Sodo-state moving to collect $135,000 fine from Christian bakers October 6, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Holy suffering, horror, It's all about the $$$, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
Latest developments in the ongoing persecution of Oregon bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein for their refusal to supply a cake to a fake wedding. There are some very interesting revelations below, including claims from the gomorrist couple in question that they seek no money from the Klein’s. This appears completely a politically motivated persecution by a single unelected government official who is trying to make a name for himself (in pursuit of higher office, surely) as a crusader for sodomites. And if a good Christian couple must be broken in the process…….well, a political career omelette doesn’t get made without breaking a few Christian eggs, does it?
The agency that ordered Aaron and Melissa Klein to pay $135,000 in damages for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex couple began the legal process last week to seize the money the Oregon bakers are refusing to pay.
“Our agency has docketed the judgment and is exploring collection options,” Charlie Burr, communications director for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, told The Daily Signal. “They are entitled to a full and fair review of the case, but do not have the right to disregard a legally binding order.”
Docketing the judgment is a preliminary step the agency must take in order to seize the Kleins’ house, property, or other assets in lieu of payment.
On July 2, Brad Avakian, commissioner of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, ordered the Kleins to pay $135,000 for the emotional, physical, and psychological damages they caused Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer for refusing to make a wedding cake.
Since then, the Kleins have been vocal about their plans to resist the order, and they told The Daily Signal they have no intention of backing down.
“There’s legal reasons and there’s also kind of personal reasons,” Aaron Klein told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “If a civil court or a circuit court judge had made this order, I would consider it legally binding. But when a bureaucracy does it and I didn’t get due process, I don’t call it legally binding.”
Talking about the personal reasons, Aaron cited a July interview in Willamette Week, where the complainants suggested that the case wasn’t about money.
“We didn’t have a choice in how this was prosecuted,” Rachel Bowman-Cryer said. “We didn’t have a choice in the fine. If we had been given the option, we probably would have said: ‘Just apologize. Just say you’re sorry and go away.’” [i think this is re-writing history. The gomorrists have been active complainants and came up with a whole laundry list of complaints that they said equaled $150k in “suffering.” I’ve covered this before. So now to turn around and say “oh, we sought nothing, just an apology, is frankly pretty cheeky. I think the winds of sentiment have changed, and more now side with the Klein’s than this perverse couple (and feel the judgment against the Klein’s egregious), and they’re looking for cover]
wife[person she acts out with] Laurel, added, “[W]e’re not asking for anything. We’ve never asked for a penny from anybody.”
“When you have these girls come out and say we never wanted the money,” Aaron said, “it wasn’t about the money and we don’t need the money … and I say this isn’t right, I shouldn’t have to pay this money, and the only person saying the money should exchange hands seems to be Brad Avakian.” [an unelected official administering an “administrative court” without usual standards of evidence or appeal. Basically he is given carte blanche to rule in any way he feels like, and he feels like making an example of some Christo-fascist bible humpers who had the audacity to stand in the way of the sexular pagan zeitgeist.]
Lesson to Christians: move out of leftist states if at all possible. Congregate in the most conservative, Christian-friendly states you can find (except Texas, we’re full, try Alabama or Mississippi, they’re very nice, you’ll love them).
There was more at the link, including the video below, which contains evidence of the “girls” seeking extensive damages:
Sexular paganism, or satanic progressivism, and the Christian Faith, cannot coexist. Historically in the West, the Faith was ascendant, but over the past 200 years, that has changed, to the point where now it is leftism that is ascendant, and don’t think they don’t mean to very much enjoy this power for however long it lasts.
Sheesh I wish that guy would lose the earrings. A lot of us have been there, buddy, but we also turned 25 or 28 and put such things away.
Secular Conservative “The Week:” Does Pope Francis Fear God? October 6, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Papa, Revolution, Sacraments, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, SOD, the struggle for the Church.
OK, it’s a self-described traddie writing at The Week, but it is still something to see a secular conservative publication asking the $1 million question: does Pope Francis have the Faith handed on by the Apostles? Perhaps asking the question is to answer it. I add emphasis and comments:
In the next three weeks, I fully expect the leadership of my own One Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church to fall into apostasy, at the conclusion of the Synod on the Family that begins today in Rome. This is the outcome Pope Francis has shaped over the entirety of his pontificate, and particularly with his recent appointments. An event like this —heresy promulgated by the Pope and his bishops — is believed by most Catholics to be impossible. But they should be prepared for it anyway. This is not an ordinary religious conference, but one to be dreaded.
My prediction is that, after much fixing and machinations by its leaders, the Synod on the Family will declare that the Holy Spirit led them to a new understanding of the truth. The Synod’s leaders will adopt the position that those living in second marriages, irrespective of the status of their first marriage, should be admitted to Holy Communion. This is commonly called the “Kasper proposal” after its author, the German Cardinal Walter Kasper. The Synod will likely leave the details of a “penitential period of reflection” for these souls up to local bishops and parish priests The leading bishops will assure critics that in fact no doctrine has been changed, only a discipline — even if these will make no sense when considered together. [Doctrine cannot be separated from practice. This is the thinnest – and frankly, falsest – of fig leafs. In reality, it’s a joke. Doctrine is nothing without its being put into practice, and practice that contradicts Doctrine winds up destroying that Doctrine, no matter what the paper may say. Fr. Rosica has helpfully informed us this has been the point all along.]
But make no mistake, the Synod will make the sacrilege of the Eucharist St. Paul warns against an official policy of the Roman Catholic Church. And in the process the Synod will encourage the breakup of more marriages. [I continue praying for a miracle]
Certain theologians will cheer this as a radical break. They will declare this change of discipline to be what the critics alleged all along: a rupture within the tradition of the church, a change in doctrine. They will say that this glorious event proves the church is capable not only of developing its doctrines, but also of evolving them into something new, even something that contradicts the old. Those who had made themselves enemies of papal authority for decades will become a new kind of ultramontanist. The papacy that had been the final guardian of the faith will now become an ongoing oracle, dispensing new gospel teachings that our Lord and the Apostles missed. [And I don’t know how we recover from that, should it come to pass]
The editorial is long, but I encourage you to read all of it. Author Michael Dougherty goes on to describe how the synodal process has been manipulated, with last year’s most controversial figures making up the majority of the “final committee” that will pretend to process the synodal discussions and inform the Pope of their contents. But since it is already known that another, more secret group is already working on some post-synodal encyclical or other “doctrinal” effort, even the final committee stacked through and through with modernist/progressives appears to be a Potemkin village construct. And just today, Pope Francis answered “conservative” complaints over the synodal process and the makeup of its leadership that the entire process and the makeup of all the key leadership posts were all his direct decision. Even more terrifying, there were apparently proposals today to grant “general absolution” during the Year of Mercy to the entire Church, a complete and total ecclesiastical and theological novelty which would make a mockery of sacramental Confession.
Modernists fear men, not God. That is the apotheosis of modernism, a religion of men for men with the pleasing of men as its final end. Their religion constructs a new “god” on the rotting corpse of Western civilization, with opinion polling the source of “revelation” and a life of self-indulgence and worldly feel-good rhetoric its process of “sanctification.” Hundreds of millions have already fallen away from this meaningless, inefficacious pretense of religion, and hundreds of millions more will do so in the coming years. Leftists constantly project their “hidden” sins onto others, so in all the recent diatribes against “ideology,” it must always be born in mind that for modernists, their religion is their ideology.
May God have mercy on us all. The Barque of Peter appears headed into truly uncharted waters, and I don’t know how some future pilot can plot a course of return.
Ann Barnhardt takes apart weak-willed bishop October 6, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, family, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, SOD, the struggle for the Church.
1 comment so far
There is a very handy new site administered by Hilary White to cover all things related to the Synod, called, sensically enough, “What’s Up With The Synod?” Well, a lot of bad stuff, of which more later, but before we get to that, Ann Barnhardt made a contribution to WUWTS retelling an interaction she had with a bishop at a small conference on marriage and the family. In her usual low-key, almost embarrassed style, Barnhardt managed to point out the nakedness of our episcopal emperors:
So back to the conference I recently attended. At the end of the laywoman’s presentation about the extreme injustice of both the no-fault civil divorce culture in North America, as well as the push within the Church to make the annulment process into de facto Catholic no-fault divorce, she touched very briefly on the September 8th Motu Proprio and how it was simply moving the entire Church toward the North American model of “annulment on demand”. There was a Q&A period, and there were two visiting bishops present in the audience, one from the Middle East somewhere and one from subsaharan Africa somewhere.
So I raised my hand and asked the final question of the session. My question was this:
“The disastrous September 8th Motu Proprio contains a list of criteria that could be cited as grounds for declaring a marriage null, including “lack of faith”, which is a universal condition. I myself am already receiving questions from orthodox faithful Catholics who are happily married who are now questioning whether or not they are even married because one or both of the spouses was “nervous” on the morning of the wedding, perhaps indicating a “lack of faith” per the Motu Proprio. This is the diabolical fruit of the September 8th disaster. My question is, what can we do or say to people to assure them that they are, in fact, sacramentally married and should not doubt this?”
The laywoman gave a polite but not terribly helpful answer because there really was nothing she could say.
Then the bishop from the Middle East stood up, wheeled around, and glaringly addressed me.
He started with, “Why do you refer to the Motu Proprio as “September 8th”, like it was “September 11th”?
To which I instantly snapped back, “You’re right. It is far, far worse than September 11th.”
Some of you, dear readers, might be taken aback at my saying this. Make no mistake: the September 8th Motu Proprio is the attempted de facto abrogation of a Sacrament. If you can’t see how that is worse than a sneak attack in an earthly war that resulted in earthly losses, you need to sit down and think about it until it becomes clear……
……Still glaring at me, the bishop then launched into the first of his two defenses of the September 8th catastrophic Motu Proprio. First, he complained about the “stack of paperwork” backlogged on his desk from all of the annulment requests he had to deal with.
I interrupted him with, “Yeah, that’s just awful – almost as bad as being nailed to a cross….” [Smash. Sit down, bishop, you’ve just been publicly crushed beyond the point of humiliation. Your failure is laid bare]
Thus ended the episcopal bitch-fest about the unbearable existential burden of backlogged paperwork.
Then he moved to his second point, which is even worse. He said that if he doesn’t grant people annulments they will get mad at him and go to the Eastern Orthodox or apostasize to the … wait for it… MUSLOIDS in order to get their “divorce”.
Barnhardt did not get a chance to respond at the conference, but gives the response she would have given at the link.
I think the problems with this response should be readily apparent, and they cut to the core of the post-conciliar collapse. The most apparent aspect of this response is the near total lack of Faith in Jesus Christ and His Church, that if the whole Truth is taught with firmness and charity, Christ will do the rest. Instead, virtually all bishops, whether out of a commitment to modernist revolution, or simply through lack of faith, believe they are smarter than God and must change the Church’s message because “it just doesn’t work anymore,” or the people will go elsewhere, etc. We have seen the fruit of that over the past 50 years…….hundreds of millions have fallen away, and the Church is in the midst of the worst crisis of her history.
This bishop obviously desires pleasing men more than God. I wish he were named, because I believe we must start holding individual bishops to account for their heterodox viewpoints and manifest lack of faith. But more to the point, if a bishop preaches all the Truth of the Church in season and out, and reforms his diocese to insist his priests do the same, and some people fall away….well, that’s on them. He’s done his duty, and must trust in the Holy Trinity for the rest (which is the meaning of Lk 12:31: “But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you.”)
Of course, the truth hasn’t been taught for decades outside a very few locales, less as a result of accident than of deliberate policy. So it takes a special kind of gumption for a bishop to claim he fears souls falling away as a result of a doctrine he has likely never tried to convey or “enforce.” Reason #1 why the crisis in the Church is a crisis of bishops. And when confronted, instead of admitting their manifest failure and facing up to it, they turn around and lash out at their critics.
Such are our heirs of the Apostles. And don’t tell me about the Twelve running away, that was before the Descent of the Holy Ghost (TWICE!- Once called down in protean form by Our Lord before His Ascension, and secondly, in definitive form, at Pentecost, after which the Apostles were changed men), before the Resurrection, and before two thousand years of miracles, Saints, and the whole run of Christendom.
I strongly suspected the reports from Kim Davis’ circle of her positive meeting and support from Pope Francis would not last long. The Vatican is now backing off claims that she had an “audience,” but instead says that she was just one of many people greeted that day:
In an official statement this morning, Fr. Federico Lombardi, head of the Vatican press office downplayed Pope Francis’ meeting with Kim Davis.
“Pope Francis met with several dozen persons who had been invited by the Nunciature to greet him as he prepared to leave Washington for New York City,” said Lombardi. “Such brief greetings occur on all papal visits and are due to the Pope’s characteristic kindness and availability.” [That does not mean he did not meet with Davis one on one. This is spin, it’s not a lie but it’s not the truth, either]
“The only real audience granted by the Pope at the Nunciature was with one of his former students and his family,” Fr. Lombardi added. [So now we’re down to parsing what a “real” audience is?]
The Vatican explained that the “brief” meeting between the Pope and Davis has “continued to provoke comments and discussion” and thus offered his explanation “in order to contribute to an objective understanding of what transpired.” [We’re trying desperately to placate harsh criticism in the US media and probably among the gay lobby in the Vatican. So now the media knows that a little pressure works in rolling this Pope, as if they didn’t know before. And don’t tell me this is the Vatican press office going off like a loose cannon. In this most authoritarian of pontificates, nothing “just happens.”]
Fr. Lombardi said, “The Pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects.” [Complex?!? She thinks sodomite marriage an offense against God and nature. She will have no part in it. Not hard to understand]
News that the pope had secretly met with Davis during his trip to the U.S. broke on Tuesday evening, after her lawyer made the meeting public. Davis said that Francis had told her to “stay strong,” giving both her and her husband a rosary. “Please pray for me,” he requested………
………In a new statement today, Davis’ lawyer, Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, disputed reports circulating in light of the Vatican’s newest statement suggesting that Davis had simply met the pope as one in a line of people.
“There were no other people in the room,” he said. “This was a private meeting between Pope Francis and Kim and Joe Davis. This was not a meeting with other people in which Kim and Joe Davis were a part, but rather a private meeting with no other people in the room except Vatican security and personnel.”
Staver acknowledged that the pope “was not weighing in on particular facts of a legal case,” but added that “his statements about religious freedom and his encouragement to Kim Davis to ‘stray strong’ during a private meeting reaffirm the human right to conscientious objection. This is a right for everyone.”
Staver also said that the meeting was initiated by the Vatican, an apparent response to speculation that the meeting with the pope may have been arranged by a conservative bishop in the U.S., perhaps without the full knowledge of the Vatican or the pope about Davis’ case…….
…….[And now we get the spin of uber-weasel Fr. Tom Rosica]However, English-language spokesman for the Vatican, Fr. Thomas Rosica, placed the responsibility for the meeting in the hands of U.S. papal nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò.
“Who brought her in? The nuncio,” Father Rosica told the New York Times. “The Nunciature was able to bring in donors, benefactors.”
Fr. Rosica added: ““I would simply say: Her case is a very complex case. It’s got all kinds of intricacies. Was there an opportunity to brief the pope on this beforehand? I don’t think so. A list is given — these are the people you are going to meet.”
Rosica responded to a question about whether the Vatican press office had been unaware of the pope’s meeting with Davis, saying: “No, but I think we may not have been aware of the full impact of the meeting. It is very difficult sometimes when you are looking at things in America from here.” [How about let your yes be yes and your no be no, Fr. Tom?]
The force is strong in the sodomite mafia. Whether the pressure came from a US media gone over full bore into advocacy for perversion, or from the still extant sodomite lobby in the Vatican (or both), the Vatican has changed its tune. They are throwing Kim Davis under the bus. The Davis camp clearly refutes the Vatican allegations. I hope someone recorded the visit. This could get ugly before it’s over.
Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive! But whatever the reason for this meeting with Davis, the Synod will make all quite clear.
Bishop Olmstead releases 23 page exhortation to men October 2, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Domestic Church, episcopate, General Catholic, manhood, mortification, sanctity, Society, true leadership, Virtue.
I found it a bit too redolent of the “New Evangelization” in parts, but Bishop Thomas Olmstead of Phoenix has released a fairly novel, for this day and age, exhortation/challenge to the men of his Diocese to step up and get engaged in the spiritual maelstrom raging all around us. Overall, I think this a welcome development, even if I wish the exhortation was more grounded in Tradition than it is (the great preponderance of the language is decidedly post-conciliar). It’s a rare thing in this day and age to see a bishop actually throw down a gauntlet, spiritually, rather than continue the production of vast quantities of happy gas. I say, good for him.
A review from Fr. Richard Heilmann:
In a powerfully worded apostolic exhortation addressed to the men of his diocese, Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix, Arizona, has urged them to “not hesitate to engage in the battle that is raging around you.”
In a 23-page exhortation, entitled “Into the Breach,” Bishop Olmsted challenges men to join in a “primarily spiritual” battle against forces that are “progressively killing the remaining Christian ethos in our society and culture, and even in our homes.”
Bishop Olmsted writes that the cultural crisis has arisen primarily because “Catholic men have not been willing to ‘step into the breach,’ and his purpose in the document, released on September 29, is to rally good men to the cause. [Yes, men’s failings have been a significant part of the problem, but how are sheep to rally without a shepherd to guide them? I very much appreciate Bishop Olmstead’s exhortation in that regard, but let’s be real: the crisis in the Church is a crisis of a mass failure of leadership by the clergy. THAT IS NOT TO EXCUSE MEN OF THEIR DUTY! Not at all, but it is a a recognition of reality, though should fathers/men return en masse to their duty, one would hope and pray that within a few generations the crisis would be resolved through a huge influx of very good priests]
Bishop Olmsted explains that Catholic men are needed to conduct the “New Evangelization,” to re-introduce Christian principles in a society that has come to neglect them. He also cites the image offered by Pope Francis, of the Church as a “field hospital,” providing urgent care for those wounded by societal problems. [The only problem with the “old evangelization” is that it was dropped for no good reason. I am very dubious of this “new evangelization,” because it is grounded in the modernist concept that the world and humanity have somehow undergone a change so fundamental that the old means and methods – so effective for centuries – no longer work. They only no longer work, because they are no longer tried. It is one of the signal achievements of the modernist camp, in getting the Church to embrace this mentality, by and large]
Reflecting on the complementarity of the sexes, the bishop calls for active resistance against “gender ideology” and a dedication to living out male virtues, particularly the virtues of fortitude and chastity.
Addressing the question of what it means to be a man, Bishop Olmsted reminds his readers of how Pontius Pilate referred to Jesus: Ecce homo– “Here is the man!” The bishop observes: “Only in Jesus Christ can we find the highest display of masculine virtue and strength that we need in our personal lives and in society itself.” [Good]
The bishop urges men to undertake a campaign of spiritual growth, advising regular prayer and use of the sacraments, reading of Scripture, and unselfish service to wives and children. He recommends imitation of the great males saints. [Ooh Ooh! I pick Saint Jerome!] He cites the words of one of these models, Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassati: “To live without faith, without a patrimony to defend, without a steady struggle for truth – that is not living, but existing.”
In closing his apostolic exhortation, Bishop Olmsted calls readers’ attention to the scandal of Planned Parenthood’s involvement in the sale of fetal tissues. “We need to get off the sidelines and stand up for life on the front lines,” he writes, adding:
“We need faith like that of our fathers who defended the children of previous generations and who gave up their own lives rather than abandon their faith in Christ. My sons and brothers, men of the Diocese of Phoenix, we need you to step into the breach!”
Men of the Dallas Diocese (and nearby environs), you have two opportunities in the next week to step up and take on some additional effort to for the good of souls, the restoration of the moral order, and in opposition to grave evil. The first is next Wednesday, October 7 in the prayer vigil outside ‘The Men’s Club,’ and the other is on Saturday, October 10, in the Rosary Rally outside Planned Butcherhood. There is also a Life Chain being held this Sunday Oct. 4 at Mater Dei Parish from 2-3:30 pm. So you can’t say: “Well, what can I do?” You can go to any or all of those!!!
I pray I see you there!
National Right to Life: 2016 more important than stopping murder and sale of baby parts October 2, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, asshatery, contraception, disaster, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, unbelievable BS.
Congress just passed “temporary” funding bills that will continue to keep federal dollars rolling into Planned Barrenhood for some time. Many widely expect Republicans to continue to do so, to prevent their members from having to vote for or against a measure funding Planned Barrenhood. These temporary measures also keep RINO names from being attached to disastrously large, debt-inducing appropriations bills. It’s the new way of running government for the benefit of the elite, not passing proper bills and laws but just hacking together temporary measures to better aid their political fortunes.
It seems National Right to Life is fully supportive of this. They continue to maintain the delusion that 2016 might be a banner year of Republicans (it won’t) and that 2016 represents the best chance to end Roe v. Wade in a generation. As if. I don’t know where they get their delusions, in reality, these are hard-bitten political veterans who know better than anyone Roe won’t be going away anytime in the foreseeable future, these excuses are simply for public consumption, to explain away their all-too-cozy relationship with a Republican party too concerned about its electoral future to stop the mass slaughter of children and sale of murdered baby parts. LSN reports:
For weeks, leading pro-life groups have urged Congress to defund Planned Parenthood. This week, however, both chambers passed government funding bills that funded the government — including its funding of Planned Parenthood — until December.
Shortly before the vote, LifeSiteNews spoke with the leader of one of the few pro-life groups urging Congress to avoid a full-tilt defunding fight until 2017 — after a pro-life president can be elected.
“There was a government shutdown in 2013 because people wanted to see Obamacare repealed,” said National Right to Life’s Carol Tobias. “The repeal didn’t happen, and Republican numbers were in the tank until the disastrous rollout of Obamacare, which became a national joke. I don’t know that we can count on something like that next year to happen.”…….
……NRLC has not been shy about going against the pro-life grain. In 2013, it targeted two no-exceptions representatives from Georgia who opposed the “Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” because the bill allowed for the abortion of children conceived through rape.
Last year, the national pro-life organization dropped its affiliation with Georgia Right to Life because of the latter’s opposition to exceptions in pro-life legislation. A new, untested group — Georgia Life Alliance — became the new state partner. [Well that is DANGED interesting, and mirrors the division between Texas Right to Life – a no exceptions type group – and Texas Alliance for Life, which this writer has observed to be willing to make a lot of exceptions]
………”I hate to say this, but in 2012, pro-lifers lost. And babies are paying the price. We have to do everything we can to make sure that doesn’t happen in 2016, because we don’t want another four years, or eight years, of a pro-abortion president who is going to defend Planned Parenthood and defend abortion,” explains Tobias. The next president will “appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will, maybe five years, 10 years, 15 years down the road, be able to overturn Roe v. Wade.” [Uh huh. How many Republican-nominated justices do their have to be to overturn Roe v. Wade? Because in 1992 there were 6!! (O’Connor, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, Souter with a very conservative Byron White), and yet how did Casey v. Planned Barrenhood turn out? Instead we got a lecture from O’Connor about how abortion is the vital backstop to America’s contraceptive mentality? Just what exactly does NRLC do to oppose contraception? How many votes are enough in the Senate? The R’s will never, ever have 60+, and how many Republican presidents have taken real, hard steps to end abortion in this country? In the final analysis, the Republican party at the national level has repeatedly shown itself willing to only nibble around the edges of abortion but never, ever put it at serious risk of being outlawed. Even if the R’s by some miracle had 65 seats in the Senate and a president in the White House they STILL would manage to screw it up)
“When you weigh everything on the scale, I don’t know how, when you’ve got the current Senate make-up, and you’ve got Obama in the White House, I don’t know how you can win [inaudible],” she stated.
So what can pro-lifers do in 2016? Tobias says they can vote. “Part of the problem in 2012 was that some people [said], ‘Oh, I don’t really like Mitt Romney, I don’t like his religion,'” said Tobias. “A lot of people didn’t vote. We have to make sure that doesn’t happen next time. It’s up to pro-lifers to make sure that every pro-life voter in the country knows what is at stake.”
……… But if pro-lifers decide that, for whatever reason, they’re upset and they’re just gonna stay home, babies continue to die.”
I’m sorry, and excuse my language, but bullshit. Sure the Republicans are marginally better on pro-life at the national level, but only marginally so. Does anyone really think that if Romney – a total abortion squish, who has changed his position to whatever is convenient – had been elected, abortion would be under any more threat in this Year of our Lord 2015? No. We’d be hearing the same crap about how they’re aren’t enough votes in the Senate, the democrats will filibuster, we must wait till next election and see how we come out, but in the meantime, all you pro-lifers be good little obedient soldiers and keep donating to our cause and always keep voting Republican, and maybe one distant day in the future (but no promises!) we’ll put in a minor limitation on abortion.
I think a lot of pro-lifers have been hearing this same line for decades and we’re sick of it. The Republican party leadership takes pro-life votes for granted and isn’t even slightly interested in seeing our vital concerns realized. And NRLC and many other groups are so institutionalized that they are basically inseparable from the Republican party apparatus.
Here’s the reality – in spite of the billions donated to national pro-life groups, in spite of decades of pro-lifers dutifully voting for the Republican party, the United States today remains one of the most free-wheeling abortion landscapes in the world. We are one of only six nations to allow abortion to six months gestation, nominally, but let’s be real, we all know there are thousands of doctors all too happy to declare a “threat” to the mother’s health for specious reasons, so that abortion is in reality legal to 42 weeks and beyond. We see in the Planned Barrenhood videos that partial birth abortion still goes on on a wide scale, and does anyone think a single soul at Planned Barrenhood will be indicted under the federal ban?
I’ll just sum up again, bluntly: if the Republican party had all 9 Supreme Court justices, a “pro-life” President, 65 seats in the Senate and 280 in the House, does anyone think Roe v. Wade would be overturned/outlawed? Would abortion be made illegal? I don’t. I don’t believe that because I don’t believe the Republican party leadership wants abortion to go away, too many of even the “pro-life” ones aren’t, and, even more, the Republicans NEED abortion to remain as a vital motivator for much of their base. Even a 20 week limit would only be a probability under those circumstances, not assured. If you think I go too far, look at the historical track record, people.
Bah, maybe I’ve gotten too cynical, but having followed these matters closely for years my view of the Republican party on abortion has grown exceedingly pessimistic.
add a comment
This almost reads like a joke. So German Cancellor Angela Merkel was in New York to attend some UN function. She wound up at a table with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. She lamented to him the hostility expressed on social media to her immigration policy, especially given that Germany has taken in over 800,000 “refugees” this year alone. She was not happy with this wrong kind of self-expression, and demanded action. The CEO was only too happy to oblige:
On the sidelines of a United Nations luncheon on Saturday, Merkel was caught on a hot mic pressing Zuckerberg about social media posts about the wave of Syrian refugees entering Germany, the publication reported.
The Facebook CEO was overheard responding that “we need to do some work” on curtailing anti-immigrant posts about the refugee crisis. “Are you working on this?” Merkel asked in English, to which Zuckerberg replied in the affirmative before the transmission was disrupted.
There’s two standards folks: one for those who hold the “right” opinions, those who hold great leverage in society, and one for the rest of us. The internet, while also being a serious source of disinformation, has also been a thorn in the side of the powers that be. As the global consensus towards authoritarianism grows, don’t be surprised to see quite concrete moves to start blocking free speech on the internet. We can expect comments on various fora not to show, we can expect being banned from various sites, we can even expect being outed as various forms of hate monger. All in the service of “equality” and “non-discrimination.” It’s amazing how many other rights, even ones heretofore so sacrosanct (when they were an effective tool of the Revolution), are willingly sacrificed on the altar of expediency once their usefulness is at an end.
OR……it could just be a corrupt politician with a really bad policy seeking aid and cover from the media. But notice they rarely go to such lengths over things as prosaic as tax policy…..it’s only on the cultural issues that they seek to silence dissent, because culture trumps all.
So a liberal NYT writer (I repeat) has authored a piece on what it is to be a “modern man.” The result is about what you would expect, a whimpering metrosexual ninny who knows more about nail files than he does about gaping spark plugs.
I agree with Ace. This is pure click-bait, a deliberately obtuse effort designed to spark outrage and attract the maximum number of hits. But I imagine their are elements of truth in it, like the author’s obsession with footwear or his inadvertant revelations of his ladylike attention to other people’s feelings. It also reveals a man who probably spends very little time outside his precious city.
Since I strongly suspect this is at least a somewhat disingenuous effort only put forth to attract hits, I won’t link to it. You can find it through Ace’s post if you want. Ace took a lot of it anyway, which I’ll copy and comment on:
1. When the modern man buys shoes for his spouse, he doesn’t have to ask her sister for the size. And he knows which brands run big or small. [My wife would probably want to go meet with the priest if I started buying shoes for her]
4. The modern man doesn’t cut the fatty or charred bits off his fillet. Every bite of steak is a privilege, and it all goes down the hatch. [Fillet’s are not known for their fat. You mean strip or sirloin?]
6. Before the modern man heads off to bed, he makes sure his spouse’s phone and his kids’ electronic devices are charging for the night. [Rock on, superdad!]
7. The modern man buys only regular colas, like Coke or Dr Pepper. If you walk into his house looking for a Mountain Dew, he’ll show you the door. [WTF?!?? Who is obsessive enough to care? I’m sure they’re Coke Zero, anyway]
8. The modern man uses the proper names for things. For example, he’ll say “helicopter,” not “chopper” like some gauche simpleton. [Well, aren’t we a dandy? Can you see all us little people from up there, perched on your lofty heights?]
9. Having a daughter makes the modern man more of a complete person. He learns new stuff every day. [Yeah, well, I try to teach my kids something every day, too. I gave my second oldest daughter (try having 6) a lecture on the GULAG system yesterday.]
10. The modern man makes sure the dishes on the rack have dried completely before putting them away. [You show ’em, tiger. I pray you never have a son]
11. The modern man has never “pinned” a tweet, and he never will. [Well we agree on one thing]
12. The modern man checks the status of his Irish Spring bar before jumping in for a wash. Too small, it gets swapped out. [I’m sitting here, mouth agape. Did I just read that, as a DEFINITION OF MANHOOD?!?!?]
15. The modern man has hardwood flooring. His children can detect his mood from the stamp of his Kenneth Cole oxfords. [Get you a pair of Red Wings and maybe you’ll put a little peach fuzz on]
16. The modern man lies on the side of the bed closer to the door. If an intruder gets in, he will try to fight him off, so that his wife has a chance to get away. [Yeah, well, I lie closer to the door but I also have two guns within arm’s length. I win.]
17. Does the modern man have a melon baller? What do you think? How else would the cantaloupe, watermelon and honeydew he serves be so uniformly shaped? [These are not the balls you’re looking for]
18. The modern man has thought seriously about buying a shoehorn.
19. The modern man buys fresh flowers more to surprise his wife than to say he is sorry. [How about the decent man?]
20. On occasion, the modern man is the little spoon. Some nights, when he is feeling down or vulnerable, he needs an emotional and physical shield. [Well, we now know who the “man” in the family is]
23. The modern man has all of Michael Mann’s films on Blu-ray (or whatever the highest quality thing is at the time). [I prefer John Wayne. Just watched The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance again. What a film! Talk about men! Lee Marvin was a MAN]
24. The modern man doesn’t get hung up on his phone’s battery percentage. If it needs to run flat, so be it. [I am astonished at this man’s bravery. How he shames the men who fought and won WWII]
25. The modern man has no use for a gun. He doesn’t own one, and he never will. [Better pray he never runs across an un-modern criminal who carries one. Me, I think a man ought to own 5 or 10]
26. The modern man cries. He cries often.
Oh I give up. Definitely click bait, but sheesh, how pathetic can you be?
If this is a man, Bruce Jenner didn’t lose much by pretending to be a woman, does he?
US undertaking unprecedented influx of immigration October 1, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, demographics, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Immigration, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society.
It’s always a bit of a fallacy to extend present trends far into the future, because there are many reasons why things could change, but given that the United States continues to ride an unprecedented 45 year wave of extraordinary levels of illegal immigration, there is not much reason to conclude that the trend will suddenly reverse, unless there the mass public dissatisfaction with this ongoing trend should finally move the political, cultural, and economic leadership of this country to act. Nevertheless, if trends hold, the United States will, in 7-8 years, surpass the highest percentage of immigrants in the country in its entire (by then) 250 year history:
The United States is taking in more immigrants than at any time in our history, while at the same time making little or no effort to assimilate them. No one can know what the consequences of this experiment will be. This chart, created by the Center for Immigration Studies from Census Bureau data, plots the number of immigrants living in the U.S. and their share of the population, from 1900 to 2014 and projected through 2060. As of last year, the U.S. was home to a record 42.4 million immigrants, legal and illegal, representing 13.3% of the nation’s population.
* In addition to immigrants, there were 16.2 million U.S.-born minor (<18) children with at least one immigrant parent in 2014, for a total of 58.6 million immigrants and their children. Immigrants and their minor children now account for more than one in six U.S. residents.
* Mexico had by far the largest immigrant population in the country, with 11.7 million legal and illegal Mexican immigrants living in the United States in 2014.
Indeed, at present, 1 in 8 Mexican nationals now resides in the United States. Talk about unprecedented.
This nation is being radically changed. If trends do hold, any idea of the Republicans or any other conservative party holding power (Presidency + at least one House of Congress) come 2030 or so is literal insanity. Hispanics and all other immigrants vote democrat/left wing about 4:1. Their children do the same, the pattern does not begin to change until the 3rd or 4th generation, and even that is somewhat doubtful. Add another 10-15 million voters of that bent and you have the makings of a permanent democrat majority.
In a sense, there is a delicious irony playing out, if you have some knowledge of the history of the United States treatment of Mexico and much of Latin America. We had things totally our way for about 200 years, but no longer. This can be traced directly back to the collapse in US birth rates, which has created at least some justification for the influx of illegal worker bees to replace those never born here. The US quite frankly has royally screwed over Mexico on numerous occasions, from the invasion of 1848-9 that took away almost half of Mexico’s former land area, to the deliberate, purposeful infiltration of the Mexican political and cultural system by US interests, planting masonry and liberalism in a deeply traditional country and instigating most of the dire persecutions the Church has experienced there. In a sense, we’ve sown the wind, and are in the process of reaping the whirlwind. If these Hispanics would somehow remain devout Catholics and work to instill a Catholic culture in this country, I’d be much more supportive of this literal human flood, but most fall away, or are already extremely weak, worldly Catholics formed by the disastrously bad Church in Latin America, when they come here.
Completely, totally related – the average full-time male employee in the United States makes less today than he did in 1970:
he typical man with a full-time job–the one at the statistical middle of the middle–earned $50,383 last year, the Census Bureau reported this week.
The typical man with a full-time job in 1973 earned $53,294, measured in 2014 dollars to adjust for inflation.
You read that right: The median male worker who was employed year-round and full time earned less in 2014 than a similarly situated worker earned four decades ago. And those are the ones who had jobs.
Would you like fries with that?
Two videos – everything wrong with modern art, Abby Johnson destroys Cecile Richards October 1, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Art and Architecture, Basics, contraception, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, sadness, scandals, sickness, Society.
I like this video on all the problems with modern (and post-modern) art. The abandonment of artistic standards has led to the near total collapse of the production of quality, timeless art. I think it also emblematic of the decadence and moral corruption of the West, that tacky, cheap, boring, unskillful, offensive, and just plain crap that my 3rd grader could better is now promoted as “fine art.” Give me a break:
A couple of things – do you remember the movie “Dead Poet’s Society?” There is a pivotal scene that repeats itself, having to do with a textbook that teaches a means of “rating” the relative merits of different poems. The new liberal teacher, played by Robin Williams, is horribly offended at this notion, believing that poetry is so sublime it is beyond any kind of ratings or metrics. He teaches his students to rip that section of the textbook out. Later on, this becomes sort of his triumph.
But is that really right? Are there not means by which various poets and poems could be rated against each other? Is writing in a very technical meter, and pulling it off with rhyme, rhythm, and deep meaning, a greater achievement than a few lines scrawled in a haiku? Is the Illiad greater than some of EE Cummings later trash? Does Shakespeare not trump the contemporary schlock called poetry we are dished up? Or Blake or Wordsworth or Coleridge, for that matter?
The same applies to the visual arts. It is perhaps true that the governing academies of the late 19th century had become a bit too rigid and stale, but throwing off ALL restraint and ANY founding principles has led art down the garbage drain of boring, thoughtless, derivative trash. And I think it right to cast a bit of blame at the Impressionists on this, because they started the revolution, even though their own works were great achievements in their own right.
Second video, kind of boring but a for-the-record type entry, Abby Johnson obliterates Cecile Richards. I’m quite certain my sophomore daughter could do so even more thoroughly, but she’ll never have the cache of having worked at Planned Butcherhood:
Meh: Cecile Richards, head of an organization responsible for tens of millions of murders (for profit), lies. Shocking, I know.
A couple of what the heck videos. There is so little footage of the incredibly charismatic Gram Parsons. Here is one of the better bits. Groovy man. Somebody please pin Chris Hillman to the ground and shave his head, sheesh.
From the same shoot in support of the first Flying Burrito Brother album. Such a shame Gram couldn’t put together more than about 6 consecutive clean months the last 10 years of his life. When he did wow was he prodigiously talented. [FAIR WARNING – GRAM TOOK THE IDEA OF A “NUDIE SUIT” A BIT TOO FAR]: