contraceptive use has ZERO effect on either pregnancy rates or STD rates.

Contraceptives are as useless as the virginity pledge.

Your live your worldview.

Seen in this light, condoms are really just the secular form of the altar call - it's a one-time decision that doesn't affect outcome.

A Question on Civil Rights

Question: What is a good response to someone who says, you are violating my civil rights? (on the marriage issue)
I know Catholics view it as a Holy Sacrament. But what do you say when you are talking to someone who is not Catholic, or not religious?

Answer: The person who makes this assertion is playing you for a fool.

A civil right is a right or power which can be exercised under civil law, a right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship.

If there is a God, then civil rights flow from the fact that the person is made in the image and likeness of God. That is, civil law is required to recognize the divine origin of the person. Refusal to do so is a violation of the person by the civil law, because the civil law is refusing to recognize the nature of both God and man.

In this scheme of things, which you and I accept, the divine law exists first, civil law imitates the divine law, and our rights are reflections of the divine law.

BUT, if there is no God, then civil rights flow from whatever society deems is right. There is no divine law, so civil rights are whatever the strongest group of people say they are.

According to this scheme of things, since California has said marriage is between one man and one woman, the person who tries to impose a different (homosexual) definition on the people of California is violating the civil rights of everyone in California.

The Trick: You and I understand the connection between civil law and divine law because we believe in God - we insist that civil law reflect divine law. But the people who are demanding the right to marry their horse DO NOT believe in God. What they are doing is using a phrase, "civil rights" and implying that we should grant them something that is antithetical to what civil rights are.

Everyone who is of appropriate age and sound in mind has the right to enter into marriage with a member of the opposite sex.

No one has a right to contract marriage with an animal, a corpse, an underage person, a person of the same sex or an inanimate object.

Thus, it is absurd for someone to claim that we are violating their civil rights when we forbid them from marrying and/or consummating marriage with a child, a corpse, an animal, an inanimate object or a member of the same sex. No one has a divine right to do these things, so no one can have a civil right to do these things.

And if they don't believe in God, then they have no reason to complain either, since the law is whatever the majority says it is. In this scheme, human beings have no rights simply because they are human beings - they only have rights if they can wrest those rights away and only for so long as they can keep them wrested away.

No matter how they structure the argument, they cannot claim that anyone is violating their civil rights. The only persons who can make this claim are the atheists in Massachusetts, where homosexual marriage is legal. They can accurately claim that anyone who tries to change the current law there is trying to violate their civil rights.

Yes, that's true.
But that doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

After all, the homosexual atheists who got the law passed violated all of OUR civil rights when they militated for their point of view. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

They had no compunctions about violating civil rights, so according to their lights, they would be hypocrites to chastise us for doing the same.

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Obama Supporters Vow Vengeance on Israel

Barack Obama supporters have been raining rockets down on Israel for several days. Showing their usual incompetence, they caused quite a bit of damage to property, but created only a few casualties, mostly injuring their own supporters.

When Israel retaliated to the Gaza Strip's de facto declaration of war by destroying the bases from which Obama's supporters operated, the Obama-ites vowed to unleash hell upon Israel.

During the run up to the election, Mr. Obama sought the support of America's Jewish population by strenuously condeming Hamas, going so far as to fire an advisor who was caught meeting with them, although he did keep money they donated to his campaign.

However, the summary of reaction from Reuters demonstrates that he has maintained a studious silence on the most recent violence. The election is over, after all.

The former senator from Illinios is well-known for taking private stands that differ from public pronouncements, as his discussion with Canada about NAFTA demonstrated.

But since he is the messiah, Americans can be sure that this will all blow over soon.
Possibly into millions of small, radioactive shards that used to be Israel's Jewish and Christian citizens.

Friday, December 12, 2008

Ice Cube Children

In the interests of full disclosure, I should mention that back in the summer of fall of 2006, I got an article published in National Bioethical Quarterly (or whatever the heck the name is), the journal of the National Catholic Bioethics Center. In it, I argued in favor of embryo adoption.

What is embryo adoption?
In vitro fertilization techniques tend to produce a lot more embryos than can be used. The "extra" children are placed in nitrogen freezers, often-times abandoned or forgotten. The question is, can those children be adopted by Christian couples, placed in the womb and rescued from the freezer?

The Vatican has just issued a new document, Dignatas Personae, answers that question, along with many others.

The document bans the practice of embryo adoption.
I was really hoping for a different ruling, but there it is.
I was wrong.

Now, that having been said, the document DOES distinguish between using embryos to "treat infertility" and the adoption of embryos (DP #19).

The first, using the abandoned children to treat infertility, is clearly banned outright, because it uses "the same reasons" that cause heterologous procreation and surrogate motherhood to be banned.

The adoption of embryos is not treated nearly as harshly. First, the document takes time to praise the intentions - something infertility treatment doesn't get. In fact, none of the other banned technologies in the document get that kind of praise. So the intentions are recognized as different and praiseworthy, which is rather an important distinction.

Then the document takes pains to point out that the problems involved in embryo adoption are not "the same reasons" but instead are "problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above." The fact that the document took the trouble to distinguish one from the other indicates nuance on Rome's part. It holds out room for further nuance at some later date - a bit of wiggle room not afforded any of the other banned technologies listed in the document.

However, even though this nuance is present, it is equally clear that embryo adoption is currently banned by this document, if for no other reason than this: the little bit of wiggle room provided is severely proscribed by the closing blanket phrase, "[this] represent[s] a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved."

That's kind of plain language. :/

So I would very much disagree with the reaction of Father Thomas Williams LC that in "no way can it be read as a definitive negative judgment."

That is just stupid.

Fr. Williams goes on to say, "if a couple came to him seeking advice about embryo adoption, "I would say that while the document expresses strong reservations, there are also a number of very faithful, orthodox moral theologians who don't have a problem with it. Lacking a more definitive statement, it could be acceptable."

Again, that is willful stupidity.
I have to say it is stupid, because the alternative is to call Father Williams a liar.

Clearly, the document has given a negative judgment on embryo adoption.

Clearly, no one may counsel someone to use embryo adoption, pending further clarification from Rome, which won't be coming for at least a couple of decades.

Embryo adoption may not have the same absolute prohibition language associated with it that the other practices do, but the blanket conclusion is pretty darned clear.

True, Rome appears to have left herself some wiggle room in re embryo adoption, possibly on the outside chance a new technology is found that will permit these children to be rescued, but She also pretty clearly doesn't see anything likely to work sitting on the near horizon, as the blanket conclusion indicates.

I would LOVE to be able to say that embryo adoption is acceptable, since I have publicly already argued that way.

But there's no way I can point at this document and say that.
It just isn't there.

Rome left an escape hatch - in that sense, yeah, it's not definitive - but that escape hatch is currently and firmly closed.

How can I say this?

Because a very similar thing happened with the use of form criticism and historical-critical method to interpret the Scriptures.

Back in the 1893', Leo XIII issued Providentissimus Deus, an encyclical that categorically banned the use of methods of "higher criticism" because these depended solely on textual analysis of medieval copies of the ancient copies, which was essentially crap (cf. #17).

By the time of Divino Afflante Spiritus, the encyclical on Scripture given in 1943, that categorical ban went away because (a) textual analysis had gotten a lot better, no longer depending solely on the texts and (b) there were actually some really ancient texts, i.e., the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi finds, etc. which provided something ancient enough to justify using textual analyses.

In short, the Church's teaching didn't change, the underlying technology, the discoveries and the substrate of human knowledge changed.

It is STILL forbidden to use historical critical method if that means using late 1800's techniques on medieval copies. And it will always be forbidden to use embryo adoption if we are using early 21st century knowledge and approach.

It is possible that a similar kind of development may one day be possible with the children trapped in the nitrogen freezers. Perhaps, for instance, some whiz-bang technology can one day be developed which reduces the death rates on thawing to near zero, for instance. If that were to happen, Rome might (or might not) take a different view of the matter.

But for right now, it ain't licit, and there ain't no way to slice that ice in order to pretend that it is.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

To the Manor Born

Is Barack Obama a natural born citizen?

Donofrio says no, as does Wrotnowski, and their argument is both quite clear and quite clearly supported by the legal history.

According to their argument, you are a citizen if any ONE of the following conditions pertain:
a) you were born of US parents or
b) you were born on US soil or
c) you were naturalized as a citizen.

However, none of these by themselves make you a "natural born citizen."

According to the definition of "natural born citizen" as understood by the Founding Fathers, as used in the Constitution and as understood by the framers of the 14th Amendment, you are a "natural born citizen" ONLY IF BOTH of the following conditions obtain:
(a) you were born of US parents AND
(b) you were born on US soil.

If either condition fails, they you are a citizen, but not a natural born citizen.

If this is so, how did George Washington or any of the other Founders win eligibility?

For the first several decades, US citizens were eligible for the Presidency only if they were residents of the United States for the 14 years preceding the ratification of the Constitution.

Since the Constitution was ratified on March 4, 1789, that meant you had to have resided in the United States. i.e., owed it your sole authority to the United States, from March 4, 1775 onwards. This was two months before the Second Continental Congress convened in May, 10 1775. It was the night General John Thomas emplaced the cannons from Fort Ticonderoga on Dorchester Heights, the hills overlooking South Boston. This maneuver forced the British to evacuate their positions two weeks later; an event still celebrated as Evacuation Day.

In short, you had to have been there at the beginning of the Revolution.

This is rather like the rule for holding the office of Apostle - only those who had "accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went among us, beginning from the baptism of John..." were eligible for that office. Even today, bishops are considered apostolic successors holding apostolic authority, but are not considered apostles themselves, since they do not fulfill all the conditions.

So, while senators and congressmen can be nothing more than citizens, the line of succession which is the Presidency must have an unbroken connection to the land both through location of birth and fealty of blood. The President's parents can be naturalized citizens, but the President himself (or herself) must be part of the unbroken line.

Given the strong Biblical background of the Constitutional Framers, and the legal documentation brought forward in both Donofrio's post and the comments subsequent to the post, I find the case quite compelling.

Which would mean that neither Barack Obama nor John McCain are eligible for the Presidency.

And, assuming the Supreme Court is willing to follow precedent instead of popular opinion, it also means we get Nancy Pelosi as President pro tem.


Diane West has joined the fray on a separate issue, the question of Barack Hussein Obama's birth certificate. This question - which has essentially nothing to do with the Donofrio assertions - has been raised by Philip Berg, Dr. Alan Keyes and several others.

In short, BHO's eligibility is being questioned on two completely separate grounds:
1) Was he born in the United States? That is, did he fulfill the "soil" requirement? (Berg, Keyes, et. al.)
2) Assuming he was born in the US, but given his father's British nationality, can he be considered a "natural born citizen"? That is, did he fulfill the "blood" requirement? (Donofrio, Wrotnowski).

The second question has essentially no case law on the issue, because it only really becomes an issue when the office of President is at stake. It does, however, engage quite a lot of discussion among the Founding Fathers as they considered exactly how to phrase the qualifications for President.

Now one of Barack's own cabinet members is saying BHO is an immigrant.

Tuesday, December 09, 2008

The Triple Crowned

Well, as you probably know by now, Barack Obama learned how to run a state-wide campaign at the knee of Governor Rod Blagojevich.

Emanuel told the New Yorker earlier this year that he and Obama "participated in a small group that met weekly when Rod was running for governor. We basically laid out the general election, Barack and I and these two."
He endorsed the Good Governor in 2002 and during the beginning of his presidential run in 2006.

Both men were, of course, excellent friends with convicted Syrian immigrant Tony Rezko.
Rezko raised or contributed over a quarter of a million dollars to Obama during eight years that Obama was running for or holding his state senate and U. S. Senate positions. Moreover, during his 2004 campaign for the U. S. Senate, Obama spoke with now convicted felon, and then Obama fundraiser and finance guy, Rezko, almost daily.
Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, Forrest Claypool and Barack Obama got the Good Governor elected. Which is only fair, as Mayor Daley helped Rahm Emanuel get elected, and everyone knows the Good Governor was Daley's boy.

Barack grew up in the Daley machine.
The Feds are tearing down portions of the Daley machine.

Can Barack get all the necessary paper shredded before the Good Governor sings?
Can the Good Governor avoid a knife in the ribs long enough to finish his song?

This Advent, we watch the story of the three crowned men - the Good Governor, the Man with Sharp Elbows and the One - unfold before our eyes.

Stay tuned...

Here's a shocker.
Here's another.
Notice in this second link that it is actually a search of the news website: in the lower left-hand corner, there is a link to a story filed on Nov.5

Who will fill Obama's senate seat? : News : KHQA

Nov 5, 2008 ... Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and Barack Obama will meet this afternoon in Chicago to discuss filling Obama's seat in the US Senate. - Similar pages

But when you click on the link, the story has mysteriously disappeared.
They scrubbed the site, but not the search engine.
How sad.

Barack Hussein Obama a LIAR?
Heaven forfend!

News organizations covering up his lies?

I blame George Bush.
And Karl Rove.
Heck, I blame Dick Cheney as well.
Why not?

Monday, December 08, 2008

Two Must-Read Books

How did an Austrian become Chancellor of Germany?
How did Barack Obama get elected President of the United States?

We haven't heard the last of the controversy.

Two must read books for the upcoming years:

William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich

And don't forget Milton Mayer's They Thought They Were Free.

Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Electoral College?

News From the Supreme Court on the Obama lawsuit by Donofrio (Berg's lawsuit is NOT in front of SCOTUS on Dec. 5):

"Today I spoke with Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Director of Public Information at the United States Supreme Court. She informed me that Mr. Donofrio’s application was first referred to the full Court by Justice Clarence Thomas on November 19, 2008. After that referral took place the full Court, and not Justice Thomas alone, distributed the application for an emergency stay for Conference of December 5, 2008.

Let me reiterate the main point: DONOFRIO V. WELLS was distributed for conference of December 5, 2008 by the full Court after a prior referral of the application by Justice Thomas."

Apparently, the nine justices of the Supreme Court are taking this very seriously. And, as Patrick points out in the comments on the previous Obama post, the clerks are taking it seriously too. It is indeed the case that Donofrio's supporting documentation was sent to an anthrax facility for a nine-day quarantine, possibly making the material unavailable for SCOTUS review. When this was discovered, copies of the original documents were hand-delivered to SCOTUS the next day by the aggrieved parties in order to circumvent a new anthrax charge.

People are playing every trick in the book to stop a "frivolous" lawsuit?

BTW, if Donofrio's lawsuit goes forward successfully, it's quite possible both Obama and McCain will be ruled ineligible, which would make Speaker Pelosi our next POTUS, at least until new elections could be held.

Here is an excellent post discussing the difference between "citizen", "naturalized citizen" and "natural born citizen." Several of the comments are worthy of perusal as well.

Tuesday, December 02, 2008

Monday, December 01, 2008

Nothing To Fear

Well, our expert constitutional law professor has already guaranteed that he will violate the Constitution within hours of his swearing in (assuming he gets that far, what with all the lawsuits questioning his immigration status).

Hillary Clinton is supposed to be his Secretary of State.
If she is sworn in to serve in that capacity, it will violate the Constitution.

But not to worry.
Barry will have 20,000 troops on the ground by 2011 to help him keep the peace in the US of A.

Yep, things are going swimmingly, no question of it.


Remember when Barack complained about oil executives flying private jets to Senate hearings?
He said they kind of had a tin ear.
Of course, he's a man of the people, and he would never make an ostentatious show of his wealth, especially given that quite a bit of it was stolen.

But robber barons never looked so good!

Update II
The dead actually get to vote for President this year!
Isn't democracy wonderful!

Saturday, November 29, 2008

The Purpose of Marriage

You said that children have a right to a mother and a father ....
Or did you say more: children have a right to a mother and a father who love one another, and children are a fruit of their love?

In any case, I'd like to know what makes a "right"? We have gay couples saying that they have a right to marry.

Another component of rights are accompanying duties. We see Bush working to form a conscious clause for medical health professionals to refuse abortions, sterilizations, contraceptives. But if abortion is a "right," there ought not be conscious clause, right? Because there is a duty to provide it, with no exceptions because it is a "right"...... yes?

And if children have a right to a mother and a father, why then do we not see more legislation to "cement" this right with accompanying duties? I don't know what that legislations would be, or do we have legislation in place that protects the right of the child to a mother and a father?

Also, what's your take on the gay marriage agenda, and what we can do to protect marriage between a man and a woman?
To answer your questions:
Natural law is what makes a right.
Natural law is not the same as a law of nature.

A law of nature is something like the speed of light in a vacuum or gravity, etc.

A natural law is an honor accorded to a person by God through the fact that the person IS a person.
So, I have the right to exist as a person in my body because God has given me both my personhood and my body.
No one has a right to attempt to deprive me of either, because the gifts did not come from them, these came from God.

So, since no person can come into existence except through the union of sperm and egg, and since sperm and egg are biologically bound to and derive from the persons of the mother and father, every person has a right to a mother and father.

Marriage exists in order to procreate and protect children, and through those actions, to build up society.
It simultaneously serves to sanctify the spouses through sacrificial giving towards the children they conceive and towards one another.
Because of its primary purpose, as long as there is a possibility, however remote, of sperm and egg uniting through the natural coition of the couple, marriage can exist.
A man and a woman who together suffer from some natural defect of fertility have the ability to marry because God has the power to heal natural defects in fertility, thereby granting the gift of children to the couple. Whether or not He will choose to do this in any specific case is not our concern - we know of several cases where He did in Scripture, so that is sufficient.

Homosexuals cannot enter into marriage because men cannot procreate with men under ANY circumstances, nor can women procreate with women.
Thus, they cannot fulfill the primary purpose of marriage even on a theoretical level.

No one has a right to take the life of an innocent.
Indeed, I have a right to be free from the influence of anyone who would attempt to force me to violate an innocent's existence.

Children, especially embryonic children, are innocent.
Thus, abortion - deliberately taking of the life of an innocent - is not a right and never can be a right.

There is a difference between secular (civil) law and natural law.
Secular law is what human persons together puzzle out and agree to abide by, generally with the intent to create an harmonious society.
Natural law, since it honors our personhoods, is what actually will create a harmonious society, if people were to live by it.

Because men are fallen creatures, with darkened intellects and weakened wills, we do not (a) always fully recognize the natural law or (b) even when we know what is the right thing to do (natural law), we cannot always bring ourselves to do it.

So, the actual harmony present in the society depends on how closely civil law matches the natural law.
Civil society often fails to cement natural law because our leaders (and we who elect them) tend to be venal, self-serving creatures who do not wish to fully recognize, much less honor, each others' personhoods.

There is currently no legislation that protects a child's right to a mother and a father.
In vitro fertilization, embryonic stem cell research, cloning and similar technologies all violate this right, and all are perfectly legal in civil society.

In order to safeguard these rights, we must recognize human personhood from the moment of conception and honor that personhood from that moment.
Marriage must be recognized as primarily intended to build up society through the procreation and care of children, not primarily as a journey of personal fulfilment. The law should recognize that personal fulfillment may well happen during marriage, but that this personal fulfillment is not its primary purpose. Consequently, in order to protect children's rights, no-fault or simplified divorce procedures should be abolished, men and women should be counseled strongly on the primary purpose of marriage before entering into it. Each person should recognize that the marriage vow places the person making the vow under obligation to serve (a) the spouse and (b) any/all children engendered by the union, it is NOT an obligation for the spouse to "serve me."

Hospitals exist in order to protect and nurture patients, not to protect or nurture doctors and nurses.
Armies exist in order to protect and nurture nations, not to protect and nurture soldiers or officers.
Governments exist to protect and nurture societies, not to protect and nurture government officials.

Similarly, marriage exists to protect and nurture children, not to protect adults or nurture adults.
Insofar as adults receive protection or nurture through the offices of marriage, those perquisites are the result of the duties the adults have towards children - they enable the adults to carry out their duties towards present and future children. If there (a) are no children and (b) is a definite refusal to permit children to enter, then there is no particular reason to bless married adults with special protections. Marriage is a hospital, a security force and a form of government, all oriented towards children.

The homosexual marriage agenda is a humbug created by a lot of people interested in increasing the general disharmony and violence of society.

Once people realize these things, the rest should be easy. :)

Obama Citizenship Questions

Questions on the Physical Document
Why is his father's race listed as "African" instead of the common 1961 legal appellation "Negro"?

Why are there white and grey pixels between the text letters in the scanned image of Obama's Certificate?

Why is there no second fold line on the document, given that the only fold line visible on the certificate implies it had been folded in thirds?

Why does the document border appear to have been scanned at a lower resolution then the rest of the document?

Why does the border appear to be from a 2007 version of the document format instead of the 2008 version?

Why does the signature and seal date (2008) not appear to match the border style?

Questions about his life
Why does no one seem able to agree which hospital Barack Obama was born in?
If not born in Hawaii, was his 18-year old mother able to pass on citizenship to her son?

Why did the Indonesian school he attended as a child list him as an Indonesian citizen?

How did Barack Obama travel to Pakistan and Indonesia in 1981 to "visit his mother" given that in that year:
(a) his mother was in Hawaii after finalizing a divorce,
(b) Pakistan was under martial law,
(c) there is no record of him having a US passport prior to his first term as a US senator.

Why did Barack Obama register as an Illinois attorney in part by swearing he had never lived under any other name?

Why has he refused to release any of his personal records: certificate of live birth, law school transcripts, medical records, etc.?

Could it be true?
Could it be the case that no one ever actually vetted Barack Obama's birth certificate?

Recall that Barack Obama is a Chicago machine politician. Nothing happens in Chicago unless Mayor Daley allows it. Conversely, if Daley wants it, it happens.

Barack Obama managed to throw at least two opposing candidates off political tickets when sealed divorce papers in both cases were somehow released to the public. If this had happened once, that would be Fortune smiling upon young Barack. But twice? In the same race?

Barack was a made man, bought and paid for by the Daley Machine. Although the Illinois Secretary of State was bound to verify Barack's US citizenship, why would any political hack worth his/her salt go fishing where Mayor Daley had set up an "Off Limits" sign?

Barack could easily have supplied the SoS office the same Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth instead of an actual birth certificate, and no one would have looked twice. It would have been acceptable because the Machine said it was, and the actual vault birth certificate need never have been produced.

Similarly, once a US Senator applies for a passport, who in the machinery of federal government is going to turn him down? He's already been vetted at the state level, right?

As a cog in the federal machine, the last thing you want is an angry Senator breathing down your federal office neck, especially when the junior senator's senior partner is Dick Durbin, Minority Whip in 2001, Majority Whip in 2006, and on the Appropriations Committee.

It's all social engineering, and as every black-hat hacker knows, social engineering works.

If he could snag a Senate seat and US passport based on strength of personality and Machine politics, why not the Presidency?

I'm not saying this necessarily happened.
I'm just pointing out that - given his background, given how he manipulated the political situation in the past and/or had it manipulated for him - it is perfectly plausible.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Soft Realities

I don't normally direct people to this site because
a) I never read the site itself if I can help it
b) the people who run it are slightly crazy,

But in this case, I can't stand it.

Read this essay, if you can stomach it.

I'd love to see which of JP II's writings Fr. Loya would reference to support his weird allegations.
I'd also love to see the reactions from, say, Mary, Queen of the Universe, Queen Isabella of Spain (her cause for canonisation is here), and St. Elizabeth, Queen of Hungary, to name just a few.

Indeed, I'd like to see ANY Magisterial document which says women are not fit to rule.
It looks like Theology of the Body promoters have now reached the level of maturity of, say, your local Baptist congregation.

I especially liked, "It is a world that deals with issues and hard realities." - a child, being kind of squishy, is apparently a soft reality, unfit for man or beast (but for woman, we make an exception and let her deal with it).
Certainly the contents of the diaper are soft realities.
And that's what Fr. Loya's essay reminds me of.

But I'm a man, so I only think from the neck up on these issues.

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

The Seraphim

The City of Angels is burning.

We remotely watch thousands of people as they watch everything they own in the world
up in flames, completely torched, nothing left but dust and ashes.

Watching the fires burn in the darkness recalls two very strange passages in Scripture,
both of which say the same thing: “Our God is a consuming fire.” (Hebrews 12:29,
Deuteronomy 4:24).

Now, why would St. Paul ask us to think of God in this way?

Worse, how could a Catholic living in Los Angeles, a Christian who just lost everything he owns,
respond with love to a God who depicts Himself like this? Many Catholics in the City of Angels,
faced with those words, might very well join their voices with Peter, “Lord, this is a hard saying.
Who can accept it?” (John 6:60).

Worse, though we may not much like the image, it doesn’t go away: “I indeed baptize you with
water; but there shall come one mightier that I… he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and
with fire!” “I am come to cast fire on the earth; and would that it were already kindled!?” “If
any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as
through fire.”

It gives a different feel to Scripture: “The people who sit in darkness have seen a great light.”
“Christ is the light of the world.” “The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness does not
comprehend it.”

Truly, we often don’t comprehend it. The name “seraphim”, the name borne by the angels
closest to God, means “the burning ones.” Los Angeles has become The Seraphim.

And whether you love it or hate it, think it heaven or hell, it doesn't matter.
Hell is fire, Purgatory is fire, Heaven is, apparently, fire.

What is up with that? What happened to that kind and gentle Jesus Whose arms our children
are always snuggling into?

Scripture tells us.

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing
you will heap burning coals on his head.” (Romans 12:19-21)

When we do kindness to others, we burn up something within them. Either the kindness burns
up their hatred of us, their hatred of God, so that nothing is left of this hatred, or their hatred is
stoked to greater fury. They hate us even more because of the kindness we have shown.

As we stare into the flames, we are enlightened.
Hatred and love both burn up something within us – the first burns away our affections for
others, our charity, the second burns away our affections for ourselves, our selfishness. There
is something in us that needs to be destroyed, and only fire can do it. Deep within our hearts,
Satan’s hatred struggles against God’s love. God fights fire with fire.

So, as we watch the videos of the fire, the answer is before us. What happens to an apple when you cut it and
leave it on the table? Its flesh turns from pearly white to a dark brown – the oxygen in the air burns and darkens
it. What is rust, but the “burning”, the slow oxidation, of metal? The fire that consumes the logs in my fireplace or
the beams of my house is a rapid version of what happens to the apple and the metal.

Fire can rust or burnish.

The things of this world pass away. Nothing in this world lasts forever, for the moth shall eat
them up as a garment: and the grub shall consume them as wool: but, says the Lord, my
salvation shall be for ever, and my justice from generation to generation.

We are not made for a five bedroom, four bath palace with an ocean view.
We are not made for a one bedroom, one bath mobile home in a trailer park.

We are made for God – without Him, nothing makes sense, nothing satisfies. He alone is three
Persons in perfect communion.

We are persons made in His image. Human persons are made for communion with both persons
and Persons.

We cannot commune with flat screen TVs, fast computers or even nature itself. We may see in
each of these, as through a glass, darkly, the image of the persons who created each. It may be
that the television, the computer, even the world, somehow dimly reflect or tell the glory of
their creators, but these are not enough.

We are made for eternity, not for loss. When we experience the loss of created things, we
remember that this was not the original goal anyway.

Though the fire burns through the night, at the rising of the sun, we can look beyond the
smoldering ashes and say, “See! He has made all things new!”

Leave the flickering TV, the glowing computer screen behind.
Light a candle in the darkness.
Visit Jesus in the Eucharist.
He took flesh for you, you were made for Him.
You were made for Fire.

"In this we rejoice, though now for a little while we may have to suffer various trials, so that the
genuineness of our faith, more precious than gold which, though perishable, is tested by fire,
may redound to praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ."

How Barack Obama Got Elected

People who followed the election won't be surprised by this.

The anonymous commenters on this blog undoubtedly will be.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Cardinal Stafford on Obama

Some readers of this blog think I have veered from Catholic commentary on Obama into a desert of pointless vituperation.

In answer to those critics, I give you American Cardinal James Francis Stafford of the Roman Curia.

And to those who wonder why Rome would extend congratulations to Senator Obama so early, keep in mind that the good Senator has promised to flagrantly violate Catholic sensibilities within hours of taking office in January. If Rome were to wait until the inauguration to congratulate Obama on his accomplishment, She would have to enclose a letter of chastisement in the same envelope.

This is generally considered bad form.

Thus, Rome - knowing that She will have to fight this man with every breath in Her Being - builds up what little relationship She can while the building is good, well before the man actually DOES anything. Come January, the tone will shift decidedly, as She uses whatever capital has been gained to try to dissuade him from expanding the American genocide.

BTW, my opinion of Obama is shared not only by officials in the Vatican, but by people who have experience with this kind of man.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Calling All Orthodox Catholics

The new DVD from the FSSP The Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, begins shipping in less than two weeks.

Get a copy for your priest.
Get another copy for your parish library.

More information can be found here and - most especially - here.

Here's another review.

Special bulk order pricing is also available for dioceses and re-sellers.
Contact Faye Trgovac at Fraternity Publications for more information:
(570)842-4000 ext. 401 or email:

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Palling Around With Terrorists

It's wonderful to see how the press is now apologizing to Sarah Palin. Remember, how she mentioned that Barack Obama was "palling around with terrorists"?

Well, it's been verified - Hamas, the terror organization that Barack promised he would not meet with until they renounced terror, is now able to state publicly that Barack has been in talks with them all along, since well before the elections.

Of course, now that this is all over the mainstream news, the numerous front-page apologies to Governor Palin are obviously a sign that journalists realize they failed in their duty to accurately report the news.

You HAVE seen those apologies, haven't you???

UPDATE: Now it turns out that William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist, is definitely STILL unrepentant for the murders his terrorist organization committed. He essentially agrees that every fact John McCain, Sarah Palin and innumerable bloggers brought forward about his relationship with Barack Obama was correct, but insists the portrayal was unfair.

So, the Chicago's Butcher supports murder in several and various forms, and now he is to be our next President.

This is all so comforting.

Education in a nutshell

From the BBC series "Yes, Prime Minister"

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Paglia on Palin

I like Camille Paglia.
She's a pro-choice lesbian who is absolutely honest.
She admits that abortion is murder and makes fun of the "pro-choice" crowd for lying about it.

But the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand. My argument (as in my first book, "Sexual Personae,") has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature's fascism. Nature herself is a mass murderer, making casual, cruel experiments and condemning 10,000 to die so that one more fit will live and thrive.

Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman's body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman's entrance into society and citizenship.

She also tells the truth about the problems Obama still has and the reasons Sarah Palin is a superb women who won't go away.

An Obamination

ROME, November 10, 2008 ( – The head of the Catholic Doctors’ Association of Kenya said last week that the election of Barack Obama as the new president of the US is a direct attack on the families and children of Africa. Dr. Stephen Karanja, a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist from Nairobi told that those in Kenya “who know what is good for their world,” had feared the election of Obama because of his pro-abortion and anti-family positions.

“We in Kenya know him (Obama) as a person who is anti-family,” Dr. Karanja said. “A person who would support abortion. In America they can do all right killing their babies. But they must not associate us with the people who would want our babies to be killed.”

In an interview at an international conference of obstetricians and ethicists in Rome, Dr. Karanja said that Africans are now under threat, with Obama having made his radical support for abortion without restriction a key point of his campaign. “Now we are in big trouble because of these Americans,” Dr. Karanja said.

Dr. Karanja expressed his frustration at the result of the US election: “They have no business electing a person who is going to destroy our countries. And that is what they have done. This is something that a lot of people don’t realise, that what these Americans do affects innocent people thousands and thousands of miles away.”

“The truth is that they have put a bad man in the most powerful office in the whole world. And are putting people outside your borders in danger.”

Africa, he said, has been “saturated” with contraceptives by US-based international aid organisations, pushing an anti-child, anti-family ideology. The anti-family efforts of many international aid organizations, however, were frustrated by the Bush administration, which severely restricted overseas funding for contraceptives and abortion. The election of Obama, on the other hand, has been hailed as a victory for many such organizations, such as International Planned Parenthood, which expect a massive influx of funding and support from an Obama administration.

90 per cent of those in Kenya polled over the last twenty years, said Dr. Karanja, hold abortion to be an “abomination.” “And therefore the people who want abortion in our country, 90 per cent of them would consider them an abomination.

“And that is what Americans are bringing to us: an abomination.”

Read it All

Monday, November 10, 2008

The Butcher Increases Our Security

Welcome to Obama's America.

Combine the Proposition 8 video above with this new information.

As I said before, I am not sure we will have to bother about voting in the 2012 elections.

One thing I am sure of - there will be no arrests in the Proposition 8 incident.

Just as an historical note, Hitler used the homosexuals as his shock troops against the Communists.

Then he had many of them killed in the Night of the Long Knives.

I'm sure that historical aside is of no relevance whatsoever.


Another county heard from

Friday, November 07, 2008

Encyclicals on socialism

For people who would like to find out more about the Church's stance on socialism:

Leo XIII Quod Apostolici Muneris (1878)
Leo XIII Rerum Novarum (1891)
Pope Pius XI Quadregesimo Anno (1931)

Thursday, November 06, 2008

MSM finally getting it right

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

A Harbinger...

...Of things to come.

It seems that raising $600 million through extremely dubious means has resulted in a typically socialist distribution of the wealth.

I'm sure this won't be the last.
They should feel lucky - at least they're getting more than brother George.

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

The Difference

What is the difference between Bill Clinton, a pro-abort, and Barack Obama, also a pro-abort?
Shakespeare nailed it:

Let me have men about me that are fat;
Sleek-headed men and such as sleep o' nights:
Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Fear him not, Caesar; he's not dangerous;
He is a noble Roman and well given.
Would he were fatter! But I fear him not:
Yet if my name were liable to fear,
I do not know the man I should avoid
So soon as that spare Cassius. He reads much;
He is a great observer and he looks
Quite through the deeds of men: he loves no plays,
As thou dost, Antony; he hears no music;
Seldom he smiles, and smiles in such a sort
As if he mock'd himself and scorn'd his spirit
That could be moved to smile at any thing.
Such men as he be never at heart's ease
Whiles they behold a greater than themselves,
And therefore are they very dangerous.
I rather tell thee what is to be fear'd
Than what I fear; for always I am Caesar.
Picture American citizens as Caesar.
Kind of interesting, isn't it?

Catholic College Report

The Cardinal Newman Society has just released it's latest report on the quality of Catholic schools.

The title says it all.

If you want a more in-depth analysis than CNS can provide, you can find it here.

Camps and Assassinations

I've had several people tell me that there is a general fear Obama will be assassinated.

Poppycock and balderdash.

Socialists dictators, i.e., men like Obama, don't get assassinated by skinheads.

Socialists assassinate each other to gain political juice, and they don't allow the assassination to take place until they have all their ducks in a row. Consider Trotsky, who got an icepick in the forehead only because Stalin wanted him dead. Stalin needed someone to blame for the economic turmoil in the Soviet Union, and it's easier to blame all your problems on a dead revolutionary. He invoked Trotsky and the Trotskey-ites for years after the man was moldering in the grave. It worked wonderfully. George W. will find himself invoked a lot over the next eight years and for the same reason.

No, if Obama gets killed, it's because Pelosi or Durbin or someone else need him dead for some reason. They'll blame it on the skinheads, they'll set up the racists to take the fall, but the reason for his death will be a maneuver for political ascendancy by one of his current subordinates.

If he gets offed, it's because someone is confident they can control Biden and they want to set Old Joe up as the puppet for the man or woman behind the curtain. Assassination in socialist circles is a Praetorian Guard event. Skinheads don't have the brains to pull something like that off, but Pelosi does.

And speaking of socialists, we should discuss the possibility of internment camps. Poor economies are why socialists love internment camps. If you have an economy which is severely under-producing goods, then you have to do something to reduce the number of consumers in order to avoid riots stemming from the people's inability to eat or clothe themselves.

If the under-production of goods is fairly minor, this problem of too much consumption chasing too few goods can usually be resolved by simply killing the very old and the very young. Nationalized health care is an excellent way out. Euthanize anyone over 60, or simply give them inadequate treatment, then abort 30-70% of the children in the womb, and your production problem goes away - the remaining consumers have enough to eat so that you don't have to worry about riots.

But, if the under-production of goods becomes severe enough, you have to begin random arrests of people on the streets. If a lot of the general population is in prison, you can control their consumption right down to the gram. If they die, it's no big deal because people assume they are in jail for a good reason.

This is why the Soviet Union created and maintained the Gulag Archipelago. They were good economists, they knew they were not producing enough goods and they also knew they couldn't ramp up production in their command-style economy.

What was left? They had to reduce consumption. That was the point of the Gulag.

The United States is currently producing a LOT of stuff, so internment camps for economic reasons here won't be immediately necessary. But, if enough damage is done to the economy, look for a big increase in military-style camps for "troublemakers."

If our economy goes that deeply into the dumper, internment camps will start getting set up in outlying socialist dictatorships first, as the flow of international goods dries up. So, if, for instance, Hugo Chavez starts setting them up, it's time for US citizens to start considering options because that roadshow is likely headed to the United States.

History of the Revolution, Part IV

Let's recap the last few months. We have a new President. Highlights of his promises include guarantees that he will legalize the killing of children at any age up to and even shortly after birth, create a "civilian security force" equal in power to the armed forces, will start the conscription of women, increase taxes (and therefore increase unemployment and drive businesses out of the country or out of business), and will censor most news outlets via the Fairness Doctrine.

He was swept into power by an ongoing economic debacle even though questions about his American citizenship have never been answered. He got into power by laundering campaign contributions through untraceable donations, in direct violation of US law. He is known to show concern for his impoverished brother in a theoretical sense, but his actual relatives continue to live in slums.

In short, he is the quintessential socialist.

Historically, what kinds of precedents are there?

Well, we can look at the French Revolution. It began due to the machinations of Neckar. Appointed to be Director-General of finance by King Louis XVI in the middle of a financial crisis, Neckar was not actually qualified to be director because he was (1) a Protestant and (2) not a native Frenchman. Neckar proposed new taxes on the clergy and the nobles, and was dismissed, but had to be recalled due to popular outrage and massive support from the newspapers and pamphleteers of the day.

Though popular with the people, he believed he had Messiah-like ability and could solve every problem himself. He subsequently fomented a rebellion which drove the nobles it didn't kill out of the country, along with their wealth. As the entire structure of government changed from monarchy to oligarchy, the French Revolution killed hundreds of priests and hundreds of thousands of Catholics, including the legendary massacre of Catholics in the Vendee region, a genocide which wiped out roughly one-third of the population. An official state church was established which took its orders from the government, not from Rome.

The French Revolution created a society built on informants, in which children were expected to inform the authorities if their parents expressed anti-revolutionary ideas. The atrocities of the French Revolution did not end until a dictator, Napoleon Bonoparte, appeared on the scene. The subsequent Napoleanic wars rocked all of Europe for years to come.

The government of France changed frmo monarchy to oligarchy to dictatorship in the space of a decade.

Then we can look to the Germans. Again, we have a socialist born not in Germany but in Austria, a foreigner who became a fervent German nationalist. After receiving enormous support from the media through moguls like Alfred Hugenberg, he was legally appointed Chancellor of Germany by Hindenburg during yet another period of intense economic turmoil.

He also had a Messiah-complex and likewise proposed crushing laws and taxes on the people he felt were unfairly benefiting from the industry of German citizens. These people, the Jews, were either killed or forced to flee. Shortly after taking power, he used a convenient crisis event - the burning of the Reichstag - to fundamentally change the nature of Germany's government so that he could become a dictator. He killed thousands of Catholic priests, sent hundreds of thousands of Catholics to death camps (six million Jews died in the Holocaust, but so did three million Cahtolics), and committed genocide on a massive scale. Again, an official state church was established that took its orders from the government.

The German government created a society built on informants, in which children were expected to inform the authorities if their parents expressed anti-revolutionary ideas. It took a world war to unseat him.

The government of Germany changed from constitutional monarchy and limited democracy to dictatorship in the space of a decade.

Now, consider the Russians. Here, we have a Russian, Lenin, who took care to associate himself with radicals throughout his youth (his older brother was an anarchist executed for attempting to kill the Tsar). He was a first-class lawyer with a command of several languages, including Latin, Greek, German, French and English. His plan involved subverting the government by taking over the newspapers. Although exiled by the Tsar, he was smuggled into the country by the Germans in order to foment a revolution, which he promptly did.

Although Lenin himself was no small thing as a dictator, his death cut short many of his plans. His successor, Stalin, a foreigner who managed to weasel his way into the heart of the party, taught the world what a really effective dictator could do. Again, he placed crushing laws and taxes on the rich peasants, the kulaks. Thousands of Orthodox priests and bishops were sent to penal death camps, as were hundreds of thousands of Orthodox Christians. An official state Church was established, which took its orders from the government.

He created a society built on informants, in which children were expected to inform the authorities if their parents expressed anti-revolutionary ideas. He was never overthrown. The USSR fell only because of the combined efforts of the Pope, the Prime Minister of England and the President of the United States.

The events between 1917 and Stalin's consolidation of power took less than a decade.

It is now 2008.

Start the clock.

Four Horsemen

It was the first thing I thought of when I saw the photograph.

The First Seal—Rider on White Horse

Then I saw when the Lamb broke one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures saying as with a voice of thunder, “Come.” I looked, and behold, a white horse, and he who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer.

The Second Seal—War

When He broke the second seal, I heard the second living creature saying, “Come.” And another, a red horse, went out; and to him who sat on it, it was granted to take peace from the earth, and that men would slay one another; and a great sword was given to him.

The Third Seal—Famine

When He broke the third seal, I heard the third living creature saying, “Come.” I looked, and behold, a black horse; and he who sat on it had a pair of scales in his hand. And I heard something like a voice in the center of the four living creatures saying, “A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius; and do not damage the oil and the wine.”

The Fourth Seal—Death

When the Lamb broke the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature saying, “Come.” I looked, and behold, an ashen horse; and he who sat on it had the name Death; and Hades was following with him. Authority was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by the wild beasts of the earth.

The Fifth Seal—Martyrs

When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also.

The Sixth Seal—Terror

I looked when He broke the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth made of hair, and the whole moon became like blood; and the stars of the sky fell to the earth, as a fig tree casts its unripe figs when shaken by a great wind. The sky was split apart like a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. Then the kings of the earth and the great men and the commanders and the rich and the strong and every slave and free man hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains; and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?”

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Where Sin Abounds

The election of Barack Obama as the next president of the United States could turn out to be outstanding news for the Catholic Church in America. Consider:

1) If Obama is as incompetent as FDR - and from all the signs, he's got FDR handily beat in this area - Obama's economy is certain to enter an extended and deep recession, probably a depression. Unemployment will rise to at least 7%, probably more like 10-12%. This will last at least four years, because we won't be in a position to vote these bozos out for at least that long.

The consequences at the local level?
a) Donations are certain to drop like a rock.
b) Catholic schools will go out of business in droves.

Diocesan and parish staff will disappear. All of this is going to hurt heretical Catholics a lot more than the orthodox. Orthodox Catholics are used to having no resources so it doesn't bother them at all, but without schools and parish religious ed programs to propagate the insanity, heresy won't have the constant nurture it needs to survive.

c) Increase in the Extraordinary Form.
Parishes will need to increase their revenues. Most priest won't want to offer the EF so whoever does it first will suffer less of a decline than the surrounding parishes, because the EF parish will siphon off the most reliable tithers - the orthodox Catholics - from surrounding parishes. The very act of offering the EF changes the priest. We'll see a dramatic decline in liturgical abuse, a dramatic increase in the EF.

2) Socialists always persecute the Church.
The National Socialists (Nazis) set up internment camps for political prisoners, including orthodox priests and nuns. So has virtually every flavor of International Socialism (Communists). Barack Obama has already promised to create an SS look-alike in the form of an internal security force as well-funded and well-armed as the military. Picture the Black Panthers with badges and guns.

a) Bishops found their voices in this election, and they aren't likely to go sit in a corner now. We followed the nonconfrontational "seamless garment" agenda of the homosexual lobby and it didn't work. Look for a LOT more confrontation towards the culture from the bishops, and possibly martyrdom from a few.
b) Only rock-solid priests and deacons are going to survive this purge.
3) Offenses against life will dramatically increase. We've already added tens of millions of Holy Innocents to the rolls of the saints through abortion, now people lose their livelihoods, their houses, their cars, etc., for refusing to perform, sell to, or cooperate in any way with same-sex marriages, abortion, euthanasia, etc.

a) A big upswing in white martyrdom among the laity as well as the episcopal martyrdom already noted above.

b) Pro-life Catholics will be the new Jews. As active Catholics find themselves forced out of the medical field by draconian laws mandating participation in abortion and euthanasia, an underground black-market Catholic medical economy will spring up. We won't be allowed to operate hospitals anymore, but house calls will become more common among Catholics precisely because the Catholic medical professional won't be able to afford to draw attention to himself by setting up a public practice. As long as the Black Panthers don't incarcerate the doctor or the patient, life is good.
Count it all joy, brother.
The Church survived Caligula, Nero, Lenin, Stalin, Che Guevera and Castro. She will also survive Barack "the Butcher of Chicago" Obama. The United States won't survive - she will be turned into a ghastly parody of herself - but the Church will. And that's good enough for me.

And who knows?
Maybe Barack, placed under the enormous pressures of the new job, will finally become a mature adult. Remember, this chastisement is not just for the Church, but for the whole nation. The job may well turn out to be a chastisement for Obama, a way for him to learn how to stop being such an insufferable juvenile and actually live the Christianity he has so often pretended to embrace. Pray God that it is.

Monday, November 03, 2008

President Pelosi?

There has been a lot of talk of nightmare scenarios, but let's try one more on for size.

What if the ACORN-related fraud is so great in the swing states that election officials are unable to certify the results of several or all of them before January?

The present occupant leaves, no new occupant can be certified, and that would leave Speaker Pelosi up as president pro tem.


Semper Fidelis

Remember this tomorrow:

“Be joyful always; pray continually; give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.” I Thessalonians 5:16-18

We don't have to be happy, we do have to be joyful.

Being happy is being comfortable, healthy and well-fed.
Being joyful is knowing that God's plan is being worked out, and our obedience and submission to it contributes to His glory.

Jesus was not happy on the Cross, but He was joyful.

We fast and pray, we ask for mercy, but we accept whatever comes, punishment or pleasure.
Times of persecution were prophesied.
If we are found worthy to be subject to them, we should rejoice.

"Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted. In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons?

“My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,
nor be weary when reproved by him.
For the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives.”

It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed. Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled; that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears. Hebrews 12:3-17
Every drop of blood shed by the abortionist's scalpel will have to be repaid.
Perhaps we have been chosen to participate, be God's co-workers, as St. Paul said, in this work of redemption...

Conversely, if the Butcher from Chicago fails in his bid, then we must raise our voices in the ancient hymns:

Non nobis, Domine, Domine,
non nobis, Domine
Sed nomini,
sed nomini,
tuo da gloriam.

Not to us, Lord,
But to your Name, be all glory.

Te Deum

TE DEUM laudamus: te Dominum confitemur. O GOD, we praise Thee: we acknowledge Thee to be the Lord.
Te aeternum Patrem omnis terra veneratur. Everlasting Father, all the earth doth worship Thee.
Tibi omnes Angeli; tibi Caeli et universae Potestates; To Thee all the Angels, the Heavens and all the Powers,
Tibi Cherubim et Seraphim incessabili voce proclamant: all the Cherubim and Seraphim, unceasingly proclaim:
Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, Dominus Deus Sabaoth. Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts!
Pleni sunt caeli et terra maiestatis gloriae tuae. Heaven and earth are full of the Majesty of Thy glory.
Te gloriosus Apostolorum chorus, The glorious choir of the Apostles,
Te Prophetarum laudabilis numerus, the wonderful company of Prophets,
Te Martyrum candidatus laudat exercitus. the white-robed army of Martyrs, praise Thee.
Te per orbem terrarum sancta confitetur Ecclesia, Holy Church throughout the world doth acknowledge Thee:
Patrem immensae maiestatis: the Father of infinite Majesty;
Venerandum tuum verum et unicum Filium; Thy adorable, true and only Son;
Sanctum quoque Paraclitum Spiritum. and the Holy Spirit, the Comforter.
Tu Rex gloriae, Christe. O Christ, Thou art the King of glory!
Tu Patris sempiternus es Filius. Thou art the everlasting Son of the Father.
Tu ad liberandum suscepturus hominem, non horruisti Virginis uterum. Thou, having taken it upon Thyself to deliver man, didst not disdain the Virgin's womb.
Tu, devicto mortis aculeo, aperuisti credentibus regna caelorum. Thou overcame the sting of death and hast opened to believers the Kingdom of Heaven.
Tu ad dexteram Dei sedes, in gloria Patris. Thou sitest at the right hand of God, in the glory of the Father.
Iudex crederis esse venturus. We believe that Thou shalt come to be our Judge.
Te ergo quaesumus, tuis famulis subveni: quos pretioso sanguine redemisti. We beseech Thee, therefore, to help Thy servants whom Thou hast redeemed with Thy Precious Blood.
Aeterna fac cum sanctis tuis in gloria numerari. Make them to be numbered with Thy Saints in everlasting glory.
V. Salvum fac populum tuum, Domine, et benedic hereditati tuae. V. Save Thy people, O Lord, and bless Thine inheritance!
R. Et rege eos, et extolle illos usque in aeternum. R. Govern them, and raise them up forever.
V. Per singulos dies benedicimus te. V. Every day we thank Thee.
R. Et laudamus nomen tuum in saeculum, et in saeculum saeculi. R. And we praise Thy Name forever, yea, forever and ever.
V. Dignare, Domine, die isto sine peccato nos custodire. V. O Lord, deign to keep us from sin this day.
R. Miserere nostri, Domine, miserere nostri. R. Have mercy on us, O Lord, have mercy on us.
V. Fiat misericordia tua, Domine, super nos, quemadmodum speravimus in te. V. Let Thy mercy, O Lord, be upon us, for we have hoped in Thee.
R. In te, Domine, speravi: non confundar in aeternum. R. O Lord, in Thee I have hoped; let me never be put to shame.

The following is a well known translation of the Te Deum, which, though not literal, preserves much of the spirit and force of the original. Except for the seventh stanza, which is a rendering of verses 20 and 21 by Msgr. Hugh Thomas Henry (1862-1946), it was written by Fr. Clarence Alphonsus Walworth (1820-1900).

HOLY God, we praise Thy Name
Lord of all we bow before Thee;
all on earth Thy scepter claim,
all in heaven above adore Thee;
Infinite Thy vast domain,
everlasting is Thy reign.
HARK, the loud celestial hymn
angel choirs above are raising;
Cherubim and Seraphim
in unceasing chorus praising,
fill the heavens with sweet accord;
Holy, Holy, Holy Lord!
LO, the Apostolic train
Join, Thy sacred name to hallow:
prophets swell the loud refrain,
and the white-robbed Martyrs follow;
and, from morn till set of sun,
through the Church the song goes on.
HOLY Father, Holy Son,
Holy Spirit, Three we name Thee,
While in essence only One,
undivided God we claim Thee:
and, adoring, bend the knee
while we own the mystery.
THOU art King of glory, Christ:
Son of God, yet born of Mary;
for us sinners sacrificed,
and to death a tributary:
first to break the bars of death,
Thou has opened heaven to faith.
FROM Thy high celestial home,
Judge of all, again returning,
we believe that Thou shalt come
in the dreaded Doomsday morning;
when Thy voice shall shake the earth,
and the startled dead come forth.
THEREFORE do we pray Thee, Lord:
help Thy servants whom, redeeming
by Thy Precious Blood out-poured,
Thou hast saved from Satan's scheming.
Give to them eternal rest
in the glory of the Blest.
SPARE Thy people, Lord, we pray,
by a thousand snares surrounded:
keep us without sin today,
never let us be confounded.
Lo, I put my trust in Thee;
never, Lord, abandon me.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

The Family Man

Barack Obama Cares About the Common Man.
How do we know?

Look at how well he treats his beloved half-brother, the cute round-headed kid!

Look at how well he treats his beloved aunt, the incredible dancer!

Look at how well he treats his beloved grandmother!

If he treats his family this well, how much better can we - who are not family - expect from him?

Clearly, he CARES!
Even though his lower lip doesn't quiver, a la William Jefferson Clinton, make no mistake.
Barack Obama CARES.
Yes, he can!

Welcome to Chicago!

Welcome to Chicago!
The city limits are expanding, according to the principles of manifest destiny, from sea to shining sea.

Remember to use the new rules and terminology at all times:
It isn't voter fraud, it's voter empowerment.
Accepting fraudulent donations isn't criminal if no one prosecutes.
No one prosecutes if they want to keep breathing.

Please step to the left and hand us your money on the way out.
If we need anything else, you will be notified.

And, finally, remember that we have ALWAYS been at war with EastAsia.