This made me laugh April 22, 2014Posted by tantamergo in General Catholic, Society, Admin, foolishness, silliness, blogfoolery, error, Four Last Things.
add a comment
Why does the left love totalitarian iconography so much? Do we really have to ask the question?
But I found the below hilarious. First of all, the left is trying to use the same cult of personality effect that got Zero elected on that foul old warhorse Hillary Clinton:
First of all, Clinton hasn’t looked like that in 20 years, if ever. That’s about as favorable a portrait as I’ve ever seen, and still………yikes.
But I loved this comment on the new totalitarian iconography for Hillary:
The Hillary poster in particular seems to come from some weird alternate universe in which Eva Peron was an admiral of the Imperial Japanese Navy.
I don’t know why, but that made me laugh hysterically. Maybe because I’ve been such an officianado of the IJN going back many years. The Imperial Japanese Navy was hands down the most lethal, efficient navy in the world from 1937 to, say, June 1942. Then they were utterly crushed by the pupil they had so cruelly taught, who learned so very well, indeed.
This was their battle flag:
You get the resemblance.
I’m not sure he’d appreciate the association:
Cardinal Kasper continues to push his destructive course April 21, 2014Posted by tantamergo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, persecution, Sacraments, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the return.
There was another piece on Cardinal Kasper’s initiative to permit those persisting in a manifest state of bigamy to receive the Blessed Sacrament last week. As I’ve stated in numerous posts, the reason for German prelates pushing this very sad and destructive effort is one of naked self-interest – divorce rates are high in Germany, especially among Catholics, and the bishops hope that if they permit all those divorced people to receive, more will check the “church tax” box on their tax returns and the Church will get more state funding.
But the entire argument has been founded on errors so great it is difficult not to call the outright falsehoods. I’ve already written about the error that is being used to support this move to permit those persisting in a state of bigamy to receive the Blessed Sacrament- that somehow, the early Church permitted this, too. That is simply false.
But as Eponymous Flower related last week, Cardinal Kasper is pushing another falsehood, in the form of a false choice. Kasper is trying to claim there is some moral conundrum facing the Church, that by denying, at least tacitly, the Blessed Sacrament to those who persist in a state of public sin, the Church is somehow being uncharitable or unmerciful:
“The decisive statement in this presentation is: ‘Penance and the Sacrament of Penance are the way to connect both aspects. Commitment to the word of the Lord, and the never-ending mercy of God’ (p. 65) It turns to the question which has not been answered by the critics: Are you allowed to refuse absolution in such a situation in which the penitent has repented and testified honestly and in good will with their best efforts to live by faith? Is it not possible with God that someone could fall into a hole from which there is no way out? If that is impossible with God, then why not in the Church …? “
The part in bold is the attempted conundrum. Kasper is claiming that these people who have divorced and remarried, without ever obtaining an annulment, are somehow being denied “mercy” if they are not permitted to receive the Blessed Sacrament. The insidious claim – which reveals the depths to which Kasper will stoop – that God would be opposed to this denial, or that God would “somehow find a way out” is simply a false dichotomy.
The fundamental error is twin: that those who have divorced and remarried are somehow being “punished,” and that simply stating that one is sorry for their state of bigamy is enough to permit them to receive the Blessed Sacrament. There is actually a third error, which claims that the Church simply doesn’t “know” how to address this situation. All are demonstrably false.
Taking the last first, the Church has counselled people who are bigamists (for whatever reason) for centuries on how to demonstrate atonement for this sin - terminate the occasion of sin! That is to say, end the romantic, physical relationship that is the cause of the sin, in this case, adultery. If there is no annulment for the first marriage, that marriage is still valid and operative in the eyes of God. Whatever relationship takes place outside that first marriage is adultery. Christ Himself stated this very clearly. But Kasper apparently wants to take us back to the days of Moses, when the wickedness of men was so great divorce and remarriage had to be permitted. That is a sad commentary on the state of the Church, and even more so on Her shepherds.
There is a further option: if this relationship has persisted for some time, if children have resulted from it, and if the original spouse (often devastated, often abandoned for little or no cause) has somehow moved on with their life – for truly pastoral reasons such as these, the couple could be permitted to remain together provided they make a solemn vow to live a chaste, celibate life as brother and sister. This would permit the offspring to retain their family life, but can really only be permitted in situations where there is truly great remorse and an advanced spiritual life on the part of the individuals in question. Otherwise, the temptation to relapse into sin would likely be too great.
I do not buy claims that times are somehow different today, and that it is unrealistic to expect people to abandon relationships they have been in for years. The Church defended the sanctity of marriage at great cost for centuries, and somehow people managed to generally abide by Her wisdom during that very long period of time.
The Church has never recognized a simple apology to be sufficient to atone for public sins of this type. There must be some amends in cases such as these, which end the scandal caused by them and assure the faithful (and the souls in question) that the sin is no longer ongoing. Kasper proposes that souls basically be given carte blanche to go into a priest’s office, shed some tears, make a onetime statement of contrition, and then continue doing exactly what they have been doing before! Which is conducting an adulterous relationship. That has never been OK, it has never been permissible for such souls to receive the Blessed Sacrament. It is truly sad we have to even argue this point, with a prince of the Church, no less.
Finally, the bigamists/adulterers are not being punished, per se’. The sanctity of the Blessed Sacrament is being preserved from sacrilege, the faithful from scandal, and the souls of the bigamists preserved from piling egregious sin on sin for receiving the Blessed Sacrament unworthily. Hence, as in the case of the application of Canon 915, the Blessed Sacrament is not being used as a weapon, or politicized, but preserved from disgrace, and the Church is actually extending a great mercy (and medicine, one prays) to the souls in question by preventing them from giving such great offense to God.
I must point out here that the Church’s position on divorce is the only consistent, biblically-based position remaining among all the Christian Churches and sects, and is the only one in accord with Tradition from the earliest Fathers. That the Orthodox and virtually every protestant sect embrace divorce (and often, repeated divorce) is not a testament to their charity or wisdom, but to their falsity, and their separation from the Church Christ founded. They have fallen into error. The Church could not have made this more plain when She permitted one of the most devoutly Catholic countries in the world at that time, England, to be wrested away from Her sanctifying bosom, with great violence and enormous suffering, due to the egregious lusts of one fallen man. That is how much the Church has always valued the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, that it would rather suffer grievous loss than see the dignity of one marriage sulllied.
And yes, I know that fallen men within the Church have sometimes permitted annulments which were/are less than obviously justified, and that such has given great scandal to the faithful. We presently have a situation in the United States where such a scandal persists in truly egregious form today. But the exception only proves the rule. Those cases are departures from the normal, holy practice and belief of the Church.
This Cardinal Kasper is relentlessly pushing an agenda that is very dangerous and poses the threat of wreaking havoc in the Church. I am having a very hard time not comparing him to some of the great arch-heretics of the past. Pray for him! Pray for his conversion! And pray that the Synod stay strong against all the wiles of satan and allurements of the world, preserving constant Catholic Dogma and the plain, merciful wisdom of Christ!
As the video I have ripped off from CMR indicates, the media has long had a very soft spot in its heart for totalitarian population control measures. This interview from 1940s era BBC of Margaret Sanger is particularly egregious. Note the very domestic setting, the easy set up questions, the lack of rebuttal for answers that are nothing but naked assertion, and the final close up camera angle showing her oh-so-earnest demeanor. Notice she even got the interviewer to call her “Mrs. Slee,” which she never accepted in other venues (remaining, always, Margaret Sanger, her maiden name), a further bid at domestication:
Now CMR is making hay over the fact that, at the end, Sanger appears to say that the best baby is one that doesn’t exist. The edit seems a bit rough, so who knows what got cut off, but if that edit is genuine, wow did Sanger foul off a fat softball of a question. Irrespective of the genuineness of that particular response, we can see what kind of thinking a life of sanctimonious self-aggrandizing pleasure seeking can get up to. Sanger is, after all, a woman who:
- freely admitted marrying for money to fund her pet leftist causes
- freely admitted to constantly cheating on her spouses (she had two) and engaging in what could be described as orgies. Mind you, this was in the period 1900-1920, when such things were essentially unheard of.
- freely admitted to believing white people were/are inherently superior to those of other races and advocating for satanic population control measures, up to and including government-forced sterilization, in order to keep the wrong sorts of people (non-white, non-liberal) from being born. But Sanger was hardly alone, the early 20th century “progressive” movement widely embraced both totalitarian government and the murder of whole swaths of people for the “greater good” of mankind. These progressives were the spiritual fathers and grandfathers of today’s American left, and are essentially indistinguishable from Nazis.
- freely admitted to having no faith whatsoever in a transcendent god, and opposed Christianity in general and the Church in particular for encouraging people to adhere to timeless, God-given morality, which she, again, rejected.
- spearheaded the development of the birth control pill, which she knew would catch on like wildfire, and, more importantly, spur demand for her ultimate goal: legalized abortion.
- was, of her own admission, highly conflicted regarding being a mother. Which, I think, is obvious.
In her private, early writings, Sanger reveals a white-hot hatred for traditional female roles and motherhood in particular. This was one sick woman.
But the BBC tries to present her as Mrs. Rational Forwardthinker. So you can see where they were at, even 70+ years ago. We did not arrive at this point of cultural decay by accident. The culture has died because it was murdered, murdered by people who wanted to be free from having to answer to God – or at least, fool themselves into believing such.
Good luck with all that.
Area abortionists sue to get privileges back April 21, 2014Posted by tantamergo in Abortion, Basics, contraception, Dallas Diocese, disaster, disconcerting, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, sadness, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
So we spent half the day on Holy Thursday outside the death house called Routh Street Women’s Clinic. Business was booming. I was pretty defeated by the end of our time there, I saw no turnaways and encountered only truly demonic hostility in all my attempts to engage with the moms and dads seeking to have their children killed. There was one bright spot, a young Hispanic couple was wandering around looking for a place to get an sonogram, and they almost walked into Routh Street. Once in, who knows what lies they might have been told to convince them to get an abortion they weren’t even seeking. I got them into White Rose and they were taken care of in a Catholic manner.
The mill was tragically busy. People were parking literally blocks away. That’s what made the refusal to respond to counseling all the more difficult, we had some pretty good opportunities but I am telling you, I have not seen such hardened hearts in a very long time, if ever. Just rough brushoffs or stone-faced passing by. The men in particular were rough, it’s been some time since I’ve been threatened by a very lost father, but it happened to me twice on Thursday. I was told by another counselor that she had several turnaways, for which I give thanks, but I did not see them.
Anyway, the mill was so busy because they are absorbing business from Robinson’s abortuary, which stopped performing abortions when his privileges were pulled by University General Hospital (UGH) – and God bless them for it. Unfortunately, Robinson lawyered up, bringing in, I am told, some high-priced attorneys from the diabolically named Center for Reproductive Rights to do his arguing for him. Whether it was the slick Manhattan attorneys, or the judge’s own personal predilections, Judge Ken Molberg (remember his name when election time comes around) issued an order demanding the hospital reinstate the privileges for two local abortionists, including Robinson:
In a lawsuit filed Thursday, two Texas abortion doctors allege a Dallas-area hospital revoked their admitting privileges shortly after it became the target of anti-abortion protesters. [That's not at all what happened. What happened is that the hospital found out what the two doctors did for a living, and didn't want to be associated with murder]
The plaintiffs, Dr. Lamar Robinson, owner of Abortion Advantage, and Dr. Jasbir Ahluwalia, the medical director of Routh Street Women’s Clinic, allege that University General Hospital in Dallas revoked their admitting privileges four days after the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled new abortion regulations requiring doctors to have nearby hospital admitting privileges were constitutional. The lawsuit does not seek monetary relief but asks the court to require immediate reinstatement of their admitting privileges. [Yeah, they'll make enough money off the abortions they perform, they don't need any from the hospital]
Dallas County District Judge Ken Molberg granted the doctors’ request for a temporary reinstatement of admitting privileges and scheduled a hearing on the merits of the case on April 30. [I understand Robinson will start performing abortions again April 28. There is nothing in state law that says hospitals have to provide privileges for any "physician" that petitions for them. This judge way overstepped his bounds, there shouldn't be anything to debate.]
New abortion regulations passed by the Republican-led Texas Legislature last summer require doctors who perform abortions to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of where the abortion is performed, among other terms. The rules took effect in November.
Think of how many hospitals there are in Dallas. There are dozens and dozens within 30 miles of Robinson’s mill near Mockingbird and I-35. That extends even over into Fort Worth. And yet, he can only get privileges at a small start-up hospital, and that only because the hospital was new, did not understand the details of his “practice,” and quickly moved to disassociate themselves from him once they did. That says quite a bit.
Speaking of, the “doctor” that is butchering babies at Routh Street while Abhuwalia tries to get his privileges back is 80 years old. Just top-notch care at those places.
Please pray this reprieve for these abortionists is only temporary! We are making great strides, it is getting very much harder for these abortionists to operate, but they are not going away without a fight.
I tell you what Routh Street needs now is a heavy presence of priests. The demonic oppression associated with that place, always palpable, has grown ever heavier as their business has ramped up. Seeing that place ringed with priests performing at least minor exorcisms, praying, sprinkling holy water…..that would run the demons that power that place off for good. It’s worked before……..
Before I leave for a much needed break during this holiest of weeks, I would feel negligent if I did not share this excellent article which summarizes the maneuvering ongoing at the highest levels of the Church regarding Cardinal Kasper’s seemingly highly dangerous push to radically redefine Catholic Dogma on marriage, divorce, bigamy, and reception of the Blessed Sacrament, while pretending to leave that same Dogma “in place.” The goal is change the practice while pretending to leave the Dogmas untouched. This is impossible. It pretends to separate belief from practice: in theological terms, orthodoxy (right belief), from orthopraxis (right action).
That this entire push is hinged on a silly proposition (the early Church permitted divorce! Wrong.) that has already been shown to be incredibly, demonstrably false, is all the more disconcerting.
The article was originally published in the German site Katholisches. Some of the translation is rough. The article is also very long, much of which is recapping events of the past 6 months or so. But the portion that discusses the February consistory, whence Cardinal Kasper’s erroneous proposition was first broached, then ridiculed, is very important. I am going to try to clean up some of the translation from Tancred, if he doesn’t mind:
Pope Francis, however, despite substantive silence, the one who has called the Synods of Bishops on the topic of family. With his consent, his new secretary of the Synod of Bishops, the present Cardinal Baldisseri, has directed a questionnaire to all the bishops of the world. Dealing with the questionnaire has made visible the determination progressive pressure groups who want to change the Catholic moral teaching. Even so, it did not lead to rethinking in Rome. The path continues. Instead, Pope Francis commissioned Cardinal Walter Kasper, with a lecture at the cardinal consistory in late February. Neutrality is different.[I think this is saying, this was not a neutral presentation. Kasper's talk was engineered as a showcase for his modernist novelties, without rebuttal] For a proper debate about balance and to signal that, the pope could have appointed two speakers of different perspectives. For the dutiful defense of Catholic teaching on marriage, he would have to employ an orthodox advocate for the Doctrine of the Faith. But nothing of the sort occurred. The Pope decided on Cardinal Kasper, whose unorthodox position on the issue has been known at least since the 90s. A position that was rejected by both Pope Benedict XVI., and previously Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Just as they have now been rejected by today’s Prefect, Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Cardinal before the consistory. We may recognize in the papal decision in favoring Kasper, a unilateral advocacy, and in Cardinal Kasper if not the voice of the Pope, so at least a trial balloon, which was allowed to ascend, to test the reactions and resistances. [This is an interpretation. Is it correct? I tend to think it may well be, but it's difficult to say. It was very strange that Cardinal Kasper was given the opportunity to, more or less, evangelize the cardinals on his novelty, without presentation of any opposing view. It was also clear Pope Francis was communicating his strong support for Cardinal Kasper's views]
The partisanship engaged unambiguous underlining in effusive praise for Kasper, which Pope Francis on the morning after his speech to the cardinals formulated his response. The reaction to Kasper’s oratory, in whom there was a cunningly palatable formula, was quite energetic. Against the horse trading suggested by the German theologian (to pretend that everything remains the same, but in reality, everything would change), protest arose more loudly. The most vocal of the Cardinals in the discussion disagreed with Kasper.
With fanatical praise it was obvious the Pope wanted to rush to the rescue of the German Cardinal. The downright ecstatic, but not very believable assertion that the strategy formulated by Kasper – a strategy formulated precisely to get rid of the Church’s teaching on marriage – is at a crucial point “theology on his knees”, makes it hard to deny representing the Pope’s closeness to Kasper’s new course. [Many took that to be an endorsement, especially among the cardinals who were there]
……..I’ll condense a bit, you can read the original at the link above. The article then goes on to note the perplexing fact that the cardinals in attendance had absolute silence imposed on them regarding the discussions at the Synod, but then someone obviously close to Kasper and/or Pope Francis leaked the text. The article posits this was done to use the tactic of poisoning the well, which posits that he who gets his message out first, tends to dominate the debate. Was such intentional? Who knows, but it would be far from unprecedented from some of this crowd, including Kasper, to use procedural tricks they then, suddenly, exempt themselves from, to shape a debate to their own advantage.
However, forestalling this advantage, the Italian daily Il Foglio that was to publish Kasper’s talk, first (and very responsibly, I might add) engaged an “opposition” to provide a contrary viewpoint. Thus, Kasper’s text appeared side by side with the great Roberto de Mattei’s rebuttal. This apparently sent Kasper into a rage – if the article is correct. Picking back up:
Kasper foamed. Even days later, he gave his anger free reign in an interview with Vatican Radio. Apparently, in a modification of the original intent and as a countermeasure to the Foglio strike he now had published even in the Osservatore Romano, the semi-official newspaper of the Vatican, the final copy of Kasper’s and the Preface to the speech, now currently under pressure.
The Osservatore Romano could be relied upon to offer strong praise from Pope Francis to Kasper, after numerous cardinals had taken their position against remarried divorcees. This praise opened the privilege to the German cardinal to be printed in L’Osservatore Romano, which would hardly have been possible without such consent of the Pope.
Kasper’s position should therefore be given visibility and authority within the Church. The confidentiality obligation was and is still obvious to all cardinals and their contributions to the discussion in the Consistory, with a single exception: Walter Kasper. Only for him did Pope Francis lift the obligation to secrecy. Why such a privilege when all the “opinions” are taken into account? The Pope hung a muzzle so that all the Cardinals who defended the Catholic doctrine on the sacrament of marriage, and allowed only the dissenting opinion the right to speak. This is a one-sided preference for a certain position and the disability of another equal.
The result was that not only the Osservatore Romano , but also other official Church media, especially the newspapers of some Episcopal Conferences felt obliged to reprint Kasper. In contrast to Il Foglio , however, they lacked any counter position. The only one that was granted the exclusive right to raise his voice in the daily newspaper of the Holy See was Kasper. All the other cardinals and their speeches in the consistory have been kept silent. [Perhaps I'm just too jaded, but I have a hard time not seeing in all this some orchestrated campaign to endorse Kasper's modernist gambit and keep opposing views from print as much as possible.]
. ———-End Quote————
Obviously a lot of inside baseball. But it has all the makings of a very debauched realpolitik power struggle being played out in public, with Church Dogma basically held hostage by a progressive agenda seeking to advance their radical vision for the Church – a vision which after being partially implemented wreaked utter devastation.
The article ends with discussion of the completely discredited 1977 study which pretended to suddenly discover, magically, like!, that the early Church was just fine and dandy with bigamists receiving the Blessed Sacrament. The article points out the very strange coincidence that this unmissed and almost entirely forgotten book from 1977 suddenly – also magically, like! – was republished late last year. Just in time for the consistory and upcoming Synod, just when Kasper was ready for his big push.
The political aspects of this are such that it is truly trying to the Faith, seeing just how much materialist will-to-power is on display. A great exhibition of leftism in action, but within the Church.
I should end with one clear note: what is really being debated here is not so much divorce or remarriage, but whether public sinners can be admitted to the Blessed Sacrament. No one is going to “undo” Christ’s very clear guidance to us: remarriage while your spouse is still alive constitutes bigamy and adultery (yes, we have American annulment factories, but that’s a whole different topic). So what is being debated is whether it’s OK for those who persist in an objective state of mortal sin and in a public manner be allowed to blaspheme the Blessed Sacrament. You probably should read the whole thing.
Liturgical Abuse: Blessing pagan stones at Mass in Minnesota April 14, 2014Posted by tantamergo in abdication of duty, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Liturgy, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, Spiritual Warfare.
Warning, the music in the video below will require significant amounts of brain bleach to eradicate.
It seems there has been a severe abuse ongoing at Masses in the troubled Archdiocese of Minneapolis for some time. Stones used in what seem obviously to be pagan worship services are blessed during Novus Ordo Masses. According to Tancred at Eponymous Flower, these stones are said to be the bones of the “Earth Mother” and are heated by fire for use in sweat lodges and accompanying spirit journeys:
This profanation you see above? The priest calls it “The Transubstantiation of the Blessed Earthen Rock Ceremony.” It is confirmed this takes place as part of the, ahem, Mass. So, what….the rock turns into our Lord and Savior? That is straight up blasphemy, in addition to being the gravest sacrilege.
First of all, much Native American spirituality is animist and overtly pagan. Secondly, these rituals and their use have strong new age overtones, finding the “god” within, and all that. Thirdly, the entire practice of sweat lodges and “spirit journeys” (the latter very common in new age, which has adopted a great deal of Native American spirituality) is disordered to say the least, since it involves self-hypnosis and opens one up to potential demonic influence. Some might argue the entire pagan, animist practice is demonic.
As such, do we really have to say it has no place in a Catholic Mass? Is this the much vaunted “inculturation” about which we hear so much with regard to disordered/abusive presentations of the Novus Ordo?
Tancred reports this has gone on in Minneapolis for years, and that the Archdiocese is well aware. In a normal time, one would have to ask, how can this be, but we are not in a normal time. In fact, things like this are so common, and exasperation so rife among the faithful, that many have become either beaten down or cynical.
It is difficult not to see scandals like this, and the failure to terminate them immediately, as just one more sign of a profound lack of faith among our Church leaders, and one more tendency towards being far more concerned with men and their opinions, than with God and His just Rights. It is also difficult not to see in this, once again, the perversion of incredibly sacred Catholic practice with some foolish, uninspired, and dangerous “ecumenism.” This seems the trend in almost all Catholic ecumenism: sacred rites are profaned to grant some special privilege to a separated sect or some completely alien (and incompatible) religion, while there is rarely if ever a quid pro quo from the other side. It’s just more banality, more watering down, more humanism, more laziness, more cowering, and more soft leftism.
I’m very tired of it. But I don’t matter. What matters, I wholeheartedly believe, is that it is profoundly offensive to God. And all these abuses will have to be answered for some day.
This priest, Fr. Michael Tegeder, obviously needs a lot of prayers. An aging hippy with a well receded hair line and a sad ponytail…….he’s like a walking cliche of the nightmare post-VII priest. I also strongly suggest making Communions of reparation for this blasphemy against Our Crucified Lord and the Holy Ghost.
Here’s some brainwash:
Mas. If have a hard time seeing that lollipop garbage in the nightmare video at the top as being in the same religion:
I can remember when Colorado was a normal state. Conservative, even. Then hundreds of thousands of Californians, having wrecked their own state, moved in. The state is now really divided, but the leftists have the upper hand in the state government. Lord, please never let that happen here.
The radicals, who have also passed stupid laws against certain kinds of firearms, have a new bill called Senate Bill 175. According to Archbishop of Denver Samuel Aquila, it basically seeks to enshrine abortion in Colorado law forever, and forestall any future pro-life legislation:
If you haven’t yet heard, there is a very troubling bill being debated in the Colorado State Senate next week. Senate Bill 175, touted as the “Reproductive Health Freedom Act,” passed on a party line vote in committee this past Thursday. I am grateful to every person who showed up to oppose the radical bill.
This over-reaching piece of legislation would essentially shut down any attempt to pass life-affirming legislation in Colorado ever again. More than that, it enshrines the “right to abortion” into Colorado law. It’s being praised by anti-life organizations such as NARAL and ThinkProgress as “the first of its kind” in the country and “ambitious.” It enshrines the culture of death into law and ignores science.
This bill would prevent lawmakers from enacting laws such as ultrasound requirements, which we all know—particularly from the work of the Knights of Columbus Ultrasound Initiative here in Colorado—have done so much to give mothers vital information about their pregnancy, and thus save countless children from imminent death.
It prevents common sense regulations like waiting periods, restrictions on abortion pills (particularly for minors), and parental notification policies. Advocates of this bill seek the absolute “right to abortion” for girls as young as 10 or 11 without a parent’s knowledge, guidance or advice. Parents are seen as unfit in the moral guidance of their children.
Finally, this bill would eliminate abortion clinic health code regulations, which pro-abortion advocates label as “burdensome.” Remember Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia, and the horrific images and stories of women nearly dying on the abortionist’s table?
I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that pro-aborts are trying this. Over the past few years, state legislatures around the country have imposed numerous restrictions on abortion, one of the most effective being that enacted here in Texas just last year.
Abortion is absolutely, 100% critical for the entire sexular pagan program to destroy Christian culture. The very destructive culture that has been deliberately visited upon the former Christendom over the past 100 years requires abortion. All these things: contraception, fornication, adultery, sexual depravity, divorce,etc., require abortion as their backstop. It is fornication, “living together,” hooking up, etc,. among “heterosexuals” that drives the entire sexular pagan agenda. There simply are not, as of yet, enough sodomites, polyamorists, and other perverts to destroy a culture. But getting the vast majority of “normal” people, even “Christian” people, to engage in these immoral activities has been the very vehicle of the sexular pagan revolution.
Fornication sells. Fornication/adultery backed up with the use of contraception has led millions to leave any true semblance of the practice of Christianity, and into lives of wantonness that are unprecedented in their scope and banality. But since contraception often and always (over enough time) fails, abortion is 100% absolutely vital to the entire sexular pagan leftist program. The entire advance of leftism in the West has been due to decay in sexual morality. So the entire leftist program depends utterly on abortion.
So, they are willing to do anything, give up anything, to keep abortion around. And since there has been much recent success in nibbling away at baby killing at the state level, they are now seeking to stop that through their own legislative activity. I take this as a very serious attempt to stop all progress in pro-life laws, at least in Colorado. Which is a shame, because Colorado did not used to be a state that would embrace such a thing, and I know there are still many, many good, faithful souls there.
Archbishop Aquila asks for everyone to take some time to pray that this bill be stopped. You can also contact the Colorado Catholic Conference, or, better yet, look up the bill’s supporters in the Colorado Senate and contact them directly. The bill’s two sponsors are Senators Andy Kerr and Jeanne Nicholson.
Perhaps you could, in your charity, offer up a Rosary that this horrific bill be blocked and defeated. Or a Novena. There have been many small steps to see abortion made more difficult to obtain around the country. There has been a good deal of progress in the past few years. But that could all be undone should measures like this gain support, and, God forbid, one day wind up at the Supreme Court, where anything can happen.
As a final aside, I will also pray that we will one day see our own good Bishop Farrell offer a Mass directly outside a mill, as Bishop Sheridan just did, or at least have a constant presence of priests offering prayers, performing exorcisms, and the like. A 20 mile Good Friday procession is a wonderful thing, but one Mass offered outside one of these mills would be such a blow to satan and his many eager human acolytes, that the pro-aborts may never recover.
That’s something I’ll keep praying for. And I’ll also pray that Archbishop Aquila grow ever more faithful and participate more and more in the restoration of the Faith.
More TLMs will help.
Quick Flightline Friday – F-20 Tigershark – 041414 update April 14, 2014Posted by tantamergo in Admin, Basics, Flightline Friday, fun, silliness, Society.
Since I am going to be out most of the week, I am going to update this post today, instead of on Friday, when, God willing, I will be at church pretty much all day.
The F-20 Tigershark. It is another of the great also-ran’s of American military aviation. Derived from a design dating back to the late 1950s, incredibly, with the installation of a modern engine, updated digital avionics, and some minor aerodynamic changes, the F-20 Tigershark emerged as a very potent low-cost 4th generation tactical aircraft. Itcould have been, and maybe should have been, a big seller to third world NATO allied nations. But it didn’t sell.
The Tigershark got its start as a Northrop design submission for a new trainer for the United States Air Force back in the late 1950s. The design originally started out as a speculative lightweight fighter (the N-102 Fang), but when the USAF competition for a new advanced trainer began, Northrop realized their little fighter design would be a nice fit. Northrop had sort of specialized in idiosyncratic designs, and small and light weight were sort of a fetish at the company for decades.
The trainer became the T-38 Talon, which is still in use as the USAFs advanced trainer for fighter and attack aircraft today, over 50 years after it entered service. But when Kennedy entered office in 1961, his administration sought to support a lightweight fighter for lower-rung, less-advanced allies that could serve in all the Cold War brushfire wars that administration was interested in prosecuting. So Northrop returned to their trainer design, called the N-156, and produced a new model, the N-156F, that became the F-5A Freedom Fighter.
The Freedom Fighter had several advantages. It was cheap. It was designed to be very easy to maintain, even in an austere environment without a great deal of advanced support facilities. But it had very short legs and was certainly not overpowered. Even by the late 60s, the F-5A was obsolescent for combat in all but the most permissive air defense environments, and competitors from other countries posed threats to this low-end fighter market. So, USAF fired up a competition for an F-5 follow-on, to ameliorate some of the Freedom Fighter’s shortcomings.
Naturally enough, Northrop won that competition, too, and what came forth was the F-5E Tiger II. By adding afterburners to the small J85 turbojets, a small ranging radar, ability to carry infrared air-to-air missiles, and some other improvements, the F-5E and its two seat variant, the F-5F, went on to be best sellers throughout the 1970s, with nearly 1400 built. The F-5E received a big boost when, in the early 70s, USAF bought a couple hundred to serve as aggressor aircraft in the air-to-air training role. Air combat in Vietnam showed that USAF’s priority on fighting a nuclear war did not work out well in a conventional environment, with large, heavy aircraft designed to carry a nuclear weapon a long distance being rather poor performers in the air-to-air arena. Even more, the pilots had not been trained hard in that vital area, skills had deteriorated, and our guys had a hard time dealing with the very maneuverable aircraft used by the North Vietnamese. Nonetheless, at least as many losses were attributed to bad tactics and bad airmanship, as were due to unsuitable aircraft types.
The Navy had started its own intensive air-to-air training program, the famous TOPGUN program, in the early 70s. As always, USAF did one better, developing a massive training environment at Nellis Air Force Base called Red Flag, where extremely realistic and difficult training was implemented. F-5Es played a key role in that training, simulating such very maneuverable communist aircraft as the MiG-19 and MiG-21.
But by the early 80s, the F-5E was running out of steam. Many newer types were available, foreign competition was intense, and there had been so many incredible advances in engines and avionics that the Tiger II was looking pretty tired. It was at this time that Northrop decided to try to refresh the design again, putting in a modern engine, very modern avionics, and some aerodynamic changes to improve performance. And improve performance it did.
Originally called the F-5G, to seem newer and sexier, Northrop petitioned the Air Force for a new number for their aircraft, and was given F-20. Northrop lobbied pretty hard for this number, to try to sell the fact that this new plane was a big advance on the “teen-series” fighters – the F-15, -16, etc.
The primary changes to the F-20 were the replacement of two small GE J85 engines with one F404 engine, a remarkably lightweight and durable powerplant. This engine was much, much more powerful than the two previous engines, as well as being much more reliable and fuel efficient. Thrust increased from 10,000 lbst at sea level to 17,000 lbst. This gave the F-20 a thrust-to-weight ratio of about 1.1:1 at combat weight, meaning it could accelerate going straight up. In addition, the airframe was strengthened to permit 9 G maneuvering. Coupled with the basic Tiger II aerodynamics, the F-20 was extremely competitive in terms of air combat maneuvers.
What really improved the Tigershark over the Tiger II, however, was the avionics. The very simple and limited ranging radar was replaced with a modern pulse-doppler set from GE, digitally controlled, with all kinds of modes: sea strike, synthetic aperture, track while scan, etc. It could detect fighter size targets at about 40 miles (about the same as the APG-66 radar in the F-16), and could track 10 targets while engaging two. The old Tiger II cockpit, which was a sea of analog gages and switches, was cleaned up remarkably with a good sized HUD and two large electronic multi-function displays (see below).
A huge selling point for the Tigershark was that its avionics were all brand new, 8-10 years newer than those used in the F-15 and F-16. We all know how much digital electronics advanced in the late 70s and early 80s, and the Tigershark reaped the benefits of those advances. This meant lighter weight, for one. But more importantly compared to even the F-16s avionics, it meant much higher reliability. At least, according to Northrop. Northrop claimed that the Tigershark would have mean time between failures for major systems (engine, radar, inertial navigation system, etc) several times better than that of the F-16, and an order of magnitude better than the F-15. The F-20 was projected to consume 53% less fuel, require 52% less maintenance manpower, had 63% lower operating and maintenance costs and had four times the reliability of average front-line designs of the era
All this resulted in a very hot little fighter which would sell at a price substantially lower than any other American or even foreign aircraft of similar capability. The Tigershark was a very modern, Mach 2 fighter on the cheap. And in some areas, the Tigershark was more capable than the F-16 it ultimately competed against: the F-16 could not fire Sparrow radar guided missiles in 1984, whereas the Tigershark could. The Tigershark had the quickest point intercept reaction time of any aircraft in the world at that time (and possibly today): from getting the launch command, the F-20 could be at Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft in less than 3 minutes.
However, there were also a number of problems with the F-20. This all had to do with Northrop recycling a design that started out as a 1950s training aircraft. Because it was not designed from the start to carry large loads, the
Talon/Freedom Fighter/Tiger II/Tigershark all shared very short landing gear and a low mounted wing. This wing meant there was little ground clearance for ordinance. This dramatically limited both the quantity and types of ordinance that could be carried. In addition, the F-20, being both very small, and always rather limited in fuel capacity, had a much shorter range than aircraft like the F-16. As an attack aircraft, the F-20 came up very short in comparison to other types. Even the very design of the wing limited payload capability. In addition, the F-20 was so small and cramped inside that, as vastly improved as it was, it did not show much promise for future growth. The F-20 was an amazing improvement to the basic 1950s design, but it wasn’t going to go much further.
Nevertheless, the F-20 should have been very attractive to a number of air forces, especially those of countries that don’t make a practice of going to war with their neighbors and blowing up their stuff (like we do). As a point defense interceptor/fighter aircraft, the F-20 was hard to beat on price and capability. And it was thought many countries would be interested in it.
Bu the Tigershark ran afoul of political maneuvering and typical USAF obstinacy. The F-20 was far cheaper than the competing F-16, but the F-16 happened to be built in the home district of the House Majority Leader, Jim Wright. Wright put a good deal of pressure on the USAF to not give any support to the F-20. In addition, many elements within USAF did not want to see F-20s built, since they might take away F-16 customers, resulting in marginally higher price on the F-16 due to a lower production run. So the USAF kept buying more and more F-16s, even for missions the F-16 was not particularly suited for, while the F-20 was never purchased by the Air Force. Without a US endorsement, foreign clients were reluctant to sign on – and General Dynamics sold F-16s at a loss to keep Northrop and its F-20 out of the marketplace.
I always felt this attitude by USAF was a bit ugly, and unreasonable. The F-20 would have made a perfect replacement/addition to the F-5E in the aggressor role (a role the Navy still uses it for today), since it could better represent more advanced competition from Soviet types like the MiG-29 and Su-27 than could the F-5E. But USAF steadfastly refused to purchase the type for that purpose, for which it was eminently suited. Today, the dissimilar air combat training that so benefited USAF pilots in the 70s and 80s, making them the best of the
world, is defunct, since the Air Force does not have a dissimilar (that means, other than what is in service) type to train against, save for occasional Navy or foreign participation. So F-16s fight F-16s, F-15s and F-15s, etc.
The F-20 wound up also being hurt by a couple of crashes that had nothing to do with the aircraft. Two of the three prototypes were lost due to what is called “G-induced loss of consciousness” – basically, the pilot pulls such hard Gs that he passes out, crashing as a result. This was a problem back in the early 80s (and not just in the F-20), as the mega-capable modern fighters were going beyond the limits of what some humans could endure.
I am not one to say that the F-20 was a world beater that got entirely robbed by political shenanigans. Like any aircraft, it had its upside and its downside. But it is probably one of the most capable aircraft ever to fail so totally, never garnering a single significant sale. And that sad end is, unfortunately, primarily due to politics, and not capability. There was no reason, for instance, for a country like Venezuela to buy 18 F-16s, when they could have had 40 F-20s at the same price.
Anyhoo, now the important part, plane Pr0n.
I love these defense vids from the 80s. So over the top in their earnestness and seriousness. Of course, the Cold War was serious business.
More Yeager greatness:
Uno mas vez:
I always thought the F-20 had a really great, clean cockpit design. It was very good for its time, and fully modern even today:
Yes! Someone else gets it! April 11, 2014Posted by tantamergo in Abortion, Basics, contraception, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the enemy.
I’ve probably been spending too much time reading secular blogs of late…..if this one qualified. Robert Stacy McCain is at least a moderately devout evangelical protestant and father of 6, even if he does have an unfortunate tendency to give fly to really impure language and imagery. He needs to stop doing that.
But there is no other writer out there I’ve found that has tackled the sick marxist dogma of feminism better than he has. Further, he has made the connection that feminism as a movement is about destroying the family as the prime building block of society, either out of twisted hatred or to better groom souls to accept government as their savior, lord, and master.
He had a post yesterday [content warning, you might not want to go there] discussing the new phenomenon of “heterosexual guilt syndrome.” Primarily afflicting women (but I’m sure men are not far behind), y0uth today are being so groomed into radical feminist ideology (and remember, a feminist is just a marxist lesbian) that they actually feel guilt for NOT falling into this grave perversion. As an indicator of how utterly upside down Western “culture” has become, this is a pretty good one: Sodom and Sapphos are so utterly triumphant among elite opinion-shapers, young people today (well, ok, at least leftist young people, but that’s many if not most of them) actually wish they were sodomites so that they could bask in all the culturally-driven glory:
The “Girls” star thanked her sister Grace, now 22, saying, “I have always felt a strong and emotional connection to members of the LGBTQ community. It was actually a huge disappointment for me when I came of age and realized that I was sexually attracted to men. So when my sister came out, I thought, ‘Thank God, now someone in this family can truly represent my beliefs and passions.’”
So obviously this Lena Dunham character is deeply depraved and deranged, as evidenced by the pornographic show she produces for HBO. But this phenomenon is hardly limited to her alone. A radical feminist university professor has noted that she can no longer teach her students elementary aspects of biology – such as that, men and women, and males and females of any species, are different! – without attracting hoots and catcalls of “homophobia:”
I wanted them to find their way to the notion that it’s not “heteronormative” to recognize that sex is an
evolutionarily adaptive[God-given, my edit] reproduction strategy that, in humans, involves males and females; it’s just our biology, and there’s a complex, mutually interacting relationship between the biological and the social. I’ve been working toward that all semester. But they have not gotten there.
That is to say, this feminist university professor has found that her students already have such deeply ingrained, powerfully shaped notions regarding human sexuality and even biology – notions entirely shaped by radical sodomite rhetoric – that she cannot get them to accept basic facts like: men and women are different, there is a natural order to sexuality that is conceived to perpetuate the species, etc.
As we saw in the Charlotte, ahem, Catholic High School debacle, even Catholic students, or maybe especially Catholic students, are so deeply convicted of these homosexualist errors and depravities that they simply will not be told otherwise, that so-called homosexuality is not inborn, is not natural, and is in fact a profound perversion (something that should be obvious from the natural law, let alone theologically) of the created order. But to say such nowadays is tantamount to heresy. And people are being, effectively, burned at the stake over this nightmare. The poor nun that did nothing but repeat constant Catholic Dogma and some relevant sociological data has now been cashiered and will probably never be seen in public again. That is the power of the sodomite lobby, and all the errors it has perpetuated.
What’s the end game? As I said at the top, and as RS McCain notes, it’s to end the family as the building block of society:
Yet this phenomenon — Feminist Heterosexual Guilt Syndrome — is implicit in contemporary liberal culture, which holds that sex is merely a form of pleasure, without any spiritual or moral dimension, to be regulated only by mutual consent. Liberalism’s apparent neutrality toward the sexual preferences of consenting adults, however, is belied by the incessant cheerleading for contraception, abortion and homosexuality. Contraception and abortion are necessary to the liberal project of diverting women from the path toward marriage and motherhood by suppressing their natural fertility. And homosexuality is celebrated by liberals as part of the same project, to de-legitimize the traditional family as a normative social institution.
And these folks just keep moving the ball forward. The effort heretofore has been to normalize sodomy and its female equivalent – now the effort is to convince people that everyone is at least a latent sodomite and to convince all – or as many as possible – that homosexuality is “naturally” superior. There is a growing movement among marxist lesbians to assail all heterosexual relations as “rape.” They claim women naturally “hate” men and and are repulsed by them, and it is only the oppressive patriarchy and patriarchal cultural conditioning that results in women having sex with men. Black is white, up is down, Laverne is Shirley: there is no depth to the depravity that will come so long as people forget God.
Ultimately, they want everyone to be like them. Having even a small minority reject their claims is enough to drive them nuts, because they still have the law of God written on their hearts. And even if, in some nightmare future, they do convince almost everyone to embrace sodomy, they will still be miserable and angry and refuse to understand why. Because God will remain, and so will His Law, and they will remain counter to it.
You may say, oh TE, slow down, you’re getting too excited. If you chart back all the progressive claims these radicals have made in the area of sexuality, you can see how the most radical claims, the most egregious, laughable stuff, suddenly becomes the accepted norm, and shortly thereafter, required belief, 15-20 years after the first outbreak of the new level of error. Same-sex marriage was first posited on a serious level about 20 years ago. Everyone laughed. Not so funny anymore. Leftist academics first began really arguing for legalized abortion, out in the public, starting in the early-mid 50s. In 1973, they got it. Now they’re arguing that all heterosexual relations are rape.
I wouldn’t laugh.
Sebelius’ Reign of Terror Is Over April 11, 2014Posted by tantamergo in Abortion, asshatery, Basics, contraception, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
Cruella Deville has outlived her usefulness for the Zero. She’s been thrown under the bus, like so many before her, ostensibly due to the manifold failures of Obamacare:
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has resigned from the Obama administration, a move that comes just months after Americans started signing up for health insurance coverage under Obamacare.
President Barack Obama accepted her resignation earlier this week and will nominate the Office of Management and Budget’s Sylvia Matthews Burwell, 48, as the next head of the HHS, the New York Times reported.
The new head of HHS is just a younger version of the same:
Is a hair brush too much to ask? What?
Burwell is not Catholic, at least. So maybe she’ll actually have more respect for Catholic belief than an invincibly convinced heretic.
What am I saying?!? She’s a lefty, and already, during the government shutdown theater of last fall, she was the one that directed stupid, draconian steps – like closing national monuments that cost nothing to operate – in order to amp up the pressure on Republicans. She’s a Clinton loyalist, so I think we know her. She’s obviously pro-abort to the core, or she wouldn’t have gotten the job.
Meet the new boss, same as the old.
Does Sebelius have a reputation left to detract from?