Bishop Wagner Update

It seems the New Investiture Controversy is going to get settled.

With extreme prejudice.

The Bishop of Linz has been summoned to Rome to explain himself.
Word is, Pope Benedict is handling the matter personally.

Here's the burning question: will the bishop have to cut his own wood switch, or will Benedict have a drilled paddle waiting for him?

Hot times in the old town tonight!

UPDATE:
Catholic Culture reports that Rome has folded.
Bishop-Elect Wagner's resignation has been accepted.
This is a sad time for the Church...

New Use for the New York Times

Will wonders never cease?

Many people have eschewed subscribing to the New York Times because they can't stand the liberal bias.

In an effort to prop up its sales, the New York Times delicately hints that there are excellent reasons to continue to subscribe to its print edition.

In short, it replaces the Sears Catalogue.

Flying the Byrd

Democrat Senator Robert Byrd has begun to criticize Barack Obama because he sees Obama making a naked grab for power.

When even his own party begins to voice concerns, there is reason to be interested.

I've said several times and in several ways that Barack Obama is the most dangerous man American Catholics have ever had to face.

For his own reasons, Senator Byrd apparently does not entirely disagree.

Calling a Chimp a Chimp

I don't understand this one.

I thought Harry Reid and Senator Pelosi wrote the stimulus bill?
The only part that Barack Obama wrote was his signature in the "Sign Here (X)" box.

So, how is shooting a chimp and saying we'll need to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill a racist statement against Barack Obama?

Can we no longer tell the joke about a thousand chimps on a thousand typewriters?

The Democrats really ARE jackasses.

The New Investiture Controversy

A few days ago, a lowly priest in Austria was named bishop-elect. The Austrian bishops' conference almost immediately went berserk, holding a special meeting to question his appointment.

Why?

Well, (pace Mark Shea), Bishop-Elect Wagner is of the opinion that sin has consequences.

Specifically, he said that Hurricane Katrina was divine punishment for the homosexual sex clubs and the abortion clinics that were scattered throughout New Orleans. He had the unmitigated audacity to point out that every one of those clubs and clinics were destroyed by that same hurricane.

Worse, the man actually forbad altar girls. He called Harry Potter books "satanic".
It's CRAZY talk, I tell ya'...

For these sins, and for many more, the Holy See has seen fit to elevate this man to the bishopric!

Cardinal Shoenborn defended him, but that wasn't good enough.
The Austrian bishops kept screaming.

The poor man, being crucified by his soon-to-be fellow bishops, tendered his resignation to Rome.

But Rome is not so easily swayed.

In the earliest years of the Church, the community of Christians often made known who they would like for their next bishop by popular acclamation, and Rome often recognized the worth of their recommendations, elevating the person to the bishopric. That's how St. Ambrose, a catechumen at the time of his appointment, got baptized, confirmed, received first Eucharist, then was ordained deacon, priest and bishop all in the space of a couple of days.

Everyone knew he was holy.

But as time went on and Christian communities became less intimate, less knowledgeable about their own members, this practice faded away.

For a time, kings and princes, heads of state, recommended bishops for various sees within their kingdoms. For her own reasons, Rome often chose to recognize and elevate these men. Numerous bishops, including more than one bishop of Rome, was elected, or not elected, due to the influence of the head of a secular state. Indeed, the last state to exercise this kind of influence was Austria, in 1903, blocked the almost certain election of Cardinal Rampolla. In response, Cardinal Sarto, the man elected Pope in his place, became Pius X and stripped that veto power away.

That was the last gasp of what was known as the Investiture Controversy - who is permitted to decide which man may be invested with the office of bishop?

Now, the Austrian bishops seem intent on reviving the Investiture Controversy, intent on forcing Rome to bow to the desires of local bishops' conferences.

Who has the power to appoint?
Rome?
Or a bunch of none-too-orthodox bishops?

Combine this controversy with a second: what will be done to Nancy Pelosi, now that she is twice confirmed a heretic, by her own bishop and by the Bishop of Rome?

And a third: a cardinal who deliberately offers disrespect to the head of the Apostolic Signatura, the pope's own, his hand-picked canon lawyer?

Rome is under siege.
Or, rather, the gates of hell are under siege, and open battle has been joined.

I know which way I'm betting.

What's the Game Plan?

Senator Diane Feinstein just gave away the location of the Predator strikes upon Pakistani terrorists, letting the world know that the Pakistani government is permitting those raids from a base within the country's own borders.

This information was never leaked in such a brazenly public manner during the Bush administration, but it happens within the first month of Barrack Hussein Obama's administration.

Sure, it could have been a slip of the tongue.
But it's remarkable that such slips never happened prior to this.

It seems much more likely that Feinstein intentionally released the information in order to humiliate and destabilize the Pakistani government or some similar reason.

Obama has publicly courted the Muslims.
He has already deliberately snubbed the British.

He seems to be trying to completely alter the alignment of the United States towards the Muslims and away from our traditional allies.

This is a dangerous and deadly game.
Even assuming Barack Hussein Obama's government is so disorganized that this impression is merely based on coincidence and not plan (if true, it is a staggering statement about his incompetence), this cannot continue.

UPDATE:
Finally, someone who understands Obama...

Update II:
Within hours of Feinstein's remarks, Pakistan enshrined sharia law in its own northern provinces, in order to make the Taliban happy. Coincidence?

Update III:
The latest on how Obama is selling out Israel

Update IV:
The Israelis are publicly saying that Obama's rhetoric contributes to Iran's nuclear power.

Open For Business

Since 1991, I have been pointing out that legal abortion eventually requires legal murder of the elderly, the infirm, the "useless eaters" of society.

With the package of the stimulus bill, the death camps have now been opened.
Now, according to the law, when we become a burden on the state, we have a duty to die.
Any doctor that refuses to kill off such a patient will be brutally penalized.

Catholics can no longer be health care workers.

Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, all the great murderers of history, now stand in awe of the coming deluge: Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrats have your medical files (or soon will) and they'll see to it that you die.

We have sown the wind, now we will reap the whirlwind.

Explaining Liberals

As most talk radio listeners now know, the only liberal talk radio station in Washington DC, Obama 1260, is folding its liberal talk format. Why? Because the listening audience was "undetectable."

This was in WASHINGTON D.C.
You know, the city that voted 93% in favor of Barack Obama.
It's the most liberal population in the nation, in a town run by the largest Democrat contingent in the nation's history, and it can't keep it's own liberal talk radio show alive because no one will listen to it.

Why does liberal talk radio always fail?
Simple.
Liberals are too arrogant to listen to anyone's opinion but their own.
You can't tell a liberal anything.

Talk radio only works when the people on both sides of the microphone are actually willing to listen to one another. You have to have an open mind to be a conservative. You have to be an immature, close-minded bigot to be a liberal. Liberals aren't interested in conversations, they are interested in being able to say, "I won. So we'll do it my way."

But why do liberals hate business?
Because they're no damned good at it.

In order to be good at business, you have to listen to the customer, change your business to match the customer's desires. Liberals aren't about matching desires, they're about imposing worldviews.

Furthermore, liberals are racist and they are anti-Semites.

They hate blacks. Democrats invented the KKK, Jim Crow, segregation, lynching and did their best to stop integration. What other party has had a Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in the Congress?

They also hate Jews. They supported Yassir Arafat, they support Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palistinians, and any other Jew-hater they can find. FDR turned tens of thousands of Jews away from American shores before and during WWII because he didn't want them in this country.

Since a lot of very successful businesses are run by Jews, this also gives liberal Democrats yet another reason to hate businesses.

Why are so many Jews liberals?
Because Jews have enormous respect for learning and for learned people.
Now, liberal Democrats are actually close-minded, relatively stupid people, but anti-Semitic, racist liberal Democrats have had enormous control over the universities of this country since at least the early 1900's. Thus, liberal Democrats have the appearance of being learned.

Consequently, their opinions have garnered the support of the Jewish population even when their opinion was actively hurtful to that same Jewish population.

And now the country is run by these anti-Semitic racists.
Sigh...

Why Were Children Killed?

Question: Last night I watched the story of David. My heart was concerned and upset that during the story line, God, through the prophet Samuel told Saul to kill the Amelikites, children, women and men. Why? Especially children.

Answer: It may help to read Exodus 17 in addition to 1 Samuel 15.

In Ex 17:8-15, the Amelkites waged war on Moses and the Chosen People while they were in the desert.

Pay very close attention to how the Chosen People win the battle.
Moses stood at the top of a hill - whenever his arms were raised (think of Jesus with his hands outstretched on the cross), things went well for the Israelites.
When his hands lowered (he stopped imitating the crucified Christ), things went badly.

Ultimately, Moses sat down on a rock and had a man on each side to hold up his arms.

Now, read the Exodus passage again, using typology.

Sin (the Amelkites) wages war on the members of the Church (the Chosen People).
Through the intervention of the crucified Christ (Moses with arms outstretched, a man on each side, as Christ had a man crucified on each side of him), and the Church/Peter (the rock upon which Moses sat), sin is conquered.
God then promises to wipe out all memory of sin (the Amelkites).
For this reason, Christ made a sacrifice of Himself (Moses built an altar).

So, in 1 Sam 15, the wiping out of the Amelkites by the King of the Chosen People, Saul, is like unto the wiping out of the Egyptian army by the flood of the Red Sea. The latter destruction has always been seen as a prefigurement of baptism.

In both cases, God is trying to tell us how He will destroy sin and restore mankind.
With the Egyptians, He shows that He does this through baptism.
Here, He shows that it is accomplished through His Kingship, and our willingness to become like the crucified Christ.

Keep in mind that the deaths of the Amelkites does not mean that any of THEM necessarily go to hell.
Loss of the body is not so serious as loss of the soul.
But the wiping out of these people is a foreshadowing of the wiping out of sin, the conquering of the devil and his minions.

As Paul said in Corinthians, "these things were written down for our instruction, upon whom the end of the ages has come."

Is Eight Enough?

Several people have asked me to comment on the octuplets situation.

How is a Catholic to react to the news that a single mother has 14 children by in vitro fertilization, is on welfare and must be supported by the US taxpayer?

That's easy.
Take the issues one at a time.

A) Single motherhood.
Single motherhood is a sin if entered into with consent (rape is, of course, a different situation). She had no business being a single mother, which is an offense against the children on several levels.

First, it increases their physical danger. As Ann Coulter has definitively documented, single motherhood is the single best predictor of substance abuse, low school achievement and probability of imprisonment among the children they failed to raise.

Second, and worse, it is a sin against the children, who deserved to be conceived in the normal way by two parents who are bound by promises of life-long service to each other.

B) Through IVF
IVF is an even greater sin against the children than single motherhood.
Not only is IVF associated with a much higher risk of fetal deformity and later physical disability, it is also a sin against the child conceived in this way. A child has a right to be embraced within his mother's body from the first moment of existence, she should not be treated like an implantable ice cube simply because the mother finds this the most convenient way to conceive her.

C) 14 Children
praise God for big families! There's nothing wrong with having fourteen children. Indeed, in this day and age, it might be considered an heroic virtue. Saint Catherine of Sienna was the 23rd child in her family - large families can produce wonderful vocations. But that's assuming that the woman's motivations are relatively pure.

The fact that she was advised to abort several of the children and steadfastly refused to do so demonstrates that she has her head on straight to at least some degree. The fact that she used IVF as a single mother demonstrates that she does not have her head on straight. So good Catholics can come down on either side on this part.

D) On welfare
Society has a duty to protect the weak. The woman has a right to sustenance to care for her children. Indeed, to the extent that I have resources and refuse to share them with someone in need, I have stolen from the poor. St. John Chrysostom has several homilies that revolve around this theme: if you have six pairs of shoes in your closet and regularly use only one or two pairs, the other four pairs are stolen from the poor.

It is not a sin to be poor. It is not a sin to receive charity.

Furthermore, if the United States government can give subsidies to farmers to grow rice, wheat and mohair, then certainly the government can subsidize or otherwise financially assist parents raising the nation's children. It's not at all clear to me how paying to feeding a child's mind through public school is any different from feeding a child's belly through welfare, food stamps, WIC, and the like. Public schools are just as much welfare as giving them Wheaties is.

E) Supported by the US Taxpayer
On the other hand, it is a sin to extort money out of someone. We should be given the opportunity to be charitable, not be forced into it. By forcing the taxpayer to contribute money, the principle of subsidiarity is violated. Subsidiarity dictates that a higher authority should not interfere in the operation of a lower authority. The federal and state governments have no right to take money from the taxpayer in order to fund this.

Welfare should come from the grace-endowed goodness of individual taxpayers who choose to assist others. The right to private property must be respected. The government has every right to strenuously entreat people to help their fellow poor citizens, but I don't see where it has the right to extort money for the poor from them.

Certain people are always on about how you shouldn't give a man a fish, you should teach him to fish. Well and good. So don't take a man's money, give a man a chance to learn to give money on his own. Shame him into it, if you like, but don't take it from him. It's his resource, given to him by God, and he's responsible for it. If a government functionary takes it, then that functionary becomes morally responsible if it gets wasted. Who wants to be in THAT position?

George Orwell's Boy

Now here's a thought...

I've long argued that Barack Obama has no particular reason to improve the economy. FDR managed to maintain a four-term presidency with unemployment rates that never dropped below 15% largely through a combination of slick talk and immense amounts of pork poured into Democrat districts.

People quickly discovered that handouts only went to registered Democrats, so FDR bought them, lock, stock and barrel.

When things started looking dicey, he made sure we got involved in a war in Europe, knowing that Americans have never changed horses in mid-stream. No matter how good or bad a presidency, if America is in the middle of a serious war, the president typically doesn't get voted out of office. Many cynics argued that the Bush invasions were built on this principle.

So, what if Obama is actually interested in having a full-blown war between Muslims and the United States? What if he intends to weaken the United States because it will bear him political fruit down the road?

After all, it's the basic reason that Britain has welcomed and coddled violent Islam: Muslims are cheap votes for the ruling party. It's the basic reason that illegal immigration has been encouraged in the United States: Republicans like the cheap labor, Democrats like the cheap votes.

So, if Barack sees an advantage to being president during a war, what's to stop him from fomenting a long, long war with, say, EastAsia, excuse me, I mean, Islam?

George Orwell, call your office...

I'm a Prophet

Back in the days immediately before of the first Gulf War, a pundit prophecied that the US was going to invade Iraq. His argument? The number of aircraft carriers in the vicinity.

One carrier is showing the flag.
Two carriers is a strong warning.
Three carriers is an invasion.

We had five carriers in the area.
The conclusion was straightforward.
Within three months, his prediction had been vindicated.

Back when Barack Obama was still battling Hillary Clinton for the nomination, I predicted Barack would win, and I pointed out that he was a much more dangerous person than Hillary. I lived in Illinois when he was a state legislator and I saw how he ran his US Senate race. At that time, anyone who observed his style for more than twenty minutes could see that he was a vicious, lying snake, a glib, poisonous serpent, an evil man who used other people like blocks of wood, blocks he willingly stepped on in order to advance his career. In short, he was one of the finest Chicago politicians Mayor Daley's machine ever produced.

Since then, I have been sounding the alarm about what his socialism means for the weakest among us. As recently as January 21, I pointed out that, if he was really serious, then killing old people was an economic necessity. Indeed, I have been predicting nationalized euthanasia was coming since at least 1991.

Now we find out that the stimulus package will nationalize health care, changing the standard of care from "safe and effective" to "cost-effective."

I'd say there were three carriers in the Gulf right now.

Classic Example

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.

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?

Sarah Palin Killer Take 2

Well, Caroline Kennedy didn't work out as a Palin-Killer.

So, they're testing a new version.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...