Some people say I'm hard on Catholic schools, so I'd like to correct that impression.
Our President, Barack Hussein Obama...
Our vice President, Joe Biden...
Our Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi...
...all went to Catholic parochial schools.
Of course, the Vatican has specifically chastised our President for his violently pro-death stance.
Bishops have forbidden Joe Biden reception of the Eucharist because of his violently pro-death stance.
The entire USCCB has chastised Nancy Pelosi for her complete ignorance of the Faith.
And nearly 30% of our violently pro-death Congress is Catholic.
But lets not dwell on picayune facts.
This being Catholic schools week and all, I would like to recommend to everyone the Catholic parochial school.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Play By the Rules
Bad News:
A CIA station chief is accused of multiple rapes of Muslim women.
Good News:
The CIA station chief recently converted to the Religion of Peace.
Simple Resolution:
Given that:
a) Muslims would like the whole world ruled by sharia law,
b) According to sharia law, it isn't rape unless four Muslim men witnessed the actual penetration
then...
... in keeping with the dictates of multiculturalism, we should simply stone the women to death for having had sex outside of marriage.
That's what they would do in Saudi Arabia.
Case closed.
Simple, n'est ce pas?
A CIA station chief is accused of multiple rapes of Muslim women.
Good News:
The CIA station chief recently converted to the Religion of Peace.
Simple Resolution:
Given that:
a) Muslims would like the whole world ruled by sharia law,
b) According to sharia law, it isn't rape unless four Muslim men witnessed the actual penetration
then...
... in keeping with the dictates of multiculturalism, we should simply stone the women to death for having had sex outside of marriage.
That's what they would do in Saudi Arabia.
Case closed.
Simple, n'est ce pas?
Friday, January 23, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Why Republicans Will Lose in 2010, 2012, 2014, etc.
The Democrats have an economy that is being trumpeted as the worst EVER.
Whether or not this is true, and to what extent it is true, doesn't matter.
Because most people believe it, the government has warrant to spend trillions and trillions of dollars in the next few years.
All of that money will go into pork for Democrat districts.
They'll use that money to buy votes, just like FDR did.
And, like FDR, they will succeed in buying votes.
Everyone assumes Obama wants the economy to improve, and perhaps he does.
But he has a Republican president to blame economic failures on for the next four years, i.e., lots of deniability.
So - as long as he has the warrant to throw money around - does it really harm him if the economy tanks? I don't see how it does. In fact, you could easily argue that he can profit as much from a deeply damaged economy as he does from a recovering one. It all depends on how good he is at spin - and we've seen how good he is at spin.
And speaking of a tanking economy, he will not only have the ability to throw trillions around to buy votes, he will also have the ability to nationalize health care as a way of reducing social security, medicare, medicaid and general health expenditures.
Despite Democrat Party Platform protests to the contrary, everyone with a brain knows the government health care and social security programs are due to go bust during this first term of Obama's presidency. Social Security can't afford to keep the Baby Boomers alive. One or the other has to die, and it won't be the government program.
Now, old people vote more reliably than any other bloc, which is why Social Security hasn't been repaired or replaced yet. Everyone is afraid to touch it.
As far as a secular humanist is concerned, there is really only one logical way out.
When Stalin was faced with the fact that his economic policies didn't work, that there would be far more demand than a socialist economy could possibly supply, he solved the problem by creating the Gulag system. A large segment of the population was placed in prison camps where their ability to consume could be very tightly regulated so as to assure the supply didn't fall too far behind the curve. Sure, a lot of people died as a result, but the economy didn't crash, which was all he cared about. Can't make a nationalized economy without breaking a few eggs.
National Health Care is the 21st century version of the Soviet gulag. When there are too many old people consuming too many resources, you don't arrest them and throw them into prison.
No, you throw them into a hospital room and make sure they don't walk out again. The ability of sick people to consume far outweighs their ability to produce, so they have to die. In a socially acceptable way, of course.
"National Health Care" is the phrase the Ministry of Truth comes up with in order to make sure everyone gets the kind of health care they deserve. That's how they'll sell it to the old people who vote. And with trillions behind it, it will sell.
It is coming.
And if THAT doesn't work, there's always the FDR/Stalin solution - internment camps.
UPDATE:
Dick Morris appears to agree with me on the way the health care will go.
Whether or not this is true, and to what extent it is true, doesn't matter.
Because most people believe it, the government has warrant to spend trillions and trillions of dollars in the next few years.
All of that money will go into pork for Democrat districts.
They'll use that money to buy votes, just like FDR did.
And, like FDR, they will succeed in buying votes.
Everyone assumes Obama wants the economy to improve, and perhaps he does.
But he has a Republican president to blame economic failures on for the next four years, i.e., lots of deniability.
So - as long as he has the warrant to throw money around - does it really harm him if the economy tanks? I don't see how it does. In fact, you could easily argue that he can profit as much from a deeply damaged economy as he does from a recovering one. It all depends on how good he is at spin - and we've seen how good he is at spin.
And speaking of a tanking economy, he will not only have the ability to throw trillions around to buy votes, he will also have the ability to nationalize health care as a way of reducing social security, medicare, medicaid and general health expenditures.
Despite Democrat Party Platform protests to the contrary, everyone with a brain knows the government health care and social security programs are due to go bust during this first term of Obama's presidency. Social Security can't afford to keep the Baby Boomers alive. One or the other has to die, and it won't be the government program.
Now, old people vote more reliably than any other bloc, which is why Social Security hasn't been repaired or replaced yet. Everyone is afraid to touch it.
As far as a secular humanist is concerned, there is really only one logical way out.
When Stalin was faced with the fact that his economic policies didn't work, that there would be far more demand than a socialist economy could possibly supply, he solved the problem by creating the Gulag system. A large segment of the population was placed in prison camps where their ability to consume could be very tightly regulated so as to assure the supply didn't fall too far behind the curve. Sure, a lot of people died as a result, but the economy didn't crash, which was all he cared about. Can't make a nationalized economy without breaking a few eggs.
National Health Care is the 21st century version of the Soviet gulag. When there are too many old people consuming too many resources, you don't arrest them and throw them into prison.
No, you throw them into a hospital room and make sure they don't walk out again. The ability of sick people to consume far outweighs their ability to produce, so they have to die. In a socially acceptable way, of course.
"National Health Care" is the phrase the Ministry of Truth comes up with in order to make sure everyone gets the kind of health care they deserve. That's how they'll sell it to the old people who vote. And with trillions behind it, it will sell.
It is coming.
And if THAT doesn't work, there's always the FDR/Stalin solution - internment camps.
UPDATE:
Dick Morris appears to agree with me on the way the health care will go.
A Pauline Epiphany
I teach RCIA - that's a major part of my job.
RCIA candidates and catechumens always have one question: why is God so mean and angry in the Old Testament, but kind and gentle in the New?
My standard explanation goes thus:
When I was young, my parents put me in the corner. If you asked me, at five years old, why they did that, the answer would have been obvious - they hate me and are angry with me.
Now that I'm 45 and putting my own children in the corner, I realize that it isn't about anger. In fact, what the kids do is sometimes so funny it's hard to stop laughing. But I can't allow them to think such behaviour is acceptable, or they'll have real trouble as adults. So, even as I'm putting a frown over my grin, they are getting dissuaded from their actions.
The people of the Old Testament did not have the fullness of grace made available to us through the Incarnation. As a result, the Old Testament is written by the spiritual equivalent of a five- year old having a bad hair day.
And as I was giving this explanation, I realized something. The difference really IS in attitude.
Look at St. Paul for instance: scourged, beaten with an iron rod, stoned (possibly even to a near-death experience, since he talks about being caught up into the third heaven), and ultimately beheaded, he was treated as badly as any Old Testament prophet you care to name. Yet not once did he claim that God was pouring out wrath upon him. Instead, he kept insisting that God is love.
Indeed, the pre-eminent promoter of this "God is Love" philosophy, St. John, was boiled alive in oil and survived, yet his three letters are all about ... God is Love.
Is it a coincidence that the same John who wrote those letters is ALSO the John who recorded - uniquely recorded - that Jesus not only cleansed the Temple, but braided a whip of cords first in order to improve the experience for the people being thrown out?
Try this on for size.
Read any of the Gospels and pretend that God may not be love. Look for signs of love in the things Jesus says and does. If love means being nice, Jesus ain't love.
He calls the Pharisees and Sadducees every name in the book, including references to their burning in hell. He calls one woman a dog. He beats people with a whip. Even the apostles are essentially treated as dimwitted rubes most of the time.
In short, Jesus in the New Testament really doesn't act much differently than God does in the Old Testament. The apostles are certainly not treated any more kindly than the prophets were. The only difference between the two testaments is this: God dies in the second one.
We all agree that the God of the New Testament is Love, and are all concerned that the God of the Old Testament is Not.
We don't understand His Love until He dies for us.
Once we see that, everything falls into place.
We start to understand that the bad things which happen to us are not His doing, but ours.
We begin to realize that He's been trying to keep us out of both the frying pan and the fire, and we just won't accept it. We insist on abusing ourselves and each other instead.
It isn't that the God of the Old Testament hates us or is angry with us.
It's that we hate us and are angry with ourselves.
As John Paul II pointed out, God revealed man to himself.
This is how we know God is love.
RCIA candidates and catechumens always have one question: why is God so mean and angry in the Old Testament, but kind and gentle in the New?
My standard explanation goes thus:
When I was young, my parents put me in the corner. If you asked me, at five years old, why they did that, the answer would have been obvious - they hate me and are angry with me.
Now that I'm 45 and putting my own children in the corner, I realize that it isn't about anger. In fact, what the kids do is sometimes so funny it's hard to stop laughing. But I can't allow them to think such behaviour is acceptable, or they'll have real trouble as adults. So, even as I'm putting a frown over my grin, they are getting dissuaded from their actions.
The people of the Old Testament did not have the fullness of grace made available to us through the Incarnation. As a result, the Old Testament is written by the spiritual equivalent of a five- year old having a bad hair day.
And as I was giving this explanation, I realized something. The difference really IS in attitude.
Look at St. Paul for instance: scourged, beaten with an iron rod, stoned (possibly even to a near-death experience, since he talks about being caught up into the third heaven), and ultimately beheaded, he was treated as badly as any Old Testament prophet you care to name. Yet not once did he claim that God was pouring out wrath upon him. Instead, he kept insisting that God is love.
Indeed, the pre-eminent promoter of this "God is Love" philosophy, St. John, was boiled alive in oil and survived, yet his three letters are all about ... God is Love.
Is it a coincidence that the same John who wrote those letters is ALSO the John who recorded - uniquely recorded - that Jesus not only cleansed the Temple, but braided a whip of cords first in order to improve the experience for the people being thrown out?
Try this on for size.
Read any of the Gospels and pretend that God may not be love. Look for signs of love in the things Jesus says and does. If love means being nice, Jesus ain't love.
He calls the Pharisees and Sadducees every name in the book, including references to their burning in hell. He calls one woman a dog. He beats people with a whip. Even the apostles are essentially treated as dimwitted rubes most of the time.
In short, Jesus in the New Testament really doesn't act much differently than God does in the Old Testament. The apostles are certainly not treated any more kindly than the prophets were. The only difference between the two testaments is this: God dies in the second one.
We all agree that the God of the New Testament is Love, and are all concerned that the God of the Old Testament is Not.
We don't understand His Love until He dies for us.
Once we see that, everything falls into place.
We start to understand that the bad things which happen to us are not His doing, but ours.
We begin to realize that He's been trying to keep us out of both the frying pan and the fire, and we just won't accept it. We insist on abusing ourselves and each other instead.
It isn't that the God of the Old Testament hates us or is angry with us.
It's that we hate us and are angry with ourselves.
As John Paul II pointed out, God revealed man to himself.
This is how we know God is love.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Kennedy Needs Prayers
Most of you will remember that shortly after receiving the Eucharist at one of Pope Benedict's United States Masses, Senator Kennedy was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer.
He has now collapsed.
1 Corinthians 11 - If you eat and drink the body and blood without discernment, you eat and drink judgement on yourself. That is why many of you are sick and some have died.
He has now collapsed.
1 Corinthians 11 - If you eat and drink the body and blood without discernment, you eat and drink judgement on yourself. That is why many of you are sick and some have died.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Children Really Are Protected
I've decided that all of the children's safety programs should be referred to using this generic phrase, as the acronym is so marvelously descriptive.
But, after seeing several articles last week on CultureWarNotes.com about the probable triumph of legal polygamy in Canada, it got me to thinking.
We all know how this progression has worked and where it is going.
First, contraceptives were legalized in Christian denominations, beginning in 1930. By 1936, it was legal to advertise them.
As a natural consequence of legal contraceptives, abortion was, less than 30 years later, legalized.
Once contraception and abortion were in place, no-fault divorce was easy to legalize and family breakdown began in earnest.
With the contraception, abortion and the breakdown of the family proceeding apace, it became very easy to argue that homosexuality was a private affair that the state had no right to forbid. Adultery is no longer a big deal, the culture was already sexualizing children, sex is about pleasure, not procreation, so sodomy is easy to go along with.
By 2003, thirty years after RvW, Texas sodomy laws were struck down, and with them, all sodomy laws across the nation.
It is 2009, and Canada is set to legalize polygamy. The United States can't be too far behind. Certainly by 2020 there should be a test case in the courts, and legalization should follow no later than 2025. To be honest, I rather think polygamy will be legal before the 2016 elections, assuming we are still having elections in 2016.
So, sometime between 2012 and 2025, we will have only pedophilia and bestiality as loves that dare not speak their name. There's not much hope of either remaining illegal much past 2030.
So, here's my question.
Given that the whole CRAP system was developed by the United States bishops in order to comply with the law of the land, what will they do when those laws are knocked flat in the next twenty years?
Having workshops explaining why not to have sex with children will soon be like having workshops on why married couples should use NFP - quaint. No one will be prosecuted for having sex with children, so no one will pay much attention to the facilitators or the workshops.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying anyone pays attention to them now - people only go to the blasted things in order to keep their paychecks. But the motivation for ignoring the speaker will be quite different.
Indeed, it is quite possible that parishes would be violating the law if they dismissed someone for this version of free love and personal expression.
So, what will the bishops do when - WHEN - this happens?
Will we look on these pedophilia workshops with the same smug superciliousness that we view the 1940's warnings against "mixed marriages" (i.e., marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics)?
"How silly those old people were back in that unenlightened age!" we'll exclaim to one another, as the old fogeys fruitlessly warn us about the error of following this path.
We won't argue with them, of course. Why should we? The national health care plan will be clearing their kind away. Their mouths will be shut soon enough.
And we'll remember 2009 as the year of our salvation.
But, after seeing several articles last week on CultureWarNotes.com about the probable triumph of legal polygamy in Canada, it got me to thinking.
We all know how this progression has worked and where it is going.
First, contraceptives were legalized in Christian denominations, beginning in 1930. By 1936, it was legal to advertise them.
As a natural consequence of legal contraceptives, abortion was, less than 30 years later, legalized.
Once contraception and abortion were in place, no-fault divorce was easy to legalize and family breakdown began in earnest.
With the contraception, abortion and the breakdown of the family proceeding apace, it became very easy to argue that homosexuality was a private affair that the state had no right to forbid. Adultery is no longer a big deal, the culture was already sexualizing children, sex is about pleasure, not procreation, so sodomy is easy to go along with.
By 2003, thirty years after RvW, Texas sodomy laws were struck down, and with them, all sodomy laws across the nation.
It is 2009, and Canada is set to legalize polygamy. The United States can't be too far behind. Certainly by 2020 there should be a test case in the courts, and legalization should follow no later than 2025. To be honest, I rather think polygamy will be legal before the 2016 elections, assuming we are still having elections in 2016.
So, sometime between 2012 and 2025, we will have only pedophilia and bestiality as loves that dare not speak their name. There's not much hope of either remaining illegal much past 2030.
So, here's my question.
Given that the whole CRAP system was developed by the United States bishops in order to comply with the law of the land, what will they do when those laws are knocked flat in the next twenty years?
Having workshops explaining why not to have sex with children will soon be like having workshops on why married couples should use NFP - quaint. No one will be prosecuted for having sex with children, so no one will pay much attention to the facilitators or the workshops.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying anyone pays attention to them now - people only go to the blasted things in order to keep their paychecks. But the motivation for ignoring the speaker will be quite different.
Indeed, it is quite possible that parishes would be violating the law if they dismissed someone for this version of free love and personal expression.
So, what will the bishops do when - WHEN - this happens?
Will we look on these pedophilia workshops with the same smug superciliousness that we view the 1940's warnings against "mixed marriages" (i.e., marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics)?
"How silly those old people were back in that unenlightened age!" we'll exclaim to one another, as the old fogeys fruitlessly warn us about the error of following this path.
We won't argue with them, of course. Why should we? The national health care plan will be clearing their kind away. Their mouths will be shut soon enough.
And we'll remember 2009 as the year of our salvation.
Plenty of Room in the Back of the Bus
Look through the roster for all the inauguration prayers.
Evangelicals (four versions)? Check.
Jews (three varieties)? Check.
Sodomites? Check.
Muslim Terrorists? Check.
Catholics? ....
Catholics?!? ...
Bueller?
Anyone?
Doug Kmiec, please call your office...
Schmuck.
UPDATE:
Good news!
The terrorist is an ex-Catholic...
Evangelicals (four versions)? Check.
Jews (three varieties)? Check.
Sodomites? Check.
Muslim Terrorists? Check.
Catholics? ....
Catholics?!? ...
Bueller?
Anyone?
Doug Kmiec, please call your office...
Schmuck.
UPDATE:
Good news!
The terrorist is an ex-Catholic...
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Goodbye, Yellow Brick School
CultureWarNotes.com has a link to a New York Times story about the coming extinction of Catholic schools - something prophesied on this blog several times in the last three years, pointed out in my book in October, 2005. Just a few months ago, I pointed out that this process would speed up as a result of the huge economic downturn.
University of Notre Dame, always on the cutting edge, managed to pull together a task force report on this coming extinction just one short year after my book was published.
In the NY Times story, we see this marvelous quote from a Catholic parent, "The world can change, but if you got your school, your church, your sports all within a couple of blocks, you’re safe."
From a philosophical perspective, i.e., one lists items from the least important to the most important, this man got it exactly right. As I pointed out in my book, Designed to Fail: Catholic Education in America, the parish community is important primarily because it can field a sports team via the parish school.
If you lose the sports team, you've lost the raison d'etre for the school. Without a school, of what use is a parish church?
Yes, that's what I call the fullness of the Catholic Faith!
I also love the statement that starts page 2: "The goal set by the bishops in 1884 — “every Catholic child in a Catholic school” — was never quite met. But by 1965, roughly half of all Catholic children in America attended Catholic elementary schools, according to the National Catholic Educational Association."
Now, notice. In 1965 - well before the huge apostasy from religious orders in the early 70's - the school system managed to get 50% of Catholic children into its gaping maw. And that's when the schools were free to attend, mind you. Even for free, about 50% of Catholic parents weren't that interested.
But according to the article, what caused the loss? Well, loss of religious orders, increased costs, poorer parishioners - everything but the schools themselves.
And how will they fix the schools?
"What most proposals have in common is broadening the base of financial support. Some call for including all Catholics in the diocese; others focus on wealthy philanthropists; some use marketing campaigns aimed at filling empty seats with children, Catholic or not."
Here's a thought: how about filling the schools by implementing Magisterial documents on how a school is to be run, e.g., no non-Catholic teachers, baptized and unbaptized students separated from each other in the classroom, boys and girls separated from each other during class instruction, Catholic Faith suffusing every subject, not just the religion classes, etc.?
It's sheer craziness on my part, I'll admit, but - to repeat a question I raise in the book - of what use is it to run a school that isn't actually Catholic? If you wish to argue that it is a spiritual work of mercy to instruct the ignorant, I will not disagree, but I'm pretty sure the Church means we are to instruct those who are ignorant of the Faith.
It's not at all clear that the Church has anymore competence - or any more reason - to teach, say, chemistry, than any biological parent does, for instance. It's a lot easier to justify Catholic hospitals (care for the sick), clothing stores (clothe the naked), prison ministries, even a chain of diocesan Catholic restaurants, than it is to justify a charter school that doesn't even have a crucifix on the wall.
The Catholic school system is going away.
Only God can stop that, and I doubt He's that interested in supporting a school that only violates the teachings of His Church.
University of Notre Dame, always on the cutting edge, managed to pull together a task force report on this coming extinction just one short year after my book was published.
In the NY Times story, we see this marvelous quote from a Catholic parent, "The world can change, but if you got your school, your church, your sports all within a couple of blocks, you’re safe."
From a philosophical perspective, i.e., one lists items from the least important to the most important, this man got it exactly right. As I pointed out in my book, Designed to Fail: Catholic Education in America, the parish community is important primarily because it can field a sports team via the parish school.
If you lose the sports team, you've lost the raison d'etre for the school. Without a school, of what use is a parish church?
Yes, that's what I call the fullness of the Catholic Faith!
I also love the statement that starts page 2: "The goal set by the bishops in 1884 — “every Catholic child in a Catholic school” — was never quite met. But by 1965, roughly half of all Catholic children in America attended Catholic elementary schools, according to the National Catholic Educational Association."
Now, notice. In 1965 - well before the huge apostasy from religious orders in the early 70's - the school system managed to get 50% of Catholic children into its gaping maw. And that's when the schools were free to attend, mind you. Even for free, about 50% of Catholic parents weren't that interested.
But according to the article, what caused the loss? Well, loss of religious orders, increased costs, poorer parishioners - everything but the schools themselves.
And how will they fix the schools?
"What most proposals have in common is broadening the base of financial support. Some call for including all Catholics in the diocese; others focus on wealthy philanthropists; some use marketing campaigns aimed at filling empty seats with children, Catholic or not."
Here's a thought: how about filling the schools by implementing Magisterial documents on how a school is to be run, e.g., no non-Catholic teachers, baptized and unbaptized students separated from each other in the classroom, boys and girls separated from each other during class instruction, Catholic Faith suffusing every subject, not just the religion classes, etc.?
It's sheer craziness on my part, I'll admit, but - to repeat a question I raise in the book - of what use is it to run a school that isn't actually Catholic? If you wish to argue that it is a spiritual work of mercy to instruct the ignorant, I will not disagree, but I'm pretty sure the Church means we are to instruct those who are ignorant of the Faith.
It's not at all clear that the Church has anymore competence - or any more reason - to teach, say, chemistry, than any biological parent does, for instance. It's a lot easier to justify Catholic hospitals (care for the sick), clothing stores (clothe the naked), prison ministries, even a chain of diocesan Catholic restaurants, than it is to justify a charter school that doesn't even have a crucifix on the wall.
The Catholic school system is going away.
Only God can stop that, and I doubt He's that interested in supporting a school that only violates the teachings of His Church.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
President for Life
There is a hope, of course, that Barack Hussein is just a pansy who will let Nancy rule.
But, the more I see, the less I think we'll have to bother our poor little heads about voting in 2012.
It's so much easier when one party takes care of everything.
Everything.
Normally, we count on legislation morasses to stop excesses from crystallizing into laws.
But, like Hitler's brownshirts, Obama has a grass-roots network that can put pressure on any legislator, anytime.
The legislature may find itself becoming nothing but a rubber-stamp.
In short, Nancy may be baring her teeth now, but if Barack Hussein is really serious about being a socialist, she'll be the first one up against the wall when the revolution comes.
While BHO is clearly insane (cf. his willingness to kill infants, for instance), it's very hard to know exactly how insane he is until he gets into office and we see how he wields power.
We all continue to hope against hope that he's either a pansy or a blowhard.
But FDR is his idol and that's a problem.
After all, FDR single-handedly created the industrial-military complex and he is still the only President who ever set up internment camps for ordinary non-combatant American citizens.
But, the more I see, the less I think we'll have to bother our poor little heads about voting in 2012.
It's so much easier when one party takes care of everything.
Everything.
Normally, we count on legislation morasses to stop excesses from crystallizing into laws.
But, like Hitler's brownshirts, Obama has a grass-roots network that can put pressure on any legislator, anytime.
The legislature may find itself becoming nothing but a rubber-stamp.
In short, Nancy may be baring her teeth now, but if Barack Hussein is really serious about being a socialist, she'll be the first one up against the wall when the revolution comes.
While BHO is clearly insane (cf. his willingness to kill infants, for instance), it's very hard to know exactly how insane he is until he gets into office and we see how he wields power.
We all continue to hope against hope that he's either a pansy or a blowhard.
But FDR is his idol and that's a problem.
After all, FDR single-handedly created the industrial-military complex and he is still the only President who ever set up internment camps for ordinary non-combatant American citizens.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Pansy for President?
I can't decide whether to laugh or cry.
On the one hand, I have written long and, I hope, powerfully, about the incipient dangers of a Barack Hussein Obama presidency. If he is really the socialist he claims to be, then the nation will become another Cuba, Nazi Germany or USSR within eight years.
But what if he's just a pansy?
What if he is the typical ivory-tower blowhard, the kind of prof who talks a big game in front of the freshman class, but turns out to be unable to hold his own even in a debate with a lowly graduate student, much less one of his own peers?
As Mark Steyn recently pointed out on the Laura Ingraham Show, B. Hussein has chosen an interminable number of former Clinton appointees for his cabinet. He most recently began fishing for a surgeon general among the Hollywood elite, in the form of Dr. Gupta. It is indeed as if he doesn't himself know anyone of consequence, so he has to steal names out of other people's little black books. He even went to the trouble of violating the Constitution in order to get Hillary into Secretary of State (no, I don't think she'll even take the fig leaf of a pay cut).
So, will Barack Obama turn out to be a President who continues his Illinois Senate habit of simply voting "present" (he spent his entire US Senate career running for President, so he didn't have time to pick up any habit of responsibility there. And that assumes the US Senate is known for instilling responsibility in its members, which is an assertion whose truth value lacks only evidence).
The man isn't even sworn in yet, and already Congress is beating him into the ground. Apparently, he spent his honeymoon on the election - it doesn't look like he's going to get one on Capitol Hill.
And if Nancy Pelosi continues to rough him up, can Hillary be far behind? And Bill in the background, egging her on? Between the two ladies in drag, he'll be ... pretty whipped...
Won't it be fun to have a man who makes Jimmy Carter look like a tower of strength?
A punching bag for his own party...
What will he be for the world?
And Joe Biden has his back.
God help us.
Nancy Pelosi may end up being the second woman President after all.
On the one hand, I have written long and, I hope, powerfully, about the incipient dangers of a Barack Hussein Obama presidency. If he is really the socialist he claims to be, then the nation will become another Cuba, Nazi Germany or USSR within eight years.
But what if he's just a pansy?
What if he is the typical ivory-tower blowhard, the kind of prof who talks a big game in front of the freshman class, but turns out to be unable to hold his own even in a debate with a lowly graduate student, much less one of his own peers?
As Mark Steyn recently pointed out on the Laura Ingraham Show, B. Hussein has chosen an interminable number of former Clinton appointees for his cabinet. He most recently began fishing for a surgeon general among the Hollywood elite, in the form of Dr. Gupta. It is indeed as if he doesn't himself know anyone of consequence, so he has to steal names out of other people's little black books. He even went to the trouble of violating the Constitution in order to get Hillary into Secretary of State (no, I don't think she'll even take the fig leaf of a pay cut).
So, will Barack Obama turn out to be a President who continues his Illinois Senate habit of simply voting "present" (he spent his entire US Senate career running for President, so he didn't have time to pick up any habit of responsibility there. And that assumes the US Senate is known for instilling responsibility in its members, which is an assertion whose truth value lacks only evidence).
The man isn't even sworn in yet, and already Congress is beating him into the ground. Apparently, he spent his honeymoon on the election - it doesn't look like he's going to get one on Capitol Hill.
And if Nancy Pelosi continues to rough him up, can Hillary be far behind? And Bill in the background, egging her on? Between the two ladies in drag, he'll be ... pretty whipped...
Won't it be fun to have a man who makes Jimmy Carter look like a tower of strength?
A punching bag for his own party...
What will he be for the world?
And Joe Biden has his back.
God help us.
Nancy Pelosi may end up being the second woman President after all.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Horror
Some people have no idea how nasty contraceptives can be.
One of the primary inventors of the contraceptive pill would like to illuminate the situation.
The article speaks for itself.
One of the primary inventors of the contraceptive pill would like to illuminate the situation.
The article speaks for itself.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Catholic Drudge Report
Yes, there's always a contender - Spirit Daily, a good news-site, has long been considered the Catholic version of the Drudge Report. It's designed to reach an audience with an interest in apparitions, ghosts, apocalyptic and other end-times prophecies, etc.
But there is another kid on the block, now.
It is culturewarnotes.com.
This site seems to be more interested in main-stream Catholicism. You won't find anything about the latest Marian apparition or the ghost in the hospital corridor, but you will see headlines concerning the interaction between faith and reason, science and religion, and theology in the public sphere (such as it is).
For instance, did you know about the scientific study that shows Catholics experience less pain and suffering than non-Catholics in certain situations?
Or that archaeologists think they may have found King Solomon's copper mines?
Did anyone link together the fact that Barack Obama has not said a public word in condemnation of his violently anti-Semitic political supporters, Hamas? (That was the top story at culturewarnotes.com last week)
It might be worth checking out.
But there is another kid on the block, now.
It is culturewarnotes.com.
This site seems to be more interested in main-stream Catholicism. You won't find anything about the latest Marian apparition or the ghost in the hospital corridor, but you will see headlines concerning the interaction between faith and reason, science and religion, and theology in the public sphere (such as it is).
For instance, did you know about the scientific study that shows Catholics experience less pain and suffering than non-Catholics in certain situations?
Or that archaeologists think they may have found King Solomon's copper mines?
Did anyone link together the fact that Barack Obama has not said a public word in condemnation of his violently anti-Semitic political supporters, Hamas? (That was the top story at culturewarnotes.com last week)
It might be worth checking out.
The Palin Slayer
Why would ANYONE appoint Caroline Kennedy a senator?
Apart from possessing a famous last name, she has absolutely no experience, no ability to articulate clearly, and no understanding of the state she is supposed to represent.
So what is her major qualification?
Forbes tells us, "...she is the only one on that list (as one imagines it) who is not a political hack."
In short, it seems clear that this mother of three is qualified to be the next senator for New York precisely because she is an elitist, pro-abortion mother of three who has no obvious qualifications at all.
Sarah Palin rocked everyone's world - the Democrats are mortally afraid of this woman, and they know Barack Obama has all sorts of potential to actually be as incompetent as he certainly appears to be at this point.
Given the economy, the Hamas-Israel situation, the abject socialism of the messiah, and his plain inexperience, Obama is by no means a shoe-in for 2012. No one wishes to discuss this publicly, but it's at the back of everyone's mind.
The Democrats need someone who can slay Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama may well be thoroughly damaged goods by 2012.
So, Caroline Kennedy is their answer.
Burnish her in the Senate over the course of four years, shine her up in front of all the aging hippies from the sixtes (the over-sixty group votes more consistently in an election than any other and always has) and they think they can prep her for the White House.
What grey-haired, flatulent hippy wouldn't want a Kennedy back in the Oval Office?
Those were the best years of their lives (which says a lot about their lives, but I digress).
And, sadly enough, Caroline Kennedy really is the best they can do.
Apart from possessing a famous last name, she has absolutely no experience, no ability to articulate clearly, and no understanding of the state she is supposed to represent.
So what is her major qualification?
Forbes tells us, "...she is the only one on that list (as one imagines it) who is not a political hack."
In short, it seems clear that this mother of three is qualified to be the next senator for New York precisely because she is an elitist, pro-abortion mother of three who has no obvious qualifications at all.
Sarah Palin rocked everyone's world - the Democrats are mortally afraid of this woman, and they know Barack Obama has all sorts of potential to actually be as incompetent as he certainly appears to be at this point.
Given the economy, the Hamas-Israel situation, the abject socialism of the messiah, and his plain inexperience, Obama is by no means a shoe-in for 2012. No one wishes to discuss this publicly, but it's at the back of everyone's mind.
The Democrats need someone who can slay Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama may well be thoroughly damaged goods by 2012.
So, Caroline Kennedy is their answer.
Burnish her in the Senate over the course of four years, shine her up in front of all the aging hippies from the sixtes (the over-sixty group votes more consistently in an election than any other and always has) and they think they can prep her for the White House.
What grey-haired, flatulent hippy wouldn't want a Kennedy back in the Oval Office?
Those were the best years of their lives (which says a lot about their lives, but I digress).
And, sadly enough, Caroline Kennedy really is the best they can do.