jump to navigation

Start Fatima Novena today! May 4, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Interior Life, Liturgical Year, Novenas, Our Lady, sanctity, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
comments closed

Thanks to MJD for the head’s up.  While May 13 is not recognized as a particular feast day in the 1962 Calendar, Fatima is certainly a Marian apparition to which many faithful Catholics have a profound devotion.  Use the below as you desire.  I pray it brings you great spiritual fruit:

Recite this prayer for 9 days…start today!

Most Holy Virgin, luciasvision
who has deigned to come to Fatima
to reveal to the three little shepherds
the treasures of graces hidden in the recitation of the Rosary,
inspire our hearts with a sincere love of this devotion,
so that by meditating on the mysteries
of our redemption that are recalled in it,
we may gather the fruits
and obtain the conversion of sinners,
the conversion of Russia,
and this favor that I so earnestly seek….
(State your request here…)

which I ask of you in this Novena,
for the greater glory of God,
for your own honor,
and for the good of all people.

Pray 3 sets of : Our Father, Hail Mary, and Glory Be.

Prayers Taught to the Children at Fatima


Pardon Prayer


O My God, I believe, I adore, I trust, and I love you! And I beg pardon for those who do not believe, do not adore, do not trust, and do not love you.



Prayer of Reparation


O Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I adore thee profoundly. I offer thee the most precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world, in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges and indifferences by which He is offended. By the infinite merits of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I beg of thee the conversion of poor sinners.



Eucharistic Prayer


Most Holy Trinity, I adore you! My God, my God, I love you in the Most Blessed Sacrament!


 Sacrifice Prayer


O my Jesus, it is for love of you, in reparation for the offenses committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and for the conversion of poor sinners.



Rosary Decade Prayer


O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of Thy mercy.

So here’s a question.  Do you think the Third Secret has ever been fully revealed?  I have long thought the answer is no.  It has not been fully revealed, nor has Our Lady’s command to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart been obeyed properly, either.

Vatican climate push must of necessity push abortion and other global fertility-lowering efforts May 4, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, pr stunts, sadness, scandals, secularism, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Some of the very, very first laws the Bolsheviks put into effect upon taking power in the former Imperial Russia were laws not just allowing, but encouraging divorce, contraception, and abortion.  Why in heavens would that be one of their earliest moves?  What could they possibly have to gain from diabolical efforts?  Control.

The left, most admittedly in its pure and distilled form of communism, but in all its forms, seeks to control people on a level never dreamed of by the most benighted despots of the past.  They seek not just control over  your political activities, or your economic life, or of your social involvements, but all these things plus much more besides.  They seek to control your inner thoughts and your relationship with God.  The left, as I have argued many times in the past, is ultimately at war with the Christian God and has been for hundreds of years.

How is religion most intimately and effectively communicated from one generation to the next?  The family.  How can the left ever pry us stubborn God-botherers away from our magic talks with God unless they destroy the family and stand up the state in its stead?  And how can one destroy the family, anyway?  Well……turning sex into a competitive sport and loosing all the checks and balances God provided on human reproductive behavior was, and remains, a great place to start.  So you legalize divorce, fornication, contraception, and especially baby murder, and go from there.  As we have seen in this country, a few decades of such legalization will lead society to the precipice of self-destruction.  And even after the regime that foisted such evils on the people goes away, the evils remain for decades after.  Witness Russia today, with still one of the world’s highest abortion rates, and general death-wishing nihilism driving incredibly high rates of alcoholism and drug addiction, producing one of the lowest life expectancies for men of any largely developed nation.

Communism is nothing if not relentless.  They tried the direct method of competition with the more capitalist West and failed.  So now they are trying manifold other, less obvious but more insidious methods, like cultural marxism and environmentalism.  But these replacements are no different from their predecessor, and contain all the same assumptions and desires that the old Soviet state did – total control over the lives and thoughts of everyone on earth, the destruction of the family, the “death” of God.  Cultural marxism and environmentalism are of course as tied up in the sexular pagan death cult as the most fire-breathing Bolshevist of Stalin’s days.

Which brings me to the main point – this recent highly publicized and very important “climate conference” or “conference on sustainable development” at the Vatican.  Yes there have been highly unfortunate flirtations with the left wing socialists at the UN and in the environmental movement by the Vatican before, but never with such official approbation, and never with so much influence on official papal documents of doctrinal import. I say influence, because the Vatican itself widely reported that the meeting between Pope Francis and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, as well as the entirely one-sided conferences organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, were oriented towards providing input for the upcoming papal encyclical on “climate change” and sustainable development.  As I noted in the link above, the conferences featured some of the most prominent pro-aborts and population control zealots in the world today.  That pro-abort maximalists like Jeffrey Sachs (abortion on demand at public expense and without apology) were given a platform to speak – even if “only” on a subject intimately related to their population control obsessions, “climate change” and sustainable development – is hugely scandalous in its own rite.  But to openly tie this platform with the upcoming encyclical is completely unprecedented.

Yes, we certainly don’t have the encyclical before us, yet, so some might hold out hope that it won’t venture beyond broad platitudes of previous papal discussion of such topics.  And I pray they are right.  But the way the PR offensive is shaping up, and given Pope Francis’ own comments on the subject and the many hints he has dropped, it looks like this encyclical will be further unprecedented in the degree to which it assigns blame and demands action (change) from certain parties. It also looks to tie climate change/sustainable development to an unprecedented array of moral evils – “respect for…….the poor, the excluded, victims of human trafficking and modern slavery, children and future generations.”  Which last bit is an odd juxtaposition to the inclusion of so many radical pro-abort sexular pagans at the pontifical conferences.  It also seems quite odd to include almost exclusively muslim slavery and the depravity of pedophilia in a mention of matters affiliated with “sustainable development.”  Such inclusion came across to me as egregiously piling on.

I could keep ranting, but I think Michael Matt has summed up the matter better than I can:

The questions Matt asks at the end are certainly trenchant.  Is he right to do so?  Have we come to a point where Catholics must definitively oppose the Pope on this environmental push or even more broadly?  What do you think?

And even if you and I do, will anyone listen?

I know I have a lot of local readers.  Many fellow parishioners have found this blog.  God bless you, thanks.  How about making your voice heard now?  No, no one will see your e-mail or be able to ID you if you don’t want.  Commenting is as anonymous as you want it to be.  I am really, genuinely asking, because I find this current situation massively uncomfortable.  I know some folks who are regular commenters have made up their minds pretty well.  What of the hundreds of you who rarely or never comment?  Will you stand up and be heard?

US birthrate continues to plummet, led by Hispanics May 4, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, Christendom, contraception, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, paganism, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
comments closed

“Millenials,” that generation born between maybe 1980 and 2000?, is rapidly coming of age.  This group of special snowflakes who got trophies for showing up and were always told how awesomely awesome they all were, each and every one!, is having great deal of difficulty even bothering to conceive.  Birthrates for millenial-group whites are nearing European levels, if projections hold – less than 1.4 live births per woman per lifetime.  Even Hispanics, long the only cohort keeping the US fertility rate near replacement levels, are plummeting – faster, in fact, than any other group.  Apparently these Catholic immigrants aren’t staying Catholic very long once they reach this country:

 In a new report, the Urban Institute think tank writes that in 2012, there were only 948 births per 1,000 women in their 20s, “by far the slowest pace of any generation of young women in U.S. history.” In 2007, the rate was 1,118 births per 1,000. The decline in births was largest among Hispanic women, at 26 percent, followed by black women, at 14 percent, and an 11 percent drop for white women…….

…….For white women, though, the story was very different: “81 percent of the decrease in fertility is attributable to declining marriage rates.” (Granted, white women were less likely to be single mothers to begin with.) All the single ladies of countless Internet essays are, indeed, staying unhitched—and they’re not having kids as a result.

The report authors say they don’t know whether Millennial women will eventually catch up in childbearing like women who lived through past recessions did.

The data is really stunning. A 15% drop in fertility rate in just 5 years?!?  I don’t know if that’s happened anytime since the implosion of traditional culture called the 1960s/early 70s.  And Latinas dropped my over 25%!!


The entire Western socialist welfare state, including the American one, is a ponzi scheme predicated on constantly increasing population.  Not just increasing population, but each succeeding generation must be larger than its predecessor, and by no small amount.  Otherwise, we’ll all have to pay sky-high taxes, productivity will plummet, and prolonged economic recession/depression a la France since 1975 will set in.  Well……here we are.  The millenial generation is  15-20 million smaller than the preceding “Gen X,” and whatever Madison Ave decides to call those following the millenials will be even smaller.  But we already know this.

No country and no culture has survived an extended period of voluntary low birthrates.  These periods have spelled the death knell for civilizations in ancient Greece, Rome, China, India, and elsewhere.  When a culture runs so out of energy and care for the future that it can’t even bother to reproduce itself, it’s not long for the world.  I don’t know how long this culture of ours has left, but eventually something’s going to break, and break big – government, economy, culture – or, most likely, all three.

Don’t mean to be a downer but this is really unprecedented.  Yes machines and technology can make us some of the difference but not on the scale we’re seeing, where the number of little humans being born today around the world is literally 1/4-1/3 what is was 50 years ago. Unprecedented doesn’t even begin to describe it.

So…….pick your poison, persecution or collapse.  Either way, not so fun.


Was Dolfuss’ Austria (1930s) a good embodiment of Catholic social teaching? May 4, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, General Catholic, history, Papa, secularism, Society, technology, true leadership.
comments closed

I have always been leery of utopian schemes and conspiracy theories.  Constitutionally, I just shy away from “big ideas” that purport to be the all-encompassing solution for all perceived societal ills.  I say that because of the extremely checkered history of utopian schemes. Communism in particular and leftism in general are utopian and how many people has they killed?

But I also know that various Popes have written extensively on political and economic organization in modern times, finding very little to like in what the world has had to offer.  Proposed as an alternative is a Catholic social theory that calls for a radical reorientation of modern state constructs away from the twin decried evils of leftism and free market rapacity.  However, among those who either see in papal condemnations of modern political-economic systems much that rings true, or who are simply trying to be loyal sons of the Church, there is disagreement on the ideal means of implementing this Catholic social theory. Distributism is one theory broached.  I frankly haven’t studied the matter enough to really get all the fine points of distinction between distributism and other responses.

Having said that, I’ve been reading a good deal on interwar Austria of late, from Dietrich von Hildebrand’s My Battle Against Hitlerwhen to Kurt von Schussnigg’s romping adventure When Hitler Took Austria, to Fr. Johannes Messner’s hagiography of Austrian Prime Minister Engleburt Dolfuss.  It is in the latter that I found the most detailed history and description of Dolfuss’ attempt to implement primarily Quadragesimo Anno into reality.  But because I’m still not terribly well-formed in this area, I thought I’d ask readers if the descriptions of a proper Catholic corporative state are indeed accurate and reasonable attempts at conveying the idea behind a Church-observing Catholic state.  A few quotes below that jumped out to me as most descriptive of the Catholic corporative state (I won’t go into detail, because that would take many thousands of words. I am very much just hitting some major themes and nothing more):

The party system, formal democracy, and the liberal form of society, are eliminated by the new Constitution of Austria.  In their stead comes the authoritarian state with the corporative organization of the nation, the organization of  the State and of society according to the requirements of Christian social philosophy as proclaimed in the encyclical Quadragesimo Anno.  [I guess the first question I’d have is, is an authoritarian state with one strong man at the top really called for in Catholic social teaching?  Because from what I’ve read this is probably a spurious claim]

…….The Constitution must, above all, be the practical expression of that natural law which for the Chancellor was the lever for the whole of the reorganization of the body politic: the just relation between unity and liberty as embodied in the political philosophy of German jurisprudence and Christianity. In politics this means nothing else than the just combination of the principle of authority with the principle of democracy.   Any state which intends to fulfill its proper task must be an authoritarian state, possessing such full powers as to be able under all circumstances to take the necessary measures for the needs of the nation and for the common good.  [This is certainly an approach markedly alien to those raised in the Anglosphere. It is a belief that power flows from the state down to the person and individual freedom is something of a bequest of the state, rather than the more liberal approach we are familiar with. I do note that the claim that this state simply must be authoritarian is made as a bald assertion with no supporting evidence.]

…..The principle of authoritarian government is embodied in the May Constitution of 1934 in the following way: the federal government does not depend upon any commission from legislative organs, nor is it subject to any political control of such corporations; it has an emergency power of decree extending to everything except changes to the Constitution, and it alone has the right to introduce draft legislation. The Federal Chancellor [Dolfuss] determines the policy of the government, in which the federal ministers are associated while remaining autonomous in their own spheres of public affairs; his assent is required moreover for the promulgation of any provincial law.   The Federal President, elected for seven years tenure of office, cannot be deposed; he determines the number of the ministers and their sphere of competence; he appoints the provincial governors after the submission of three names by the provincial diets.  He has an emergency right of decree which extends even to altering single provisions of the Constitution.  [Is this not close to rule by decree?  Does that matter?  And by giving to the federal chancellor and president such powers over lower levels of government, is subsidiarity maintained? Anyway, now we get the “principle of authority.”  What of the principle of democracy?]

The principle of democracy is protected in the Constitution of 1934 by the fact that the federal government is given four corporations to advise it regarding the laws which it shall propose to the federal diet.  The four advisory corporations are: 1) the state council. It shall number 40 or 50 members, ans shall consist of men who may be expected to have a right understanding of the needs of the State.  They will be chosen by the federal president. 2) The council of intellect consists of 30 or 40 members representing the clergy and religious societies, schools and educational establishments, learning and art. [chosen by who is not clear] 3) The economic council consists of 70 or 80 representatives of the economic “estates” or professional corporations.  The chief departments will be represented by special groups, as follows: Agriculture and Forestry, Mining and Industry, Trade and Commerce, Finance and Credit, free professions, Public Services. [chosen by who is not clear] 4) The provincial council. To this every province and also the city of Vienna sends two representatives, namely the provincial governor [Who were appointed by the president. So two of the four estates are made up of members hand-picked by the federal president.] and his finance minister.

The legislative organ is the federal diet.  It is constituted by 20 representatives of the state council, 10 of the council of intellect, 20 of the economic council, and 9 of the provincial council.  The federal diet has the right to approve or reject measures of legislation without amendment; it has, moreover, the power to call the federal government to account before the federal court of justice; and finally it has the right to certify the constitutional character or otherwise of the decrees issued by the federal government in virtue of its emergency power of decree……..The federal diet is summoned by the president.. [So, not trying to be negative, but even the “democratic” principle is highly autocratic, given that the powers of the diet are extremely limited, that half its members (at least) are hand-picked by the federal president, and even its ability to stand in session is also at the whim of the president.  But it turns out that the other two councils were also to be nominated by the government/president, at least initially.  Eventually it was hoped to receive nominations for such representatives in the 2nd and 3rd councils above from the interested parties themselves, but the government did not survive long enough for that to occur]

……The whole nation elects the Federal President through the governors of the autonomous provinces of Austria. [Who were in turn appointed by the president?  Wuuh?]  These choose from three nominees presented by the federal assembly, which is itself comprised of members drawn form the four advisory corporations. [This federal assembly was never before mentioned. I don’t know if that is the same thing as the diet or some subset of it. If it is, basically what was intended was that the president would give three names to replace himself to choose from. Those names could include his own, then he would have sweeping powers to administer government through direct control over two of the four “estates.”]  The principle of democracy is especially shown in the extended autonomy of the estates, essential to the corporative system.

All those phenomena of pseudo-democracy which in the parliamentary system had been the bane of political life for the past decade, are abolished; especially the universal suffrage for the legislative branch, so that there is now no possibility of a renewal of the demagogical dissensions of the past. [The author, a close collaborator in the creation of this corporatist state, has a very dim view of both universal suffrage and parliamentary democracy] There is now a general suffrage only for the lowest representative bodies of the estates, the higher corporations being composed of delegates from these.  [The “democracy” that was posited under Dolfuss was very, very different from what we, or frankly the ancient Athenians, would comprehend]

———-End Quote———-

The fundamental assumption underlying the above, so different from what we were all formed to believe today, is that political power flows from God on down to little peons like you and I. We were of course taught to believe that it flows from the people up.

Having said that, it is clear that the Austrian construct was as authoritarian as it proclaimed itself to be, with the “democracy” notional, at best. I’m not sure why they even bothered with the lip-service to democracy, unless that was part of a process of appealing to the conceits of the Western powers in the tense interwar period.  Austria had been wracked by two extremes in its brief parliamentary existence, extremes of right (monarchism) and left (Bolshevism and Nazism) that could not remotely come to compromise.  As such, government had largely broken down and the state nearly foundered, economically, in the wake of the Great Depression and lingering economic sanctions from WWI.  Thus, it was seen that government’s most critical function was to get something done, to break the status quo and try to get the country on a more solid basis again.  To that extent, Dolfuss and his successor did succeed a bit, though it is difficult to assess such a brief period (5 3/4 years) of rule.

Here’s my summation – even if the above system as described is 100% as Catholic as it can be, is it fair to say it depends on a very strong man, or authoritarian ruler, to make it work?  The only two modern examples we really have are Dolfuss above and Franco’s Spain.  Franco tried to be pretty Catholic (as envisioned above) for the first 20 years of his rule, but did not meet with much success.  Spain in 1959 was economically moribund and technologically backwards.  Much more liberal economic policies were adopted from that time on, which played a role not only in greatly increasing Spanish wealth (the “Spanish miracle” of the mid-60s to late-70s), but also, most likely, laying the groundwork for the implosion of Franco’s Catholic authoritarian state and the collapse of all Church authority (and reverence for Christ) in the wake of his death.

So, if secular strong men like Dolfuss and Franco are one hit wonders (maybe) who are essentially irreplaceable, perhaps monarchy is a better way to go?  At least then, some system of succession for the authority is set up?  It seems very hard for particularly Catholic/traditional/conservative authoritarian governments to transfer power from one generation to the next.  Leftists seem to do so better.  Wonder why that is? Or are there simply not enough examples to make a firm judgment, those few we have perhaps being more dominated by events outside their control (like Anchsluss)?

Does any of the above make sense?  I’m tired of this topic, moving on.

So now Aggie has jumped the leftist shark? May 4, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, disaster, error, family, foolishness, General Catholic, paganism, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society.
comments closed

One of those lasting cliches that most people in this great State of Texas accept without much thought is that Texas A&M is the major tier 1 state university for conservatives, while The University of Texas is dominated by a bunch of hippy leftist flower children.  Being a very proud graduate of UT, I can say that while there is a certain amount of truth to that statement, it is dramatically overblown, and in the Greeks and other aspects of the huge UT population, you will find thousands every bit if not more conservative than you will at A&M.  However, knowing that UT’s Newman Center is a wreck full of modernist dreck, and that A&M’s Saint Mary’s has evolved into a quite orthodox (if fully Novus Ordo/post-conciliar) Catholic environment producing many priests, I had begun to soften over the past few  years over the idea of one of my kids attending a&m if they really, really wanted to.

Meh………maybe not so much.  If the faculty of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences (one of a&m’s most high-profile academic enclaves) is any indication, leftism has penetrated quite deeply, to the point of making global socialist wealth redistribution climate change a veritable dogma of the leftist faith, required belief for all faculty and heavily inculcated among the students:

The faculty of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences of Texas A&M University has extensive knowledge about the Earth’s climate. As employees of a state university, it is our responsibility to offer our expertise on scientific issues that are important to the citizens of Texas, including whether and why the climate is changing.

We all agree with the following three conclusions based on current evidence:

  1. The Earth’s climate is warming, meaning that the temperatures of the lower atmosphere and ocean have been increasing over many decades. Average global surface air temperatures warmed by about 1.5° between 1880 and 2012.
  2. It is extremely likely that humans are responsible for more than half of the global warming between 1951 and 2012.
  3. Under so-called “business-as-usual” emissions scenarios, additional global-average warming (relative to a 1986-2005 baseline) would likely be 2.5-7°F by the end of this century. [Based on what?  Highly flawed computational fluid dynamics models?  Models that require enormous art and skill to accurately reflect even closed systems like electronics and avionics, and even then still have at least a 10-20% margin of error (which means that the total rise predicted above falls almost entirely within the margin for error, even if the models were truly representative of reality, which, they are not)?]

Continued rising temperatures risk serious challenges for human society and ecosystems. It is difficult to quantify such risks, except to say that the potential magnitude of impacts rises rapidly as temperatures approach the high end of the range quoted above.

This statement was unanimously adopted by the faculty on Nov. 14, 2014. It is in effect until Jan. 1, 2020 or until revised.

Now think about the effect such a statement will have on:

  • hiring decisions regarding new faculty.  Will those who reject such an “obvious dogma” stand any chance of being considered for even a lecture position, let alone a tenure track position?
  • truly free research conducted without agenda and without a predetermined outcome in mind?  How much will this kind of statement influence the research conducted at a&m, when the conclusion has already been promoted as a sacred shibboleth never to be violated?
  • students in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences, who are now taught that, contrary to all evidence and just about every other scientific subject imaginable, there is only one possible solution, the “science is settled,” and further developments and explanations are unnecessary.  How many times, and on how many other equally certain subjects, have the grand old men of science completely reversed themselves in the past?  Plate tectonics when first proposed was laughably dismissed but is now scientific orthodoxy.  Ozone depletion was demonstrated to be a scam when someone finally noticed that the so-called polar ozone holes only occurred when the sunlight instrumental in upper-atmosphere ozone formation dipped below the horizon for weeks or months at a time in the polar regions.  Don’t hear so much about that one today now, do you?
  • the reputations of the signatories should it be proven to be false, or enormously exaggerated?  This gets back to the free and objective search for answers “science” is supposed to be: how objective can the signatories be when they have publicly staked their reputations to one particular conclusion?  Please.

That there are glaring holes in this theory cum political ideologue hardly needs mentioning.  Just a handful are discussed here, but there are many more of even greater significance.  The greatest perhaps is global warmist’s inability to explain away the lack of global temperature rise for nearly 20 continuous years (in spite of the yearly press releases you see to the contrary), and the incredible scandal of their manipulation of surface temperature data to try to hide that fact from the public and government leaders.

So, another one bites the dust?  Good ‘ol whooping gig’em is slowly sliding into the same sexular pagan morass that has consumed the faculty of most other universities? In reality, A&M, being a major research university (a significant problem of its own), has long had a faculty dominated by sexular pagan leftists, as has every other university not deliberately founded on more traditional principles, such as Hillsdale or Wyoming Catholic.  Did this announcement raise any controversy?  It is actually quite significant, because A&M Department of Atmospheric Sciences produces a goodly number of the nation’s meteorologists.  Certainly, many in this state hail from A&M.  The Weather Channel and several other popular sources for weather info have gone fully over into left-wing gerbal worming advocacy.  It would seem that form of cultural marxism will only increase.

And now I don’t have to worry about seeing my kids in maroon and white.  Thank you for only confirming our plan that they live at home and commute to a local college.  It will save me lots of money!  And maybe my children’s souls.

Terror comes to Texas……. May 4, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, rank stupidity, scandals, sickness, Society, the enemy, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

……..and fails miserably.  But one must wonder whether the attack carried out in Garland last night will not serve to dampen enthusiasm for such events aimed at slowing the steady adoption of shariah islam as the de fact religion of the West.  This is a most important point, because even in the media response to the attack, the conference, which awarded prize money for cartoons which were critical of islamist violence, has been widely reported as an “anti-islam” event.  But why is it “anti-islam,” when the same media sources certainly did NOT find such atrocities like the “piss Christ” to be anti-Christian, but simply expressions of free speech.  They can only view last night’s cartoons as “anti-islam” because, on one level or another, the media have accepted the muslim dogma that the “prophet” is never to be depicted visually in any way.  And that is how islam is becoming the de facto official religion of the West.

Long intro aside, most readers are probably aware at this point that two deranged islamists attempted to attack a free speech conference organized last night for the purpose of raising money to be used to promote “moderate” islam, if any can be found.  This conference was held in Garland, TX, just a few miles from my former home.  Two men, one from Arizona, had apparently planned this attack for at least some days.  They were fortunately set upon by the police presence called out for the controversial conference.  Both men were killed, but only after lightly injuring an unarmed security guard.  There was also strong suspicion that the attackers had brought explosive devices along with them, but even after detonating their car, I don’t believe any were found.

News coverage in the Dallas area has ranged from fair to heinous, with the Belo properties WFAA TV and Dallas Morning News leading the highly biased coverage.  There is tons of coverage here, from one of the participants.  For those few who are unaware of what transpired, here’s a decent rundown:

A free speech event organized by conservative writer Pamela Geller in Garland, Texas came under attack yesterday evening when two armed men opened fire on a security officer……Shortly after the attack began, the shooters ran into Texas law enforcement who provided a short, terminal lesson in what happens when you try something like this in the Lone Star State.

A search for explosives continued into the night Sunday after two men were shot and killed outside a provocative contest for cartoon depictions of the Prophet Muhammad.

The event took place at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland.

The two suspects drove up and opened fire near the center hitting a Garland ISD officer. Garland Police shot and killed the two men.

There is one bit of good news coming out of the incident. The security officer who was attacked, Bruce Joiner, was treated at a local hospital for a gunshot wound to the leg and released. He is expected to make a full recovery. The shooters… not so much.

While it’s an initial report and will need further confirmation, ABC News is reporting that one of the shooters has been identified……His name is Elton Simpson………

…….A number of Twitter messages were discovered (in addition to the ones from Simpson) from Islamic – and possibly ISIS related – sources which hinted at the coming attack. The subject of the event was a contest for artists creating displays which depict the Prophet Muhammad, a topic which has drawn terrorist attacks in the past. We’re going to have to wait, possibly for quite a while, before any definite conclusions can be drawn as to whether the shooters cooked up this plot on their own or if there are co-conspirators out there waiting to be discovered.

I don’t think this is a case of sudden jihad syndrome. This attack was announced well in advance and planned for at least a few days.  At least one attacker traveled nearly 1000 miles to conduct the attack. Now they are finding out whether islam’s promises to its militant martyrs have any value, or not.  I am certain those are two cosmically disappointed and disillusioned souls at this point.  Pity.

I am very far from a free speech absolutist.  I am gravely offended by blasphemies directed at Jesus Christ and the Church He founded.  But as always with regard to the Church and other religions, and there is a huge amount of theology to support this claim – error has no rights, and the Church/religion of Jesus Christ really are radically different and deserving of not just special, but highly preferential treatment. Conversely, all other religions, according to very well developed Catholic belief, can be tolerated at best but certainly can never be put on an equivalent footing with the Church in terms of law or cultural preference.  So there is no hypocrisy in being quite happy to see islam receive the ridicule is richly deserves, while maintaining that such efforts directed at Our Blessed Lord would be gravely offensive and hypocritical.  And for any outsiders, no, the Church’s arguments are not founded on preference, they are founded on very strong arguments dating back to Aquinas and well before.

Not that I want to get into those now.  As someone with a bit of a memory, I am absolutely floored at the degree to which people just accept periodic muslim attacks on US soil as just sort of a ho-hum thing.  Can you imagine how people would have freaked out and reacted in, say, 1980 over something like this?  Back then terrorism was something that happened in other countries thousands of miles away.  Not anymore. And much of the media in its coverage has quite strongly implied the people at this event had it coming to them for daring to transgress against the “prophet!”

You can file this as exhibit number 87594 why the left will not fight islam but will gladly don the burqa and erect minarets when the time comes. No, not all, but most, and especially those who believe they hold any power or influence.