I Confess

When Christians see the Alfred Hitchcock thriller, "I Confess", they generally have one of two reactions: either they nod in agreement or they leave the film in absolute horror. Depending on how one understands one's own Christianity, the action the priest takes in the last five minutes of the movie is either (a) beautifully  perfect or (b) disorienting and perverse.

For Christians, there is no middle ground.

I won't spoil the ending by describing it, but as an RCIA director, I enjoy recommending that movie to new Catholics precisely because their reaction to the movie's ending will give them, and me, a feel for how Catholic their worldview is.

Similarly, "The Scarlet and the Black" is an historically accurate movie whose ending discombobulates
Christian audiences. The last five minutes are, again, shocking. Some Christians walk out disgusted, muttering under their breath about the perversity of the Catholic Church in general and Catholic priests in particular. But others walk out strengthened in their Christian convictions by the movie's resolution.

And so we come to Cardinal Dolan's Al Smith Dinner and the invitation of Barack Obama. Indeed, we might treat on the way the Al Smith Dinner organizers treat pro-abort groups versus pro-life groups in general.

Is Dolan acting as a stooge or a Christian?

Is it scandal to give Obama a platform, or is this Dolan's brilliant scheme to give Barack the opportunity to either publicly make up or make a fool of himself?

Mary Ann Kreitzer opines that Dolan's invitation shows disrespect for the unborn. Dolan would presumably never entertain the idea of inviting Barack to dinner if our fine President were in the habit of "stabbing a bishop in the head and sucking out his brains." And she brings forward numerous Scriptural examples of precisely this refusal. I confess an enormous amount of sympathy for Mrs. Kreitzer's position.

But, as I listened to this morning's sermon on the parable of the Good Samaritan, I realized there was historical precedent of a sort. We have the example of the Church in and after World War II.

Even though the Nazis were responsible for slaughtering thousands of religious, priests and bishops in death camps across Eastern Europe, the Pope approved of smuggling these same Nazis - including Adolf Eichmann - out from under the nose of Allied troops who wanted Nazi leaders arrested, tried and hanged.

Now, the comparison is not exact. The Vatican ratlines were run in secret, those smuggled out were not being given a public forum. Still, there is no indication that the men being smuggled out were penitent - as in Eichmann's case, we can be pretty sure that at least some of them were not.

So, what are we to think about Cardinal Dolan inviting our modern-day Eichmann to a public dinner, in which the participants 'roast' one another? Does it signal some tacit approval of Barack Obama?

Well, again, we have precedent. For instance, we know Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, later Pope Pius XII, signed a concordat with Hitler on behalf of the Church, even though Pacelli was under no illusions about the integrity of the man with whom he treated:

“This man is completely obsessed,” he said. “All that is not of use to him, he destroys; all that he says and writes carries the mark of his egocentricity; this man is capable of trampling on corpses and eliminating all that obstructs him." [editor's note: does this sound familiar?]

Pacelli said "I had to choose between an agreement on their lines and the virtual elimination of the Catholic Church in the Reich"...Pinchas Lapide notes that whilst negotiations for Concordat were taking place, pressure had been put on the Vatican by the arrest of ninety-two priests, the searching of Catholic youth club premises, and the closing down of nine Catholic publications. 

Concluding a concordat with a madman is certainly a lot more binding then simply inviting him to dinner. Even so, the Church has chosen to treat with madmen many, many times in her history. We have not yet had to descend to the level of concluding a treaty with Barack Hussein Obama, although the pressure he places on Catholic institutions in this country have not gone unnoticed by Rome.

November has not yet come. Neither Cardinal Dolan nor we know for certain who will win the election, or what this particular madman will do if he does win a second term. Many, including myself, hold honest concerns that an Obama victory would spell the end of the remnants of free elections in the United States.

So, is Cardinal Dolan's invitation scandalous or wise?
Is it an exercise in Christian charity or participation in evil?

I honestly don't know.
I pray that Cardinal Dolan does.

Rent-A-Ranger

Well, everyone is asking the same question: is there a method to Barack's madness? Why does he ignore one Middle East revolution while involving US forces in another?

There seems to be no rhyme nor reason to what he's doing.
Historic US allies are thrown overboard while opportunities to assist in the overthrow of historic enemies are completely ignored.

There is a key.

We have several instances to compare:

• The Iranian revolution
• The Egyptian revolution
• The Libyan revolution
• The Syrian revolution
• The Yemen revolution
• The Bahrain and Saudi revolutions

Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah, feeding arms and training into their networks. When the Iranian people rose up against the mullahs of Iran, Barack did nothing.

Mubarak, whatever his other failings, was not a fan of either Hamas or Hezbollah. He expressed deep concern over the growing strength of Hamas and worked hard to keep them from winning elections. Barack pushed hard to get Mubarak out of office.

While Gaddafi supported Barack for US President, Gaddafi was no particular friend of Hamas or Hezbollah. In recent weeks, both organizations condemned Gaddafi, voicing concern that he would begin a slaughter of their Libyan-based operatives.

Syria, on the other hand, supports Hamas and Hezbollah, feeding arms and training into their networks. Barack has vowed to leave Syria alone.

Yemen backs Hamas and Hezbollah; it serves as a key transit hub for Hamas armaments. Barack has said there should be no demonstrations against the Yemeni government.

In Bahrain, Hamas approves of Obama's policies of non-intervention. Saudi Arabia, which provides the financial support for nearly all the Wahhabi Muslim mosques throughout the world, can roll in with tanks and Obama merely bows obsequiously and stands silent.

Palestinians gave enormous amounts of cash to Obama's election campaign.
Barack gave Hamas $1.3 billion of US Taxpayer money and he wasn't just paying jizya.
Barack listened to his pastor. He's actively courting Hezbollah.

So, who stands and who falls when Barack is calling the shots?

Re-phrase the question: who does Hamas and Hezbollah want dead?

When you have the answer to that question, you have the answer to who Barack will order the US military to support, and who he will leave hanging to twist in the wind... assuming he doesn't come with rope to help the hangman himself.

As Barack himself put it, "it is our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out missions..."

Or, as a Hamas spokesman might put it, why buy an air force when you can rent one for free?
We have become mercenaries for Middle East terrorists.

Mafioso in America

In the old days, the Mafia ran numbers games, gambling houses, prostitution rings and protection rackets. Even if you ran an honest business, you couldn't escape. You had to pay a percentage of your profit to the man who ran your block. If you didn't, you or your business would be attacked, possibly destroyed.

Today, the government runs the lotto and gives out casino licenses. ACORN helps entrepreneurs set up prostitution rings. Even if you run an honest business it doesn't matter. You have to pay the tax man or he'll kidnap you, throw you in jail, destroy your business.

Now, with the Chicago Butcher in office, the juice on business transactions is going up. The Democrats will Rahm through a new health care mandate that will fine people $3800 each for breathing, if they dare to do so without first having gotten health care insurance, either through the government or through the private insurers the government intends to destroy. Yeats had it right:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Obama Chooses Irrelevance

Over one hundred years ago, the bishops of America had a choice.
They could spend the bulk of their effort catechizing adults, as the Church Universal had done through most of her history, or they could imitate the public school system of the United States and spend the bulk of their catechetical efforts on teaching children the Faith.

They chose the children.
This choice to ignore the adults began their long but inevitable slide into irrelevance. Today, the bishops produce encyclicals that no one reads, trying to save schools that no one sends their children to. By focusing the bulk of their effort on children, the bishops implicitly admitted - whether they meant to or not - that they had nothing of particular substance to offer adults.

In just a few short days, Barack Hussein Obama will follow the lead of the American bishops. For the first time ever, an American President will spend an hour addressing America's schoolchildren.

It is of signal interest that he chooses to do this only after being his vaunted health plan was relentlessly savaged and torn to bits by political commentators and man-in-the-pew adult citizens during the August recess.

The facts speak for themselves.
Barack Obama has begun his own long slide into irrelevance.

This does, however, raise a disturbing question.

For the American bishops, the slide of formerly great office into relative obscurity was marked by increasingly irresponsible behaviour, culminating in the twin scandals of American Catholic education and priestly sexual abuse.

As the President destroys himself, what kind of behaviour can we expect from a this man, a man whose shocking narcissism already outpaces even that of his predecessors?

The dangers increase as the shadows lengthen.

Is It A Rumor?

¹He said to His disciples, "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! ²"It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble.³"Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.⁴"And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him."

⁵The apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith!"⁶And the Lord said, "If you had faith like a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and be planted in the sea'; and it would obey you.

⁷"Which of you, having a slave plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, 'Come immediately and sit down to eat'? ⁸"But will he not say to him, 'Prepare something for me to eat, and properly clothe yourself and serve me while I eat and drink; and afterward you may eat and drink'? ⁹"He does not thank the slave because he did the things which were commanded, does he? ¹⁰"So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, 'We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done.'"(Luke 7:1-10)

The USCCB is trying to make news again. They've drawn a Line In The Sand. Aren't you excited? This conglomeration of American bishops is usually just a criminally sinful waste of scarce Catholic resources, but this time!.... well, yeah, nothing has really changed.

Remember how strongly the USCCB came out against honoring Barack Obama at Notre Dame?

What?
You don't remember that?

Of course you don't - the USCCB was absolutely silent on the matter until well after the event took place, even though Fr. Jenkins, the president of the institution, clearly violated the USCCB mandate not to honor pro-abort politicians.

True, several dozen individual bishops made various levels of protests, just as several dozen had individually protested voting for Barack. And why not? There was clearly a groundswell of Catholic lay support for a protest against Notre Dame. It gave bishops a chance to look good. For a bishop of a certain attitude, it certainly made a good show for the orthodox Catholic laity without actually requiring him to do orthodox things in his own diocese.

So, the episcopal protest was a win-win all around. Bishops got to look good, Obama got his honors, Fr. Jenkins got a raise (in prestige, if not in dollars), Notre Dame met it's fund-raising goals early, and several major Catholic websites got their mailing lists increased by several tens of thousands of protester signatures. It was easily the most successful marketing event of the last ten years.

Today, we are supposed to get all excited because the USCCB's Pro-Life Office is saying abortion must be explicitly forbidden in the new ObamaCare health plan. Gosh, Aunty-Em, are we still in Kansas anymore?

Well, yes, we are.
Consider the realities:

1) Does anyone really think Barack Hussein Obama is going to ignore his own science advisor, listen instead to the USCCB Pro-Life Office and strip abortion out of his health care plan? Really? And if you do actually think this, do you have a medical release to smoke that stuff?

2) Alright, granted, the USCCB Pro-Life Office is "insisting" on explicitly removing abortion. Great. Where is the groundswell of dozens of individual bishops all loudly protesting ObamaCare's implicit support of abortion? Remember the dozens of bishops who spoke out about electing politicians like this? Remember the eighty or so bishops that were out in force over the Notre Dame thing? So, where are you guys? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

But isn't this where the rubber hits the road?

Individual bishops protested his possible election, individual bishops protested him being honored, but now that his policies are actually on the fast track to becoming law, now that he will start using our dollars to kill actual children... hey, where'd all those individual bishops go? Guys???

3) The whole "we are opposed, Mr. Obama!" mantra just smells pro-forma at this point. Nobody got chastised when Obama got elected, nobody got chastised when he got honored, why the heck should we think "opposition" from a single USCCB office is going to make any difference at all? Especially given the number of Catholic Senators and Reps who have merrily promoted legal abortion all these years without a whimper of public chastisement from the bishops? What on earth would stop these men and women from merrily supporting Obama this fall? The USCCB Pro-Life Office? Heh-heh-heh-heh-heh, snort.

But here's the real kicker:
4) So our brave bishops charge the Pro-Life Office with opposing abortion. Fine. When will that office, or any branch or member of the USCCB for that matter, insist that ObamaCare not fund contraception?

Oooohhhh.... listen for the crickets...

Here's a soundbite that long-time readers of this blog may remember:

“No, there is no ‘lobbying to ban abortions for everyone’ as that too has been precluded by the Supreme Court, for the time being,” USCCB Pro-Life Spokesperson Cathy Cleaver Ruse wrote in reply, “rather, there are efforts directed toward achievable goals…” She then went on to list a few of the USCCB goals: “the partial-birth abortion ban, [work] against mandating inclusion of contraception in health benefits packages; against making its acceptance a condition for providing other kinds of developmental assistance; protecting parents' rights in the case of minors, [etc.]” -

Let's stop playing around.
Contraception causes abortion.
Until we get rid of contraception, we will not get rid of abortion.

Every Catholic bishop knows it, or should know it.
NOT ONE active Catholic bishop in North America has publicly spoken out on the subject of federal funding for contraception in forty years. Joseph Califano knows why.

Indeed, as you can see above, as recently as 2004, I was specifically told by the USCCB Pro-life spokesperson, Cathy Cleaver Ruse, that the Catholic bishops had no intention of upholding Catholic teaching either in reference to abortion or contraception. In fact, the bishops not only didn't punish pro-abortion politicians, they actually appointed pro-abortion politicians to stand as judges over the actions of US bishops.

So, today, the USCCB office protests abortion.
Again.

Who cares?
Who really cares?

What are we supposed to say?
"OOHH-LA-LA! Edith, call the newspapers! The USCCB Pro-Life Office is actually insisting on one point of Catholic doctrine! Who would of thunk it? "

If the bishops actually had any faith in the Catholic position, they would hold to all of it and promulgate all of it. Instead, we get not even half-measures, but half of half measures. No mention of contraception. Empty words thrown against abortion when it is politically safe to do so, with no actions to back it up. We get nothing but the flaccid excuse that the culture isn't ready to see punishments against pro-abortion politicians or hear how bad contraception really is.

Alright, I'll grant them the points.
Yes, it's probably true.
The culture isn't ready.

And that's relevant HOW exactly?

The culture also wasn't ready to hear that a man rose from the dead, or that God took on human flesh, or that we eat the flesh of God every Sunday, but that didn't stop bishops in the first century from pointing out the facts.

Over at Catholic Culture, Phil Lawler and Diogenes feels it is necessary to debunk the "nasty rumor" that Catholic bishops are ready to sell out the unborn in exchange for $100 million for Catholic Charities from Barack Hussein Obama. "Some people need to be rebuked for spreading this nasty rumor."

Let's just take a look at the history of the USCCB's opposition to contraception and its fruit.
If anyone can point out to me where the USCCB or, indeed, any group of American bishops, have publicly spoken out against federal funding for contraception or publicly chastised or punished any Catholic politician for their public support of legal abortion, then I will agree that Diogenes is correct and heads should roll. But if this evidence cannot be found, then only one question really remains:

Is it really a rumor?

Obama's Hero?

In October, 1921, Hitler began to organize a private army under Ulrich Klintzsch, a twenty-two-year-old former member of Ehrhardt's Brigade. On November 4, 1921, Hitler had his forty-two member army primed to fight Communists who heckled him with the Communist slogan "Frieheit!" ("Freedom!"), as he spoke at the Hofbrauhaus in Munich. Under their new leader, Emil Maurice, the soldiers hurled themselves repeatedly against the seven hundred Communists until the Communists were driven from the hall. This bloody night would later be viewed as the foundation date of the Sturmabteilung, the SA. This group became the prime force for movement of the National Socialists out of the meeting halls and into the streets, where they confronted the Social Democrats and the Communists. To the Nazis, political power not only in Munich, but in the state, became synonymous with domination of the streets. At that time, Hitler saw the storm troopers as the force which would ultimately bring the existing government to its knees.

In January 2008, Obama began to organize a private media under Rahm Emmanual, a member of the Chicago machine. In August, 2009, Obama had his media army primed to fight Americans who heckled him with the American slogan "Don't Tread on Me!", as he spoke at the telemprompter in Washington DC. Under their leader, Rahm Emmanual, the media hurled themselves repeatedly against the several million Americans until the Americans were driven from the conversation. This bloody event would later be viewed as the foundation date of the Sturmabteilung, the SA. This group became the prime force for movement of the American National Socialists out of the community organizing halls and into the streets, where they confronted the Republicans and Independents. To the Obamas, political power not only in Washington, but in the state, became synonymous with domination of the media. At that time, Obama saw the media as the force which would ultimately bring the existing government to its knees.

Simple Health Care Reform

Guest Post by Joseph Morris

The current debate over health care reform in the United States is centered around the question, “Who should pay, and how do we cover those who cannot pay?”

I believe the more directed question should be “How do we get health care to those who cannot pay?” As most of the country is covered by private health insurance and is happy with the cost and care they are receiving, let us only address that minority who are uncovered and leave the rest alone. What they need is free care.


A simple proposal:

Allow every health care professional; doctors, nurses, chiropractors, physical therapists, homeopaths, etc. to deduct from their personal federal income taxes, dollar for dollar, at their going rate, for every hour of free care that they give.

Allow every care facility; hospitals, clinics, etc, and manufacturer/distributor; pharmaceutical companies,. pharmacies, wheelchair companies, bandage mmanufacturers, etc. to deduct from their corporate income taxes, dollar for dollar, at their market rate, for every product or service that they give.

The Results:

Patients who cannot pay will be provided with private, local care unencumbered by federal or state government bureaucracy.

Medical providers can donate their services to whatever income level they seek to achieve. 50/50 to pay no taxes, 60/40 to pay some taxes, donate all their time in order to offset other income streams, etc. They can schedule their free hours within their offices, or spend time at free clinics.

Medicare/Medicaid will be rendered obsolete before they become insolvent.

Enforcement falls to the IRS which carries an established reputation and would only audit the hours given in service and would not be concerned with the care given.

This will be a new incentive for prospective medical professionals to enter the field. Watch the no tax days at the beginning of the school year to understand the inordinate joy that the public takes in sticking it to the government.

Accessibility to free care will be limited by provider choices and thus will serve as an incentive for those who can pay to stay insured.

Health care providers will advertise for uninsured patients as the fiscal year closes.

Even if every provider overstated his donations by 100% every year, it would still be cheaper than anything else being proposed.


Joe Morris, small business owner

Tin Foil Hats

In February, 1904, Scientific American provided a description of N-rays:

CHIMERICAL RAYS--"M. Aug Charpentier brings out the interesting point that the rays given out by living organisms differ from the N-rays discovered by M. Rene Prosper Blondlot, and the thinks they are formed of N-rays and another new form of radiation. This is especially true of the rays from the nerve centers or nerves, whose striking characteristic is that they are partially cut off by an aluminum screen. A sheet of 1/50th of an inch is sufficient to cut down considerably the rays emitted by a point of the brain..."

Well, it turns out that N-rays don't exist, but the "tin foil hat" subsequently took on a life of its own. It is now the mark of the conspiracy theorist. It is usually applied to anyone who opposes the worldview of "Main Stream Media" (MSM) journalists. But just how mainstream are those journalists?

We could shoot fish in a barrel by pointing to eminent MSM nutcases like Dan Rather. He not only insisted that George Bush's military service in the Air National Guard was bogus, he sued CBS for forcing him to drop the story:

"Rather alleges that he was forced to apologize for the Bush story as part of a conspiracy by top CBS management to ensure that no further damaging revelations about the president’s time in the Texas Air National Guard would become public."

Similarly, Hillary Clinton's tin-foil hat was showing when she started making rambling comments about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that sought to destroy her family. That was right about the time Bill told us what the meaning of "is" is.

And during one of Joe Biden's more recent trips to his vacation retreat in the Land of Aluminum, he insisted Barack Hussein Obama would be seriously tested within six months of his swearing-in. The clock is ticking to a close on that six months, but no world-wide disaster-level test for Barry seems to be in the making. I guess the world just isn't that into him.

As I say, we could take the most obvious cases of MSM conspiracy theory, roll our eyes and call for the men in white suits. But the charge merits a deeper look. After all, when you think about it, the MSM is really a major tin-foil hat manufacturing industry.

Consider MSM insistence that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. The tin-foil hats that head up the MSM and at least one American cancer institute refuse to engage the reality of dozens of scientific studies. Instead, Americans deny that there is any correlation, despite mountains of evidence that abortion does cause breast cancer.

Why the state of denial? Because these "mainstream" tin foil hats fear that admitting the truth would allow the camel's nose into the tent. Religious types would take over science or the United States or their bedroom or... whatever. So they deny any aspect of reality that comports too closely with what religion teaches to be true.

As a result, we keep being told that condoms are a solution the the AIDS crisis, that abortion is essentially harmless (in their world, it never causes subsequent pre-term birth, increased incidence of cerebral palsy, or post-traumatic stress disorder), and that promoting abstinence or monogamy is a bad idea.

In all of these cases, various elements of the "mainstream" refuse to engage the reality and instead insists that these facts are not actually facts, rather, these facts are really part of a larger conspiracy, a nefarious attempt by Rome or the Southern Baptists or the Mormons to go on the rampage and enslave people. Religious patriarchy and all that.

The liberal tin foil hats even have a Council of Elders now, I suppose to combat the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It's hard to say really, especially considering that at least one of the members the new Council (a former American President) once swore he was visited by a UFO.

So, why do "mainstream liberals" (a contradiction in terms if ever there was one) take hold in the public psyche? Because they shout their conspiracy theory loudly. Because MSM'ers believe a conspiracy of powerful religious interests want to take over everyone's lives.

Whether it's Dan Rather, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Whoopi Goldberg, or Barack Obama, they are all various degrees of nuts.

So, what can we conclude?

1) The "main-stream media" is already conspiracy-theory driven.
2) The "main-stream media" is essentially becoming a minority fringe group,
3) It really is appropriate to describe people who follow MSM positions as tin-foil hat groupies.

Why mention all of this?
Well, today, we face another MSM tin-foil hat conspiracy theory.

The MSMer's insist that anyone who questions Barack Obama's eligibility to be President is part of a vast, right-wing (is there any other kind?) racist conspiracy intended to turn America away from its marvelous upward course towards enlightened atheistic secular humanism. MSM'ers are terrified that such questions about Barack Hussein Obama's person will instantly turn the good old US of A back instead towards the Dark Ages of Religious Intolerance (tm).

Uhhh.... yeah.
I'm sure.

Let's try to be rationale, shall we?

My brother-in-law is a cop. If he were to pull me over, he would ask for my driver's license. He expects to get it.

Now, he knows I have a driver's license. But if he knows I have one, why does he ask for it? Indeed, why ask anyone for it? Isn't the fact that someone has a car proof enough that they must have a driver's license? What possible reason would anyone have to give a car to someone without a license?

Someone must have vetted the driver! It would be crazy to let anyone have a car without vetting the driver. There are laws against that sort of thing! So, asking for a driver's license... it's crazy talk, I tell ya'! That cop is a right-wing conspiracy theory NUT! And I can prove it! After all, he actually asked for my driver's license!

Keep in mind that the person behind the wheel almost always does have a license. My brother-in-law still asks because... well... because that's the law. He has to ask for it, I have to produce it.

So, which is more bizarre? To ask a man to release his medical records, his college transcripts, his writings, his birth certificate, if he decides he wants to run for or be sworn in as President? Or to insist that even allowing the human mind to form such questions is the sign of incipient insanity?

Now, the Constitution itself stipulates that you need only be a "citizen" to be a Senator or Representative, but you must be a "natural born citizen" to be president. So, which is more bizarre? To insist that the Law of Nations, the US Constitution, and continuing American legal precedent has already defined the phrase "natural-born citizen" to mean a man who is BOTH born on US soil AND whose parents are BOTH US citizens, or to ignore all of this history and legal precedent and instead insist there is no difference between being a "citizen" and being a "natural-born citizen"?

What is this "natural born citizen" law?

The Constitution’s Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 states that a power of Congress is to “define and punish… offenses against the law of nations.” The Law of Nations has been international law, which as documented by Emmerich de Vatel (1758) states, in Chapter XIX, paragraph 212, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”Vatel follows with paragraph 215, in which he asserts, “It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say ‘of itself,’ for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise.” The chief framer of the related 14th Amendment of the Constitution, John A. Bingham corroborated this dual criteria stating, “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

In the 1st Congress, second session, Chapter 3, the issue of who might be a natural born citizen, as opposed to just a citizen, was again defined:

And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States... (emphasis added) Approved, March 26, 1790.

The Constitutional Framers clearly understood and distinguished the differences between what it means to be a "citizen" and what it means to be a "natural born citizen." Obama's father never applied to become a US citizen. He was always a citizen of Kenya and always owed allegiance to Kenya or Great Britain, when Kenya was a colony of Great Britain.

In Elk v. Wilkins, 83 US 36 (1872) the Supreme Court denied Elk, a Native American, the right to vote as a US citizen even though he was born on US soil, because he was born on an Indian reservation. Elk was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the US, because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe, a vassal or quasi-nation, and not to the United States. The Court held Elk was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth.

Barack Obama's father was British, Barack was a dual citizen at birth.

In Minor v. Happersett (1874), the court pointed out that

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be... had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."

In other words, both parents have to be citizens and the child has to be born on US soil in order to be a "natural born citizen," as distinguished from a regular citizen. Barack's father was not a US citizen.

In Perkins v. ELG, U.S. 325 (1939) the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents naturalized in the United States prior to her birth, had not lost her birthright US citizenship because of her removal during minority to Sweden and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S. citizenship. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree that declared Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States."

Elg was "natural born" because she born of two American parents on American soil. Barack Obama's father was Kenyan. It sure seems unlikely that Barack matches a definition which is so heavily weighted against him.

So, why would anyone insist that it is crazy to ask for simple bona fides to be produced? Why would anyone insist it is crazy to look to previous legal precedent to determine the meaning of a Constitutional phrase? When even the liberal pro-abortion lesbian Camille Paglia sees a birth certificate problem, why is it unreasonable to ask for the problem to be addressed?

People who oppose the "Birther" request and arguments do so on the basis that Birthers are really just a conspiracy of ultra-right wing freaks who mean to overthrow the democratic government of the United States and replace it with a religious oligarchy.

The MSM, a veritable zoo of tin foil hat conspiracists, are terrified by their imaginary conspiracy of religious freaks.

The people who oppose these reasonable requests for information don't have anything to support their opposition. Instead, like the motorist who refuses to produce a license, they simply keep insisting that the cop is nuts to ask for it.

No matter how much evidence is brought forward to show the MSM types that their blind support of Obama's eligibility is based more in religious fervor than in law, the MSM'ers refuse to accept it. There's no way to demonstrate the logic or the law to a tin-foil hat type. Whether it be abortion, sodomy, contraception, history or Obama eligibility, they won't pay attention to the facts.

Instead, they continue to insist that the conspiracy is out there, in the dark, and it will eat them all up if they give even an inch to the request for documentation or concede even one jot or tittle to the legal arguments brought forward.

Nothing can convince these people.
They're just nuts.

The facts, on the other hand, are easy to ascertain.

Barack Obama is an inveterate liar, thief and murderer.

Even now, as National Review testifies, he lies to the American people about what is in his health plan.

He stole General Motors from its own executives.

He actively spoke out in favor of murdering born children on the floor of the Illinois Senate when he opposed the Infant Born Alive Protection Act.

The facts show Barack Hussein Obama cannot be trusted.
Consequently, if he told me the sky was blue, I would look up to check.

Now, we must concede that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. It is always (barely) possible that the tin foil hat MSM'ers are right about the birth certificate or the law. Perhaps Barack is, indeed, eligible to be POTUS.

But, the law has so far demonstrated Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen within the meaning of the Constitution.

Barack Obama's birth certificate has not been produced, nor has his college records, his medical records or, in fact, any other record concerning his past. To a degree unmatched in presidential politics, Barack Obama is a cipher, his history known only through his own two autobiographies.

The only thing we know about him is what he told us.
Comforting, eh?

As soon as Barack Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate is released to the general public, I'll stop supporting the request to see the birth certificate.

As soon as the Supreme Court rules on the meaning of "natural born citizen," I'll stop questioning his eligibility to be President due to his father's, and his own, British-Kenyan citizenship at birth.

But until these questions get resolved, I refuse to back down from a bunch of MSM tin-foil hats conspiracy nuts, even if they are the anchors of major television news programs, even if they do claim to be expert political commentators, even if they are elected officials.

Sorry Dan, Hillary, Joe.

There just isn't much evidence any of you are sane.

The End of the Obama Presidency

In just six short months, Barack Obama's effective presidency is drawing to a close.

The stimulus package he insisted would save the economy instead produced unemployment rates much higher than even his worst forecasts.

The health care package that HAD to pass if the nation was going to survive has been delayed until the fall. Given how quickly the tide of public opinion has turned against it as the details become clear, it will arguably never see the light of day.

The questions about his legitimacy are finally hitting the main-stream media (MSM), even if only to be ridiculed. There are now more news stories running about Obama's Constitutional eligibility than there were at any time during his candidacy.

But the real end of his presidency came when he asserted, without bothering to learn all the facts, that the Cambridge police "acted stupidly" in arresting a screaming man in his own front yard. Normally, arrests of individuals who appear publicly deranged attract little notice, but this particular candidate for psychiatric examination happened to be a black Harvard professor.

Now, being an Ivy League professor does not make one immune from suffering psychological problems, as any number of examples demonstrate, but since Henry Louis Gates Jr. had the good fortune to be a Friend of Barack, the President put the highest office in the land in the service of his own friends by publicly accusing the Cambridge police of racism.

Normally, anyone accused of racism rolls over and apologizes. But this time, the black police chief of Cambridge is championing the actions of his white officer. The wonderful irony of the situation is lost on the MSM: in Cambridge, the races have come together to oppose two common, obnoxious and ignorant foes: a Harvard professor and the President of the United States.

The Cambridge police are now demanding an apology from the President of the United States.

And herein lies the rub.
What is POTUS to do?

He can't apologize to a lowly municipal police department. If he does, he will have admitted to having mis-used his office. The Great Orator will have lost his voice.

Worse, every dictator in the world is watching. If POTUS can be forced to back down by a beat cop and his boss, what could Hugo Chavez and his oil, Iran and its budding nuclear weapons, or China and its growing navy be able to make him do? Barack Obama will be publicly unmasked as a pushover who can be rolled for loose change any time you need a cup of coffee.

On the other hand, if he DOESN'T apologize, he will clearly torpedo the support of a significant number of the people who put him in office. Even now, his popularity is rapidly tanking below 50% among likely voters. Given his inability to back down from his flawed economic plans or apologize for his ludicrous remarks, this number isn't going to go higher anytime soon.

And here's the danger.

If Barack Hussein Obama is truly suffering from narcissistic personality disorder, as has been alleged, we are entering a most dangerous period.

Narcissists are least problematic when they receive the adulation and support they believe they richly deserve. They become the most dangerous as this adulation and support evaporates. When this support evaporates, when the population "turns" on a lunatic, he will lash out at them, he will punish them for daring to disrespect him, he will punish them because they failed to give him his proper due.

Hitler famously tried to burn Paris, he famously advocated a scorched earth retreat policy, and he famously succeeded in destroying Berlin. Why such massive destruction? Because he intended to punish his supporters for having grown cold in their support of him. It's only reasonable. After all, why else would a man of his stature lose, except his old supporters refused to recognize the reality of his greatness? He had to punish them, force them to face the truth of his greatness. If he punished them enough, they would realize their error, return to him, and he would lead them to victory. Paris had to burn. It was the only way to win.

To accomplish this massive destruction, he demanded unswerving loyalty and fanatical action from the dwindling numbers in the Tinfoil Hat Brigades who still followed their Beloved Leader.

If Barack is really on the borderline between sanity and chaos, the events of the next few months may well tip him over the line. Before his support completely collapses, he will be forced to order his dwindling faithful to act in increasingly illegal and violent ways. It will be the only way to prevent the total destruction of his illusory world.

Do you think it won't happen?
There is recent precedent.

At the order of Congress and in accord with its Constitution, Honduras recently used its military forces to oust a sitting president for precisely this breach. Barack Obama, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, the three most narcissistic leaders of the Western Hemisphere, strenuously objected to the ouster. If it is allowed to stand, they know what it portends.

As he watches his healthcare initiative go down in flames, he has begun calling names: doctors are now thieving liars, cops are stupid. Anyone who opposes him has a serious defect. This is not how a sane man talks.

So, could the United States find itself facing a similar situation?

Why not?

Bizarre Virtue

A lot of secular political types in Washington claim to be bemused by Sarah Palin's resignation. Perhaps they really are bemused by it. But Christians understand what she is doing.

Every believing Christian is concerned about offending against the Ten Commandments. We are not supposed to steal or to lie. Sarah Palin is aware of this.

One of the numerous complaints made about Barack Obama was precisely that he was a thief. Although elected as the junior senator from Illinois, Obama famously failed to show up for work most days of the week. Instead of doing his job, he went travelling around the country on the taxpayer's dime, triple-dipping his salary, his book sales and his election fundraising.

And he had it easy. After all, he was based out of the heartland. Sarah Palin is not. Just flying from Alaska to New York can take ten to fifteen hours - a whole day of travel.

If she wanted to take her place on the national stage, as she deserves to, she would be spending literally days in travel time down and back. Literal weeks could easily pass in which she was not in the governor's mansion in Alaska.

That's not only inefficient use of time, it's stealing.

People inside the Beltway have stolen from the taxpayer for so long that Palin's resignation looks like stupidity to them. Why not keep gathering taxpayer money while drumming up more for your own purposes elsewhere? What's the problem with this woman?

Just as none of the Democrats could understand why she didn't kill that little Trig baby when she had the chance, they can't understand why she doesn't steal paychecks now that she has the chance.

From the perspective of Democrats, Sarah Palin is bizarre, twisted, unstable, untrustworthy.
From the perspective of decent people, she's honest, smart, and trying hard not to sin.

That's the thing about Sarah Palin and her liberal opponents.
Sarah just isn't their type.

Nixon and Obama: Blood Brothers

Alright, I don't get it.

Nixon is getting razzed because he said he was fine with abortion in cases where a white woman would otherwise be punished with a black child.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, was praised for saying that he didn't want his own black daughters to be punished with his (presumably) black grandchild.

And the difference is....????

Nixon was, once more, ahead of his time, channeling the One-der of the World.

See?

Big Tent Republicans and Democrats really CAN get along.
Richard Nixon was America's first Black President!

Talking With An Obama Supporter

Barack Obama at Notre Dame: " ... [on abortion] I didn't change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website... that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.... [because we know] the views of the two camps are irreconcilable."

I sent the advertisements for my book, Debunking Obama's First 100 Days, to several thousand people a few days ago.

This was one response:

ObamaCatholic: Get a life!

Me: Feeling a little guilty, are we?

ObamaCatholic: No. Just tired of slander and gossip. Both are sinful behavior.

Me: Indeed. That's why everything about that bastard (and he is, you know - his mother wasn't married when she conceived him), is documented in the book.

ObamaCatholic: Wow! You leave me breathless. You have a great day!

Me: I'll have a great day the minute he leaves office. Until then, we all just pray for deliverance from evil.

ObamaCatholic: And I'll have a great day the minute you take me off your email list! Please do not reply. Thank you.

Me: I will make sure that I don't.

ObamaCatholic: You just did.

Me: Oh my heavens! But you Obama supporters are always interested in dialogue, right? So, being open-minded and willing to seek common ground, as you are, that isn't a problem.

As The One stated in his Notre Dame address, sure, our positions are irreconcilable - you think he's cool, I think he's a lying bastard - but that shouldn't prevent us from dialoguing and seeking common ground.

How about we agree that he's a really cool, lying bastard?
See?
I'm trying to be like you and engage in dialogue.
Except you didn't want dialogue.
Hmmm....

Contemplating it later, I reflected that, perhaps this could be another point for our dialogue? Our positions are irreconcilable - you don't want dialogue, I do - but we should seek common ground. How about I keep talking and you just shut up and listen?

Man!
No wonder it's so much fun being an ObamaCatholic!
I feel a pull to the Dark Side...

The Wedge

George Weigel is now insisting that Obama's speech is intended to separate Catholics from their bishops, driving a wedge between them. Weigel's concept is so popular, it has even hit the secular blogs. There's only one problem.

George Weigel is wrong.

Obama is not driving a wedge between Catholics and their bishops, rather, he's taking advantage of a pre-existing wedge between Catholics and their bishops, a wedge the bishops themselves created. Much as it pains me to agree with anyone from America magazine, Fr. Reese hit the nail on the head: no one is listening to the Catholic bishops, and they haven't been listening for a very long time.

But, Reese is also wrong - the bishops didn't lose their credibility during the sex abuse crisis. They lost it long before that crisis began. Indeed, part of the reason the bishops covered over the sex abuse crisis is precisely because most Catholics paid no attention to them as it was, and they couldn't afford to look like even greater idiots than they already had done.

As Joseph Bottum pointed out in his First Things article last week, the bishops stopped leading over 40 years ago. Today, as in the time of the Arian heresy, the faithful lead and the bishops follow as best they can. I go into much greater detail (if only because I have more space to explain it), in my book Designed to Fail: Catholic Education in America, but here's the thumbnail of the problem: when chemical contraception became possible, the American bishops became docile. They agreed to Lyndon Baines Johnson's suggestion that they shut the hell up on contraception in exchange for him conducting a war on poverty. So, while they were allowed to be in opposition to abortion, they would not speak a public word against the root cause of abortion, contraception. As I pointed out in 2004, they have kept that promise for over forty years, and still adhere to it today.

In fact, they liked LBJ's deal so much, many of them are still in the political tank. Out of over 200 bishops in the United States, less than 80 publicly made statements that were clearly in opposition to Obama's election. A different group of less than 80 bishops publicly made statements that were clearly in opposition to his speaking at Notre Dame. As CultureWarNotes.com points out, at least one bishop publicly came out in favor of Obama's Notre Dame speech.

Weigel could just as easily have argued that Obama is trying to drive a wedge between two groups of Catholic bishops, and he would have been just as right (or, in this case, just as wrong).

In fact, there is already a divide in this country, and it is due precisely to the American bishops themselves. The American Catholic bishops caved back in 1968. They stopped teaching the Faith in order to satisfy American politicians. When they stopped teaching Catholic doctrine in exchange for political favors, Catholics stopped listening to them.

Today, nobody really cares what America's Catholic bishops think. After all, how many Catholics in your parish have read any doctrinal encyclical from their own bishop within the last five years, apart from perhaps an instruction on how to avoid the swine flu? How many even know that their bishops produce doctrinal encyclicals?

And of those few faithful who have read those encyclicals, the writing generally hasn't improved their view of the bishops. What orthodox Catholic was not entirely ashamed of the USCCB's Always Our Children instruction on how to affirm homosexual identity? What of the frankly diosbedient attitude displayed in their instructions concerning Holy Thursday's liturgy? Or the most recent embarrassment, their attempt to instruct married couples in how to put spice back into their marriage? I literally know only a half-dozen people who have even visited the USCCB-sponsored website on marriage. Of those who have, everyone has been embarrassed by the juvenile attitude of some aspect of it.

The "Obama at Notre Dame" event will not drive a wedge between Catholics and their bishops, because the separations are already there, but it does highlight the problem bishops have in communicating with their flock. For instance, at least one Catholic friend of mine is of the opinion that some of the bishops who spoke against Obama at Notre Dame weren't really opposed, they were just jumping on the bandwagon because (a) they knew it would make no difference anyway - Obama and Jenkins would do what they wanted, and (b) it made them look good to the orthodox crowd in the diocese, the only ones who actually feel an obligation to pay any attention to the bishop. A bishop using this cynical ploy could then continue to allow abuses of the liturgy or silence on points of Catholic doctrine, while gaining points for orthodoxy in reference to Barack Obama's murderous attitude and legacy.

Is this really what is happening in certain dioceses?
I don't know.
But I will bet my whole bank account that if it is, you'll never hear George Weigel say it.

Update: A reader pointed out a very salient fact -
"I think the bishops' failure to teach goes a little further back that 1968. Try 1945. On March 10th of that year the 20th US Army Airforce attacked Tokyo with three hundred B-29's. The incendiaries they dropped started a fire storm that killed 100,000 people in six hours, the greatest loss of life in that time span in all of recorded history. Owing to the fact that all men of anything like military age were away, the victims were mostly women, children and the aged. The general who ordered the attack, Curtis E. Lemay admitted later that if Japan had won the war he would have been tried and executed as a war criminal. His candor was not reflected by a single American bishop. Granted, many historical elements contributed to this silence. Still, it's nothing to brag about."

I agree with the addendum. As I point out in the book, Catholic bishops in this country have had a long history of political collusion with the American (as opposed to the Catholic) concepts of various aspects of life, including ideas on how to handle:

• slavery (American bishops were silent while the Vatican opposed it),
• just war (see above),
• voting issues (American bishops emphasized individual conscience instead of informing yourself on Catholic teaching),
• contraception and abortion (see above and the book).

Not With a Whimper, But a Bang

As many commentators have noticed, Barack Hussein Obama is inflicting change upon the United States faster and harder than any previous president. We have seen alliances that were built up over decades being systematically attacked over the space of days, terrorists have become respected diplomats, economics has been turned on its head.

Today, we discover that Barack Obama has never called himself a constitutional law professor, that the members of the previous administration might be indicted for having prevented attacks on the United States, that terrorists aren't really terrorists no matter what the evidence says, and that anyone who accepts the Constitution at face value is a right-wing extremist/militiaman/terrorist.

Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.

I have argued over and over and over again that Barack Hussein Obama is implementing the same agenda used by his predecessors, men like Lenin, Stalin and Hitler. Revolutions work by changing the situation faster than anyone can follow. By the time you step back to take a breath, you're in a different world and there's nothing you can do about it. Rapid change instills learned helplessness in the people upon whom it is inflicted.


How quickly can massive change be implemented?French Revolution: Seven Years
1786 - Kingdom declared insolvent, new taxes proposed,
1789 - First Estates General since 1614, Declaration of Rights of Man
1790 - Monastic orders and vows suppressed, priests take oath of loyalty to the state, nobility abolished,
1791 - Constitution forced on the king,
1792 - King arrested
1793 - King and his wife were executed, Reign of Terror begins.

Bonaparte's Coup: Six Years
1793 - Drives British out during the siege of Toulon.
1795 - Successfully defends the Tuileries Palace against royalists.
1796 - Committee of Public Safety appoints him commander of the Army of Italy,
1797 - He forces Austria into peace negotiations,
1798 - Invades Egypt, Syria, Galilee,
1799 - Massacres prisoners, women and children of Jaffa, poisons his own ill soldiers to speed his retreat from Acre, returns to France, where he is ruler by the end of the year. He immediately launches pan-European war, makes alliance with the Muslims, and conquers most of Europe.

Russian Revolution (Lenin): Four Years
1914 - General strikes in St. Petersburg, WW I begins
1915 - The Great Retreat of the Russian army
1916 - Massive inflation and lack of goods, social upheaval
1917 - Massive strikes, Lenin returns to Russia and takes power, all ranks and titles are abolished,
1918 - Declaration of the Rights of People issued, the Tsar and his family are executed, secret police terror begins.

Russian Revolution (Stalin): Five Years
In his youth Stalin was a "Poet of Hope."
1924 - Lenin dies, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Stalin team against Trotsky,
1925 - Stalin has Kamenev demoted to a non-voting member of the Politburo,
1927 - Zinoviev is purged from the Central Committee,
1928 - Trotsky is exiled,
1929 - Stalin has supreme power, collectivisation introduced, 300,000 families deported. He will kill an additional 6 million in the next three years. By 1936, Stalin had executed all of his rivals after various show trials.
 
Nazi Revolution: Three to Ten Years
1923 - Beer Hall Putsch as Nazis attempt to overthrow government, height of German hyperinflation,
1924 - Hitler released from prison
1925 - Hitler builds up party and reorganizes SA, the terrorist brownshirts
1927 - 1st Nazi meeting in Berlin
1928 - Nazis receive less than 3% of the vote,
1929 - Rapid increase in unemployment
1930 - Weimar Republic falls, Nazis get 18.3% of the vote,
1931 - Hitler becomes a German citizen and runs for president
1932 - Beginning of economic recovery, Nazi party receives 37% of the vote, with Protestants in favor, Catholics opposed, 30% of workforce unemployed,
1933 - Hindenburg gives Hitler office of Chancellor; Dachau, Sachsenhausen, Buchenwald and Flossenberg along with lesser camps, are built. Over the next 10 years, there will be over 1000 camps.

Cuban Revolution: Three to Six Years
1952 - Batista takes power in Cuba
1953 - Fidel Castro leads assault on Moncada barracks,
1954 - Batista dissolves Parliament,
1955 - Fidel Castro is released from prison, meets the accomplished murderer Che Guevera in Mexico City,
1956 - Castro lands in Cuba
1957 - Attack on the Cuban Presidential Palace
1958 - Open war between Castro and Batista
1959 - Batista flees Cuba, Castro becomes Premier of Cuba, opposition newspapers shut down, KGB and Stasi train Cuban officials in secret police methods.


Everything can change in the space of just a few years, if the horse is whipped mercilessly enough. The one taking power needs a scapegoat. Lenin had the Tsar. Stalin had Trotsky and the kulaks. Hitler had the Jews. Cuba had the Americans. Barack Obama has George Bush and capitalism.

Why put the nation into trillions of dollars of debt? It makes sense if you want to break the piggy bank and fundamentally change the society. For Lenin and Hitler, the bank had already been broken when they got there. Stalin and Castro deliberately destroyed the economy in order to accomplish what they wanted. If Barack pushes a weak economy as hard as he can, it may well fail and allow him to really get to work.

Why release memos on waterboarding while redacting the information on the lives saved? This makes sense from a short-term political perspective. But it also makes sense if you want to discredit capitalism and its associated government so as to engender in people a desire for a different form of government.

Things are changing fast.
In four years, we will be living in a different country.

UPDATE:
Well, this essay was originally written about Obama, but Trump is doing the job just about as well. He's ratcheted the government debt to new and dizzying heights, with nary a whimper of concern from any of the usual suspects. Stir in Wuhan virus, and watch what bubbles out.

Jenkins, Fool for Obama

Some people didn't like the fact that I'm making fun of the Notre Dame situation.
This is my response.

XXXX, I understand your outrage, but consider the reality.

Fr. Jenkins invited Obama in order to hook up with power and prestige.

If he rescinds the invitation now...
not only will he humiliate himself,
not only will he humiliate Barack Obama,
but he will guarantee he never gets another powerful person speaking at his commencements again.

No one will risk the humiliating possibility of having THEIR invitation rescinded as well.

As for Barack, the man has no reason to gracefully cancel.
He's got the Catholic Church right where he wants it.
Even if Fr. Jenkins quietly asked Obama to back out, Obama is not going to do it.

If Jenkins doesn't rescind the invitation, Obama wins because he has publicly put ND in his corner.

If Jenkins rescinds, then Obama can paint Catholics as narrow-minded fools, and he wins again, because most adult Catholics will reject the title and hew all that more closely to Obama just to PROVE that they are not one of those reactionary, rigid orthodox Catholics.

The only way Jenkins is going to rescind that invitation is to have his direct superior
require him to do it under pain of obedience.

His superior doesn't have the guts.

Obama is going to speak and that can't be stopped.

So all that is left is to make Jenkins look like a fool.
That's why I posted today's "news story."

Hnoorary Doctorate in History

In a surprise move intended to placate Catholics on the far right, the University of Notre Dame has decided to award an honorary doctorate in history to the Right Reverend Bishop Williamson, of the Society of St. Pius X.

Bishop Williamson's award comes as a result of Fr. Jenkins hope to expand and invigorate on-campus dialogue with various groups that do not necessarily view the world through the same lenses the Vatican uses.

Unfortunately, many orthodox Catholics are now up in arms about this second invitation, but Fr. Jenkins, head of UD, refused to be dissuaded.

"We have invited the bishop and he's honored us by accepting," he said

The SSPX and the University announced today the president will speak at the May 17 Commencement ceremony, to take place in the Joyce Center. The Notre Dame appearance will be Bishop Williamson's first commencement address since he remarked publicly that he didn't think all that many Jews had actually been gassed.

Jenkins made it clear in an interview with The Observer Sunday the University does not "foresee circumstances" that would cause Notre Dame to rescind the invitation.

"Bishops with all sorts of views have come to Notre Dame for decades to speak to graduates about our nation and our world. They've given important addresses on international affairs, human rights, service, and we're delighted that Bishop Williamson is continuing that tradition," Jenkins said.

Some members of the Notre Dame community, and the larger national Catholic community have negatively responded to the announcement, launching new campaigns to stop the bishop from visiting the University because of his stances on issues regarding the destruction of the Jews.

Jenkins made clear the University is not honoring the president for his stances on these issues, but for his leadership.

"The invitation of Bishop Williamson to share a podium with President Obama as a Commencement speaker should in no way be taken as condoning or endorsing the positions of either one on specific issues regarding the protection of life, Jewish or Gentile," Jenkins said.

These "crucial differences" in positions on the protection of life are not being ignored in extending the invitation to the president, Jenkins said, but rather can be used as a catalyst for dialogue. "There isn't really any difference between their positions," said Jenkins, "The opportunity for continuing dialogue cannot be overlooked."

Obama the Apostate

We already have the spectacle of numerous Muslims claiming that Barack Hussein Obama is, in fact, the first Muslim president. It's easy to argue that he isn't, but it's odd that Muslims don't seem willing to recognize this.

The more interesting problem is how he is dealing with charities.

In 361 AD, Julian the Apostate became emperor of Rome. He was called the Apostate because, while raised as a Christian, his hatred for all things Christian was apparent upon his ascension to the purple. He immediately removed all tax breaks and government subsidies which the Church had been given by Constantine, demanded full repayment of all moneys that had been donated, and instituted a system of government sponsored-charity that was intended to pull people away from the Catholic Church.

Julian understood that one major appeal Christians had towards pagans was precisely their charity. They would take care of anyone, anytime. If he wanted to break the back of the Catholic Church, he knew he would have to compete against that same Church's charity, and prove his own pagan government was superior to Christian love. His plan failed primarily because he was killed on the battlefield just two years after he gained the throne. There was not enough time to make any of his changes stick.

It is already established that Julian's plan does, indeed, work.
The larger the welfare state, the lower the religious sentiments of the public.

The best way to destroy American Christianity is to turn America into a welfare state.
It is interesting to see that Obama's tax plans are designed precisely to harm existing private welfare efforts, while expanding welfare government.

Julian the Apostate, please call your office.
The President is on the line.

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.

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.

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.