Some Classic Refutations of protestant Errors on the Bible January 16, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Bible, catachesis, Ecumenism, episcopate, General Catholic, Interior Life, priests, reading, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
add a comment
From the Preface to the New Testament in the Haydock Study Bible, some excellent commentary on common protestant claims regarding Sacred Scripture as the sole rule of faith under the private interpretation of each individual (or the leader of each sect, as is more typical). Much of the commentary below comes from Archbishop Rene Fenelon. All of it is great. Some of the key points addressed below:
- The absolute need for a sole authority to settle questions of Scripture
- The extreme danger that results from private interpretation and the pride that inspires this interpretation
- The error of protestant use of supposedly superior knowledge of the Bible against Catholics as a weapon to rend souls from the Church, when in fact they simply twist Scripture to their own ends. Those souls would be far better off with a Catechism than a panoply of biblical studies.
- Scripture cannot be the sole rule of Faith
If there be no infallible authority, which may say to us all, “this is the true meaning of the holy Scripture:how can we expect that illiterate peasants, or simple mechanics, should engage in a discussion wherein the learned themselves cannot agree? God would have been wanting to the necessities of almost all men, if, when he gave them a written law, he had not at the same time provided them a sure interpreter, to spare them the necessity of research, of which they are utterly incapable. Every man of common understanding has need of nothing more than a sincere sense of his ignorance, to see the absurdities of the sects, who build their separation from the Catholic Church upon the privilege of deciding on matters far above their comprehension. [Or even if not above their comprehension, per se, we still see the effect of private interpretation in the proliferation of warring sects, each holding a different view of various parts of Scripture and their meaning. Most of those have to be wrong. And in point of fact, much of protestant Scripture “scholarship” is nothing of the sort but simply an exercise of ex post facto effort to twist Scripture to find in it the doctrines they’ve already decided upon, as Luther and Calvin did in identifying “total depravity” as a rule of Scripture in order to justify the elimination of works as necessary for salvation and thus most of the 10 Commandments] Ought we then to hearken to the new reformers, who require what is impossible; or to the ancient Church, which provides for the weakness of our nature?” If we listen to the former, we should soon be found to resemble those men of latter days, who St. Paul tells us to avoid: ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of truth; (2 Timothy chap. iii. ver. 7,) because they trust to their own lights, and not to the visible authority appointed by Jesus Christ. How evident does all this speak for itself, when we behold a Voltaire extracting mental poison from the Song of Solomon; or, another Cromwell reading to a ruthless soldiery God’s ordinances concerning the smiting of the Ammonites and Chanaanites, in order to induce them to kill every Catholic, man, woman, and child; or the fanatic, maintaining from the Revelations, that no king is to be obeyed but King Jesus; or, finally, when we hear those dangerous comments of our modern Moravian and Antinomian Methodists on St. Paul’s Epistles, importing, that they being made free by Jesus Christ, are not subject to any law either of God or man. Surely, in such cases, it would be advisable, if possible, to withdraw the Bible from every such profaner of it; and instead of it, to put into his hands the Catechism, in which he would find the bread of God’s word, broken and prepared for his weak digestion, by those prelates to whom this duty particularly belongs. This the Protestant owns, when he finds the Socinian [Society of Friends – Quakers] abusing private interpretation, by repeatedly citing and expounding the sacred text against the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the Presbyterian against the episcopacy……
……..The learned Walton (Prolegom. chap. iv. 56,) asserts, what every one versed in antiquity must allow, that “some parts of the New Testament were doubted of for some ages, till at length by consent of the whole Church, all the Books, as they are read at present, were received and approved.” [Indeed. The Canon of Scripture was settled by the Church. The protestants accept all of the New Testament canon, even though Luther wanted to exclude at least the Catholic Epistle of James because it was too contrary to his new doctrine. He was only prevented from doing so by allies of his due to human concerns – rejecting portions of the New Testament so long settled would cause even more division and scandal and undermine his new sect. But from a standpoint of logic, the protestants have no reason not to exclude all manner of books from Old or New Testament, nor to add works like the Epistle of Barnabas, Gospel of Thomas, or the Shepherd of Hermas – they have rejected Authority in favor of their own private judgment to arrive at answers predetermined in advance, so why not use these other works? The only reason they do not has to do with human concern, e.g., what people would think] Here then we see that for a chief proof of the inspiration, authenticity, and due rendering of the word of God, we are referred to the general consent of Christians; therefore Scripture, though the rule of faith and life, cannot be the whole rule;since from Scripture alone, an exact canon of the sacred books cannot by human art be learned…………
………St. Augustine goes so far as to say: I would not believe the gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not determine me. (Epis. cont. Fund. chap. v, n. 6.) “This, says Fenelon, is the most simple, short, and decisive of all controversies.”……..[This is the key. Scripture has authority because the Church determined it to have it, not the other way around. It was the Church that predated the Canon of Scripture or indeed any individual Gospel or Letter. Tradition ultimately is greater than Scripture, and it is a sad testimony that far too many priests and bishops today, cowed by supposed protestant knowledge of the Bible, mimic their arguments in favor of Scripture, turning reading the Bible into an end in itself rather than as simply being the support and basis for what the Church believes. Priests would be far better off advising the souls in their charge to read a solid Catechism like the Catechism of the Council of Trent or This Is The Faith than the Bible, honestly. Mind, I am not discouraging those sound in the Faith from reading the Bible, I read it every day, but I am saying that in this time when so few people are really able to understand much of Scripture, and with the proliferation, especially in this country, of erroneous protestant biblical studies, and very aggressive “bible study groups” seeking to make converts of poorly formed Catholics, that it is more prudent to first form souls deeply in the Faith before turning them loose on Scripture.]
………..There are such inimitable instructions in the five letters of Fenelon, to a lady who wished to be admitted a member of the Catholic Church, that a brief analysis of the same cannot but be very acceptable to the biblical scholar: — In the first, the prelate shews that there can be but one true religion, and one only Church, the spouse of Jesus Christ. Our Lord would have only one; men are not entitled to make more. Religion is not the work of human reasoning; but it is our duty to receive it, such as it has been given us from above. One man may reason with another man, but with God we have only to pray, to humble ourselves, listen, be silent, and blindly follow. This sacrifice of reason is the only proper use we can make of it, weak and contracted as it is. Every consideration must yield, when the supreme reason decides…….. [Awesome]
……..In the second, he shews the necessity of a visible authority. Religion, he says, is all humility. The mysteries are given us to subdue the pride of reason, by making us believe what we cannot comprehend. Without this authority, the Scripture can only serve to nourish our curiosity, presumption, jealousy of opinions, and passion for scandalous disputes: there would be but one text, but as may interpretations as religions, and as many religions as heads……..
……..In the third, he teaches how to hear the Church, and to obey it without any apprehension of error. The infallible promises of God are our surety. He tells the lady, if she wish for any reform, not to seek it, like Dissenters, out of the Church, but by frequently reverting back to her thoughts upon herself, and by reforming every thing amiss there; by subduing all that savours of self; by silencing the imagination, listening in silence to God, and imploring his grace for the perfect accomplishment of his will……….
……..In the fourth, he gives her comfort and instructions how to act under her trials. The kingdom of God suffers violence. We cannot die to ourselves without feeling it; but the hand that afflicts us, will be our support……..
………..In the fifth, he give excellent instructions, on the promises of Jesus Christ to his one true Church. He remarks the Jesus Christ does not say, if you will not hear the church of this country or that; he does not suppose a plurality of churches, but one universal Church, subsisting through all ages and nations, and which is to speak and to be obeyed from one extremity of the globe to the other. Not an invisible church composed of the elect only, but a Church that can be pointed out with a finger. A city elevated on the summit of a mountain, which all can see from a distance. Every one knows where to see, to find, and to consult her. She answers, she decides; we listen, and believe: and woe to those who refuse to believe and obey her: if he will not hear the Church, &c………
Such sage wisdom! Thank God for providing us – even if in the somewhat distant past – shepherds whose cooperation with Grace and docility to the will of God inform all they said and make of them a great light to souls of this and every age. We live in a time when such souls are few, almost non-existent, among the men given the sacred charge of holding watch over the souls of millions, but we have the inestimable gift of Tradition and the wisdom of the past to guide us still, even in this our own faithless age. That is a gift beyond measure. And one that, in spite of herculean efforts on the part of modernists, cannot be taken away.
Czech Gov’t to Citizens on How to Fight Islamist Terrorists – Shoot Them Yourselves January 13, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Ecumenism, family, firearms, General Catholic, Immigration, Restoration, Society, the enemy.
That’s a novel approach, especially for Europe:
A couple of months ago, Czech President Milos Zeman made an unusual request: He urged citizens to arm themselves against a possible “super-Holocaust” carried out by Muslim terrorists.
Never mind that there are fewer than 4,000 Muslims in this country of 10 million people [that’s supposed to be a bad thing?!? Good for the Czechs from keeping the invading hordes of military-age males out of their country]— gun purchases spiked. One shop owner in East Bohemia, a region in the northern center of the Czech Republic, told a local paper that people were scared of a “wave of Islamists.”
Now the country’s interior ministry is pushing a constitutional change that would let citizens use guns against terrorists. Proponents say this could save lives if an attack occurs and police are delayed or unable to make their way to the scene. To become law, Parliament must approve the proposal; they’ll vote in the coming months.
The Czech Republic already has some of the most lenient gun policies in Europe. It’s home to about 800,000 registered firearms and 300,000 people with gun licenses. Obtaining a weapon is relatively easy: Residents must be 21, pass a gun knowledge check and have no criminal record. By law, Czechs can use their weapons to protect their property or when in danger, although they need to prove they faced a real threat.
This puts the country at odds with much of Europe, which has long supported much more stringent gun-control measures. In the wake of the 2015 terror attacks in Paris, France pushed the European Union to enact even tougher policies. The European Commission’s initial proposal called for a complete ban on the sale of weapons like Kalashnikovs or AR-15s that are intended primarily for military use. Ammunition magazines would be limited to 20 rounds or less.
That bill subsequently passed in slightly modified form over the Czech government’s opposition, meaning that this vote is more than a bit of kabuki theater – the EU’s laws will supersede whatever laws the Czech government puts in place. it also means a great many weapons currently legal in Czech and some other nations will soon be illegal. If I were the Czechs, I’d be working towards a Czexit right now.
Most of Europe has long been much less free with basic human rights – like the right to self defense – than this nation has been. While Europeans will giggle and say that’s why Europe has a lot fewer firearms deaths than the US, I would retort that the US also hasn’t ever had a concentration camp nor an endless cycle of totalitarian regimes. The Czechs used to live under one of those. That has more than a little to do with Czechs’ desire to own firearms, which is something I’ve seen personally (though I think the number of firearms and firearms owners listed above severely under-represents reality).
Catholic Charities of Dallas Helped Settle OSU Jihadist Attacker December 5, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, Dallas Diocese, different religion, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Immigration, It's all about the $$$, Revolution, scandals, self-serving, sickness, Society.
Oh, the post-conciliar Church is nothing if not completely mesmerized by cultural marxism. Of course Church authorities in this country would be making a major play to help bring hundreds of thousands of almost entirely un-screened muslims into this country, both for the virtue it would signal to those they so desperately want to be recognized a part of (the leftist social-political elite) and for the government funds that are in it. And naturally Dallas would also have to somehow be involved, in this case, Catholic Charities of Dallas, which helped bring Abdul Razak Ali Artan into this country along with SEVEN other members of his family.
It’s all so entirely predictable:
The Somali-born man suspected of plowing his car into a group of pedestrians on the Ohio State University campus Monday and stabbing people with butcher knife had ties to Dallas.
Abdul Razak Ali Artan, his mother and six siblings got help from Catholic Charities after they arrived in Dallas on June 5, 2014, KXAS-TV (NBC5) reported.
“We gave them aid and comfort and some shelter as part of the government resettlement program,” Catholic Charities C.E.O. Dave Woodyard told the station.
Artan and his family “arrived at DFW Airport by way of JFK International Airport, and stayed in temporary housing in Dallas for 23 days,” according to NBC5.
A spokesperson for the State Department tells Breitbart News that 98 Somali refugees arrived in Texas in June of 2014, according to the U.S. Department of State’s Worldwide Refugee Admissions Processing System database.
Twenty-six were resettled in Dallas, 47 in Fort Worth, 19 in Houston, and 6 in Austin.NBC News reported earlier that Artan was born in Somalia, then moved to Pakistan with his family in 2007. [Given that few countries are more embroiled in islamic extremism than Pakistan, and given how many jihadis have already hailed from that broken, backward nation, should not every single emigre from there receive extreme scrutiny, if emigration from that nation is to be allowed at all?]
Presumably, Artan and his family were processed by the UNHCR while in Pakistan, where they completed the current security vetting process and overseas medical screening. At some point, they were approved to enter the United States as participants in the federal refugee resettlement program by an officer of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), part of the Department of Homeland Security………..
…….After determining the “head count” of arriving refugees for a particular city and state, the local authorized resettlement agency (the affiliate of one of nine major voluntary agencies, or “VOLAGs,” who are paid more than $1 billion per year by the federal government to resettle refugees), is paid to resettle the refugees. Those payments include allocations for housing, food, education, and other financial benefits.[Oh, it’s just all a great game. Everyone gets theirs off the taxpayer’s teat. The Church in this nation has become so utterly addicted to federal money, both because it’s easy and because the local “product” is so enervating few are moved to donate more than a pittance (which, why bother, when the agencies are so corrupt and compromsed, and when they receive 90% or more of their funding from the US taxpayer), that there would hardly be Catholic charitable works in many regards without that federal money]
Local resettlement agencies typically submit annual resettlement plans, which identify the number of refugees they intend to resettled, and the countries of origin of those refugees.
In the case of Artan, his mother, and six siblings, all eight were made the responsibility of Catholic Charities of Dallas, which “began resettling refugees operating under the auspices of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) contract with the federal government. . . in the late 1970s,” according to its website……..
…….“Catholic Charities of Dallas works with the United States government to shelter refugees and victims of circumstance. The Resettlement Program makes arrangements for the refugee to be met at the airport and begins the process of helping the refugee resettle in their new community,” the website says. [How were these people “refugees?” They voluntarily left Somalia, perhaps to simply claim they were refugees in order to come here? Perhaps the intent of at least this one man was jihad mayhem all along? How many others are there like him?]
Some major US cities are rapidly becoming enclaves of inveterately hostile, unassimilable religious minorities:
Newberry’s dissertation included a case study of the Somali community in Columbus, Ohio, which is a magnet of secondary migration for Somali refugees. The city has the second largest Somali community in the United States, surpassed in size only by that of Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Catholic Charities of Dallas adherence to the already far-too-lax law in this one particular case is also open to question:
Breitbart News asked Woodyard if Artan and his family completed the initial domestic medical screening recommended for all refugees within 90 days of their arrival during their brief stay in Dallas, but the voice mail message was not returned.
Breitbart News also asked Woodyard if Artan and his family repaid the promissory note for their air travel from Pakistan to Texas, and asked who paid for the family’s travel and subsequent stay in Ohio. Breitbart received no response to those questions.
“Annually in the Resettlement and Placement proposals, VOLAGs report out migration and refugees move for welfare, family and other community connections, jobs, etc,” the attorney familiar with the refugee resettlement program says.
“Could they have had a clan issue in Dallas? Why temporary shelter? That would not be in compliance with the Cooperative Agreement that Catholic Charities signs, unless they knew upon the arrival of Artan and his family that they were going to move on to another city,” the attorney says.
“Technically, Catholic Charities in Dallas would have received the R&P grant, so did they refund the unused portion of that to the government once the family left? Supposedly the R&P money does not follow the family but the VOLAG in Columbus could still choose to assist the family,” the attorney adds. [So is this how it works – receive in a family you know will quickly relocate to an area with a like-ethnic enclave, but collect extra funds which are provided because it is assumed the family will remain in the originally assigned area for at least some period of time? Why were none of these questions answered?]
After building the wall, whether literal or figurative (but of similar effectiveness), or right along with it, is seriously reducing if not eliminating immigration from muslim countries. We have the experience of Europe to guide us, allowing this immigration to continue en masse unchecked is simply a recipe of disaster on every level. This nation’s identity is being erased and remade by a narrow, self-interested elite with sufficient resources to effectively shield themselves from the consequences of their actions. They get all the “benefits,” be it cheap labor, government money, or that all important leftist virtue signaling, while we, the people, get stuck having to deal with the consequences of their supposedly high-minded policies. There is simply no reason to flood this country with muslim immigrants when this nation – along with so many others – has repeatedly been the target of religiously motivated attack by these same people, including the worst single-day attack on civilians this nation has ever experienced.
It is insane that our political leaders would consider mass muslim immigration a good thing. It is a testament to the moral and doctrinal bankruptcy of today’s Amchurch that they would happily glom on. How many other islamists settled/sponsored by Amchurch will go on to perform religiously motivated terror attacks?
A muslim Attacks Again – CNN’s Response? “Wear the Hijab.” November 30, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, rank stupidity, scandals, secularism, self-serving, silliness, Society.
I’ve argued for years, that once the Left finally feels it has crushed Christianity sufficiently, and is left with no effective rhetorical, ideological, or physical defense against islam, leftists will happily don the hijab (or force their women to – aren’t a lot of “liberated” women in for a shock) and take up the mantle of this false religion. Leftism has always been primarily a force created to oppose Christianity. That is its primary purpose as an ideology. Were its reason for existence to go away, leftism would rapidly whither (there would be exceptions, to be sure) while its devotees cast about for an alternative set of religious beliefs. With a militant islam at the doorstep demanding obeisance, most will submit.
Hastening the day, in response to yet another jihadist attack in the United States (in a safe space, gun-free university, to boot!), a CNN newsreader has decided that this jihadist was somehow justified in feeling put upon in the country which welcomed him and showered him with material largesse totally unknown in his totally dysfunctional, decrepit home-nation, and that American women should don the hijab to show their solidarity with the horrible suffering muslims are enduring, to the extent that 3 million or more have moved here in the last 10 years alone:
Americans should wear hijabs to show solidarity with Muslim women who fear being attacked for wearing the religious head covering, CNN anchor Alisyn Camerota suggested on Monday, just hours before an Islamic radical stabbed students at Ohio State University. [Oh, excuse me. She said this BEFORE the attack? That makes my point all the more forcefully. Part of them longs for this kind of domination, as the Leftist ideology has always been riddled with souls working out “daddy issues” well into adulthood, or even into the grave]
“Maybe there will be a movement where people wear the head scarf in solidarity. You know, even if you’re not Muslim,” Camerota said during an early-morning broadcast on CNN’s “New Day.”
“Maybe it’s the way people shave their heads, you know, sometimes in solidarity with somebody who is going through something,” she added.
Camerota was responding to a CNN segment about Muslim women who say they live in fear of being verbally or physically attacked for wearing head scarves. [Once again the Left conflates disagreement with something akin to a physical attack. I fully endorse women dressing modestly, but I do have a problem when the men in their lives more or less force them to do so. And things like the burqa are just grotesque, ludicrous, a commentary far more on the muslim man’s total inability to practice self-control than it is the “wanton” nature of woman]
The segment tied a spate of alleged incidents in which Muslim women have been targeted for wearing hijabs to Donald Trump’s presidential win. [BS]
“The Trump Transition: Fearful Muslim women take steps to be safe,” read the chyron that CNN chose for the segment.
“I hope I can wear it one day again. I hope I can feel safe enough to do so,” Marwa Abdelghani, a Muslim-American woman, told the network.
The piece did not note that some of the alleged hate incidents in the aftermath of Trump’s win have been found to be hoaxes. An 18-year-old University of Louisana-Lafayette student was charged with filing a false report after she claimed that a group of white Trump supporters hurled racial slurs at her and stole her hijab several days after the election.
Ummm, as far as is known, every single one of these claims has either been a hoax, or completely unsubstantiated. There may be a handful of real instances – there are boneheads everywhere – but this is hardly a mass movement. Once again, the Left turns the aggressor into the victim and creates bigotry where there is none, or is in actuality not prejudice at all but rational concern based on a mountain of evidence.
Islam and Leftism are two sides of the same coin, forged in hell and flipped by satan.
What Used to Be Common, Expected, in the Church, Today is Unimaginable November 14, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, Ecumenism, error, General Catholic, history, Revolution, sadness, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church.
Could you imagine finding a nearly full page ad for the Church in a major national weekly magazine, not only encouraging souls to become Catholic, but even arguing – if tacitly – for the Church as the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ? Can you imagine a piece of evangelization produced by an institutional source like the Knights of Columbus making plain the Precept of the Faith to assist at Mass on Sunday in such a secular environment?
I bought a bound volume containing all issues of Newsweek for the first half of 1954. About once a month, the ad below ran:
Bringing out a bit of the text:
Catholics believe that Christ not only called upon us to honor and serve God…..but prescribed the ways in which we should do so. He did not say how often we must go to church [I disagree with this. He did, Author/Inspiration of Sacred Scripture, command us to keep the Sabbath holy, every week]……….nor how many prayers we were to recite. But He did establish a Church with the power and authority to carry on His work…..and He promised that His Church would last to the end of time-that it would have God’s protection in teaching all men to observe all things. He had commanded, especially to believe and to be baptized and thereby become members of His Church to attain the purpose of their lives.
And how do Catholics know theirs is Christ’s Church?
Because it possesses the distinguishing marks Christ gave His Church. It covers the earth as Christ said it would. Unchanged after nearly 2000 years, it continues to live and grow, in fulfilment of His promise that His Church would last to the end of the world.
But the most convincing mark that He gave it is its unity of faith, worship and obedience under the authority of the lawful and historical successor of Peter, the first Bishop of Rome and the “rock” upon which Christ built His Church. Just as Peter was the first Pope and the first Vicar of Christ, so also is Pius XII the 262nd Pope and the Vicar of Christ today.
If you would like to know more……
First of all…..what effective catechesis and apologetics! In a couple hundred words, hugely important and key truths of the Faith and brought out in a most convincing manner. No wonder so many tens of thousands were converting the Church every year in this timeframe! Geez, it’s almost like believing this Catholic stuff is actually good for winning over souls, rather than constantly apologizing for it (in a negative way), undermining it, and trying to explain it away.
Secondly…..how about the near total implosion of the unity of Faith that could, quite honestly, still be promoted in 1954? Yes, there were seething currents of modernism and leftism hidden under the surface, but for most believers and those outside the Church, she still presented then a vibrant bastion of faith, truth, and morality. That vibrant face attracted many millions before the Church began her program of self-demolition just a few years later, with the death of Pius XII.
Thirdly…..while it is not directly stated, it could be understood from the above that the Church is the ONLY TRUE Church. I do think the wording regarding baptism could have been sharpened up, but we almost all have experience of just how embarrassing Catholics, leader and lay alike, would find even such hints at the Church’s unique, Christ-given role today. Especially under Francis, but going back decades, such clarion calls to the necessity of conversion through baptism and then membership in Christ’s Church for salvation have been notably absent. Concomitant with that absence has been the near total implosion of the Church’s evangelization efforts, the hemorrhaging of souls, and the rise of all kinds of errors and demonic sects.
Again, it is important to notice the context: this was not an advertisement in a spiritual magazine, or a mid-50s copy of America (even then, not so spiritual), or anything of the sort, where one might expect a bit more direct language. This was in a liberal-leaning (at that time) secular magazine. We haven’t seen anything like this in decades. And that sums up the crisis in the Faith in very stark terms.
I Hate UT Again, Green Berets Confirm US Arming Islamists in Syria November 1, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, persecution, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
A couple of quick hits – first, I haven’t given UT a dime since my conversion. It’s simply too pagan and too structurally immoral – as virtually every modern state “research university” is – to command my financial support. But my ire was raised to number 11 when I read this recent article about a bit of idiocy at UT, where the administration made plain they have little interest in free speech, unless it’s the right kind of speech:
The Young Conservatives of Texas club at the University of Texas at Austin sparked outrage Wednesday after hosting an “affirmative action bake sale” and charging people different prices based on their race and sex.
The Dallas Morning News reported that a cookie at the sale cost $1.50 for Asian males, $1 for white males and 50 cents for African-American and Hispanic males. Native American men and women were given free cookies.
Asian women had to pay $1.25, white women 75 cents and Hispanic and African-American women 25 cents.
The club drew heavy scrutiny from a crowd of hundreds, but it insisted that the bake sale was a protest against the “institutionalized racism” of affirmative action programs at colleges and universities. Some in the crowd chanted “racists go home.”
“Our protest was designed to highlight the insanity of assigning our lives value based on our race and ethnicity, rather than our talents, work ethic and intelligence,” club chairman Vidal Castañeda said. “It is insane that institutional racism, such as affirmative action, continues to allow for universities to judge me by the color of my skin rather than my actions.”
According to the paper, the Young Conservatives of Texas came under fire in 2013 for holding a similar bake sale. The university’s vice president for diversity and community engagement Gregory J. Vincent called that sale “deplorable.”
This time, Vincent said this bake sale was “inflammatory and demeaning.”
“Yet focusing our attention on the provocative nature of the YCT’s actions ignores a much more important issue: They create an environment of exclusion and disrespect among our students, faculty and staff,” he said.
This is just blatant political bias. UT, if you want to know why this alum will never give another dime, look in the freakin’ mirror. Why would I support an institution that hates and denigrates everything I stand for, from the individual right to self defense to the reinstitution of moral standards to a truly color blind society, the one all the early civil rights activists claimed to fervently desire.
Universities are where the shock troops of the future totalitarian government of this nation are being formed up and trained.
On another note, Green Beret’s on the ground in Syria (I guess we can toss that “no boots on the ground” promise out the window – yet another Obama lie) have expressed their disgust and dismay with the fact that they are being asked to train jihadis in the art of warfare so they can turn around and kill Americans (foul language warning):
In a detailed report, US Special ForcesSabotage White House Policy gone Disastrously Wrong with Covert Ops in Syria, Jack Murphy, himself a former Green Beret (U.S. Special Forces), recounts a former CIA officer having told him how the “the Syria covert action program is [CIA Director John] Brennan’s baby …Brennan was the one who breathed life into the Syrian Task Force … John Brennan loved that regime-change bullshit.”
Murphy states bluntly:
distinguishing between the FSA and al-Nusra is impossible, because they are virtually the same organization. As early as 2013, FSA commanders were defecting with their entire units to join al-Nusra. There, they still retain the FSA monicker, but it is merely for show, to give the appearance of secularism so they can maintain access to weaponry provided by the CIA and Saudi intelligence services. The reality is that the FSA is little more than a cover for the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra. …
“The fact that the FSA simply passed American-made weaponry off to al-Nusra is also unsurprising considering that the CIA’s vetting process of militias in Syria is lacklustre, consisting of little more than running traces in old databases. These traces rely on knowing the individuals’ real names in the first place, and assume that they were even fighting-age males when the data was collected by CTC [Counterterrorism Centre] years prior.” [It should be noted that Obama all but obliterated the CTC and other covert anti-terrorist intelligence gathering and repositories of knowledge. Because he was going to heal the world, remember? That’s why the data is obsolete, largely]
“Nobody believes in it. You’re like, ‘F–k this,’” a former Green Beret says of America’s covert and clandestine programs to train and arm Syrian militias.“Everyone on the ground knows they are jihadis. No one on the ground believes in this mission or this effort, and they know they are just training the next generation of jihadis, so they are sabotaging it by saying, ‘F–k it, who cares?’”
“I don’t want to be responsible for Nusra guys saying they were trained by Americans,” the Green Beret added. A second Special Forces soldier commented that one Syrian militia they had trained recently crossed the border from Jordan on what had been pitched as a large-scale shaping operation that would change the course of the war. Watching the battle on a monitor while a drone flew overhead, “We literally watched them, with 30 guys in their force, run away from three or four ISIS guys.”……..
………“While the games continue on, morale sinks for the Special Forces men in Turkey. Often disguised in Turkish military uniform, one of the Green Berets described his job as, ‘Sitting in the back room, drinking chai while watching the Turks train future terrorists’ …
“Among the rebels that U.S. Special Forces and Turkish Special Forces were training, ‘A good 95 percent of them were either working in terrorist organizations or were sympathetic to them,’ a Green Beret associated with the program said, adding, ‘A good majority of them admitted that they had no issues with ISIS and that their issue was with the Kurds and the Syrian regime.’”
The fundamental problem is the religion. Muslim men motivated to fight are not motivated by dreams of a liberal democracy or capitalist system – they might vaguely desire a better life for their family, materially, but probably do not conceive such in the liberal Western sense – they are motivated primarily by religion. And the most “orthodox” or pious practice of the muslim faith involves, and has always involved, the willingness to use violence. So given a predominantly religious motivation on the one hand, and the “best” practitioners of that religion being the most violent and involved in these jihadist groups, and the result has been a steady and nearly complete migration of supposedly “Free Syrian Army” liberal groups to the militant muslims.
We have been arming, funding, and training those jihadis for years now. That’s what you get with a president who is, for all practical purposes, a muslim himself.
Good News for Christians on the Nineveh Plain October 27, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, General Catholic, Glory, horror, martyrdom, persecution, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
A couple of videos showing Christians – probably Orthodox – retaking some churches and returning home. The devastation of their communities has been extensive. The churches were ransacked and looted. Religious art was deliberately destroyed by the satan-worshipping monsters of ISIS. To a very large extent, however, the United States created this situation, first by invading precipitously, then by committing insufficient forces to pacify the country, then allowing a counterinsurgency to drag out, building hatreds and attracting jihadists from all over, and then by evacuating the country prematurely under Obama’s campaign pledge. Obama and his administration were even more directly complicit in the formation of ISIS by arming rebels against the Assad regime. Thus the entire situation can really be laid at our government’s feet.
A 360 view of the devastation, including the hateful sign of nun, for Nazarene, the islamists applied to everything Christian, so it could be identified for ransacking:
Poor Christians. Assyrian Orthodox, I would guess. Even after ISIS is driven out, it’s not going to be beer and skittles for them. I don’t think the Shia-dominated Iraqi army is going to be overly friendly. It seemed secular strong men – Hussein, Mubarak, Assad – were really the best friends Christians in the Mideast could have. Popular government there quickly leads to venting of ancient hatreds.
Is Francis’ Theology Dominated by the Heresy of Total Depravity? October 25, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, different religion, Ecumenism, error, Francis, General Catholic, Revolution, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church.
A most provocative, but, I think, illuminating post, from Non Veni Pacem. I’ll just get to it – anyone who has paid attention to Francis’ many disturbing pronouncements has almost certainly observed more than a slight whiff of Calvinism. But docmx001 argues that far from being simply tainted by Calvinism, Francis is in fact a wholehearted proponent of the central thesis of Calvin: total depravity. This is part of the incredibly noxious and heretical TULIP theology, which is predicated on the notion that humans are totally depraved, devoid of any good, and utterly dependent on Grace freely given and totally unearned for salvation. This also figures in with their sicko vision of predestination, that God deliberately creates the vast majority of souls to be damned.
The argument put forth that Francis embraces total depravity is pretty convincing. It would make a great deal of sense, and could also reveal the hidden psychological motivation, very similar to Luther’s, that gives power to Francis’ wholesale assault on the Faith – unable to overcome whatever sins he himself is attached to, he posits a perverse theology in order to provide an escape clause for himself. Thus, men are unable not to sin, and sin gravely, but God is so awesome all we have to do is make a one time profession of faith and we are saved, irrespective of our actions. This would certainly seem to explain Francis’ enormous affinity towards evangelical protestants of the American sort. Anyway, Non Veni Pacem’s argument:
Francis yesterday continued his twisting of the One True Faith by demonstrating, once again, that Calvinist/Lutheran theology is at the core of his own false religion. All the “mercy” that Francis talks about is NOT the mercy of God, but rather a false mercy, because it is grounded in this false idea of Total Depravity. You absolutely MUST understand Total Depravity, and why it is false, if you want to make sense of how Francis operates.
First, here are the comments from yesterday: HERE
“Behind an attitude of rigidity there is always something else in the life of a person. Rigidity is not a gift of God. Meekness is; goodness is; benevolence is; forgiveness is. But rigidity isn’t!” he said. [Rigidity is not a virtue. But other ways of saying what Francis means – and this is clear through dozens of statements on this topic – certainly are: zeal, conviction, love for the Truth, all these things most certainly are virtues, and were found in all the Saints]
In many cases, the Pope continued, rigidity conceals the leading of a double life; but, he pointed out, there can also be something pathological.
Commenting on the difficulties and suffering that afflict a person who is both rigid and sincere, the Pope said this is because they lack the freedom of God’s children: “they do not know how to walk in the path indicated by God’s Law”.
“They appear good because they follow the Law; but they are concealing something else: either they are hypocritical or they are sick.” [That’s a particularly nasty way to view those holding differing views. Need I mentions such speech is both unprecedented and unworthy of a pope? This is not virtuous speech, either. This is the speech of an ideologue, of one who views those who hold differing ideas as enemies. Enemies so corrupt in thinking there is something very much wrong with them]
I’ve written so many times about this: Francis thinks mankind is INCAPABLE of resisting sin and living a Christian life, because he personally is completely lost in sin. He doesn’t just think it is difficult, he thinks it is impossible. Instead of renouncing sin as the path to freedom, he thinks trying to live by God’s Law takes away freedom. [This is possible, I suppose, but I don’t know what evidence we have for Francis being totally attached to personal sin, over and above the errors he very commonly promotes. I think it possible to fall into the error of a basically Calvinist comprehension of free will and Grace without being completely attached to sin. Luther certainly was, but then, he had a little bit different conception of will and Grace. I think the point can stand even if one does not try to prove that Francis has embraced this philosophy out of a personal inability to resist sin. It could simply stem from what may be his essential rejection of Catholicism and seeming view that protestants are much more right than Catholics on most of these matters]
Kids, this is the very definition of Total Depravity. Please go look it up. This is why the Lutherans, Calvinists, etc are not simply “variations” of a “reformed” Catholicism. No, they are a completely different religion, because they deny that men have free will. They deny that a sinful act is the result of a person making a conscience choice to do wrong, because they believe man is so utterly inclined toward sin that resisting it is futile. [I totally agree on the assessment of protestantism as a different religion. This is absolutely true, and is what made the Lutheran-Catholic understanding on justification such a farce. Of course, Lutheranism, along with most all the other sects, has radically altered, or toned down, the extremist views of their founder]
Like every wretched heresy, this one is mixed with some truth to make it plausible. In this case, that men must cooperate with God’s grace on the path to salvation. Don’t be distracted by this. Of course we need to cooperate with God’s grace.
But that’s not all! Total Depravity goes even further, in claiming that even our GOOD choices are evil, because those choices are ultimately always grounded in selfishness. We simply are not capable of doing good, because even when we do good, we do so for our own interests. Our Will is not just impeded by concupiscence, but rather our Will is totally fallen, and we are not capable of choosing to love God.
So, why is this false? Because Total Depravity violates God’s perfect justice. If we truly don’t have free will, then we can’t be held responsible for our actions. It wouldn’t be fair. But we see throughout scripture that man is absolutely held accountable for his decisions. I mean, isn’t this the whole point? God created us to know, love and serve Him in this world, and be with Him forever in the next. God laid out how to know, love and serve him, and now expects us to do just that. He wouldn’t do that if we were incapable of it.
Again, I agree very much with this assessment of these protestant heresies. But does that mean Francis shares them? I think a goodly number of his statements imply, at the very least, a strong sympathy with these protestant beliefs, if they are not consciously embraced by the Bishop of Rome.
We know a number of things: Francis is exceedingly hostile towards Catholics who hold to what might be called the “old Faith,” or the Faith of the Fathers, Saints, and Tradition. He totally rejects “rigid” understandings of morality and Church Doctrine. He favors a very modernist, Jesuitical, worldly approach to morality and doctrine. He is also extremely friendly towards protestants and their beliefs, he has taken part in numerous protestant worship ceremonies, he has lionized and feted the most Calvinist evangelical protestant leaders, and he has even submitted to being blessed (cursed might be a better world) by protestant preachers.
And then we have the upcoming ecumaniacal confab in Lund, Sweden celebrating the greatest tragedy in the history of Western Civilization, the protestant revolt against Christ and His Church. Already many signs are pointing at an “extraordinary gesture,” an attempt to declare that Lutherans may receive the Blessed Sacrament freely.
Then we have the ongoing synodal process, which has been little but a thinly concealed war against the Church’s entire moral edifice, to bring it in line with…….protestant understandings, more or less.
There is, of course, another possibility, which is the way I have leaned for some time: that Francis is simply a modernist of left-wing sensibilities who completely disregards the idea of unchanging Divine Revelation and Dogma in favor of a morally relativistic approach. This philosophy would equally propel Francis to attack so-called rigidity and to constantly belittle those who reject his modernist comprehension. It causes him to feel the Church is horribly behind the times in holding to outdated “medieval” beliefs and practices that are not only unrealistic but unmerciful in today’s world, which he pretends is so very much different from past times. Of course, human nature never changes and the modernist claim that the Church must change to suit the vagaries of whatever age she finds herself in is nothing but a self-serving excuse for perpetual revolution, but it’s there nonetheless.
With this leftist modernist belief, he would naturally find repugnant those who hold to the constant belief and practice of the Faith, and would seek to radically change practice and doctrine to be more amenable to the ways of the sick and twisted culture in which we live.
So, which do you think has a better basis, or neither? Is Francis a furtive Calvinist seeking to remake the Church along protestant lines, or is he a left-wing modernist, or some combination of both (or neither)? It’s an interesting debate and this post is already running very long, but I’m interested to know where you feel the preponderance of the evidence lies.
As for myself, I think the answer is along the lines of both and. Francis is plainly very favorable to modernists, especially of the evangelical/Calvinist stripe, but he is also I think very strongly tainted with modernism through his Jesuit Latin American background and timeframe. He is definitely the Bishop of Rome most radically at odds with the perennial belief and practice of the Faith for which a detailed historical record exists. He is also the one with the means at his disposal – instant communication, constant coverage, every word blasted to the four corners of the world – to do the most damage.
I thank Non Veni Pacem for the stimulating post.
De Mattei: Francis Prefers Leftist Lutherans to Orthodox Catholics October 25, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, damnable blasphemy, different religion, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, the struggle for the Church.
From one of Rorate Caeli’s most recent posts, several significant if perhaps unsurprising revelations from Francis I had missed, given that I now generally avoid him and his pronouncements as much as possible. Was the Church better off before instant worldwide communication? Hard to say. It was probably a lot easier on individual souls, however.
The slight – it can certainly be taken as such, and may well have been intended – against Our Lady in ignoring the 99th anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun in order to receive Lutheran heretics and schismatics in audience (while displaying a statue of the arch-heretic Luther in the Vatican) on the same day is truly breathtaking. But that’s just the start, as it always seems to be with the Argentine Bishop of Rome (my emphasis):
…..The start of the centenary of the Fatima apparitions on October 13th 2016 was buried under a blanket of silence. That same day, Pope Francis received in the Paul VI Audience Hall, a thousand Lutheran “pilgrims” and in the Vatican a statue of Martin Luther was honoured, as appears in the images Antonio Socci published on his Facebook page. Next October 31st, moreover, Pope Francis will go to Lund in Sweden, where he will take part in a joint Catholic-Lutheran ceremony commemorating the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. As can be read in the communiqué drawn up by the World Lutheran Federation and the Papal Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, the aim of the event is “to express the gifts of the Reform and ask forgiveness for the division perpetuated by Christians of the two traditions.”…….[Which expression seems to imply at least an equal sharing of blame for this “division,” if not that more share falls on the Catholic side. Naturally, this is a complete inversion of reality, but that should hardly be surprising]
…….During his audience with the Lutherans on October 13th, Pope Bergoglio also said that proselytism, is “the strongest poison” against ecumenism. “The greatest reformers are the saints – he added – and the Church is always in need of reform”. [This strongly implies sainthood for Luther, does it not? How many of the Saints warred with all their being not just against protestant heretics but heretics of all stripes? I guess that fact just has to go down the memory hole for Francis] These words contain simultaneously, as is frequent in his discourses, a truth and a deception. The truth is that the saints, from St Gregory VII to St. Pius X, have [indeed] been the greatest reformers. The deception consists in insinuating that the pseudo-reformers, like Luther, are to be considered saints. The statement that proselytism or the missionary spirit, is “the strongest poison against ecumenism” must, instead, be reversed: ecumenism, as it is understood today, is the greatest poison against the Church’s missionary spirit. The Saints have always been moved by this spirit, beginning with the Jesuits who landed in Brazil, [No, it started long before that, with the first Apostles] the Congo and the Indies in the XVI century, while their confreres Diego Lainez, Alfonso Salmeron and Peter Canisio, at the Council of Trent, fought against the errors of Lutheranism and Calvinism.
Yet, according to Pope Francis those outside the Church do not have to be converted. At the audience on October 13th, in an off-the-cuff response to questions from some young people, he said: “I like good Lutherans a lot, Lutherans who truly follow the faith of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, I don’t like lukewarm Catholics and lukewarm Lutherans.” With another deformation in language, Pope Bergoglio calls “good Lutherans” those Protestants who do not follow the faith of Jesus Christ, but its deformation and “lukewarm Catholics” those fervent sons and daughters of the Church who reject the equalizing of the truth of the Catholic religion with the error of Lutheranism. [Indeed. Still more, what is being extolled here is one religion – modernist sexular paganism – while warring against the Faith instituted by Jesus Christ. That’s what this conflict has always come down to, from Tyrell and Loisy to Congar and Rahner to Bergoglio and Kasper]
All of this brings us to the question: what will happen in Lund on October 31st? We know that the commemoration will include a joint celebration based on the Liturgical Catholic-Lutheran guide, Common Prayer, elaborated from the document From Conflict to Communion. The Common Catholic-Lutheran Commemoration of the Reformation in 2017, drawn-up by the Catholic-Lutheran Commission for the unity of Christians. There are those who rightly fear an “intercommunion” between Catholic and Lutherans, which would be sacrilegious, since the Lutherans do not believe in Transubstantiation. Above all, that it will be said Luther was not a heresiarch, but a reformer unjustly persecuted and that the Church has to recuperate the “gifts of the Reform”. Those who persist in considering the condemnation of Luther proper and think his followers heretics and schismatics, must be harshly criticised and excluded from the Church of Pope Francis. But then again, what Church does Jorge Mario Begoglio belong to?
A rhetorical question, obviously, as to ask the question is to answer it.
As for just where Francis may stand in the grand scheme of things, including the state of his soul, a reminder from Saint Paul’s Letter to Titus, Chapter iii:
10 A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid:
11 Knowing that he that is such a one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.
There have, of course, been multiple admonitions directed at Francis. We are generally not privy to the tack those interventions have taken, however.
I think one thing it is safe to say, Francis will not be the Bishop in white of the Third Secret? I can’t see the world taking shots at him, when he’s doing such an awesome job for them.
Leftists Exist in a Parallell Universe of Their Own Creation….. October 24, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Immigration, Revolution, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
……where fact and fantasy are perfectly inverse according to the dictates of their ideology cum religious conviction. No group believes in more unsupportable fantasy masquerading as “fact” than the Left. No wonder they have such a hatred for Christianity, it is a religion founded on and informed by right reason, and thus incompatible with their mass belief in unicorns, climate change, Bigfoot, power crystals, and African witch doctor lightning powers.
As a case in point, a really offensive leftist named Russell Simmons – I’ve seen him cover himself in dung before – makes the preposterous claim that there are more “extremist” Christians in the world than muslims, and that the number one problem facing the world today is……..wait for it!……. so called islamophobia. This is such a perfect inversion of reality, only a leftist could come up with it, but given that such beliefs are increasingly prevalent among especially young people today, indicates dark portents for the future:
Russell Simmons joined Trevor Noah on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show” on Monday to talk about “Muslims Speak Out,” a project he formed to deal with Islamophobia, which he called “the worst scourge we have.” [This is where most people 35 and under get their “news” and supposedly informed political opinion. No wonder a majority of millenials think socialism just grand]
He told Noah that people misunderstand the Muslim community and that “99.99-tenths of them are not radicalized, right?” And then he added the kicker: “Probably more Christians are radicalized.” [This is, a) numerically illiterate, b), demonstrably false, and c) stultifyingly stupid in the sense that his definition of radicalized means “I perceive it as a threat to my ideology”. 99.99-tenths means nothing, I guess he means 99.99 percent, but per cent, as in per centum, means per hundred, not tenths. Secondly, simply based on the numbers of militants engaged in combat on behalf of islam around the world today – some 7 million, minimum – out of a population of around 1.5 billion, indicates that 0.5% of muslims are actively engaged in radical activity. Aside from those, some 170 million, by the best reckoning, adhere to Wahhabist sects worldwide, which are nothing if not radical. Add into that the number that adhere to extremist forms of Shiaism, and something like 20% of muslims are fully radicalized even if not actively engaged in/supporting combat of one form or another. Even more, the problem with islam is that it has always been defined by the most radical elements, and has always been unique among major religions in always being spread through violent conquest, and never peaceful conversion.]
Of course, nothing of the sort is true, unless you accept the left’s definition of radicalization, which says that religious objections to sex outside of the biblical definition of marriage—and perhaps refusing to bake a wedding cake or having the expectation of privacy in the bathroom—is exactly the same thing as throwing homosexuals off buildings and stoning them to death. Simmons apparently thinks saying words that people find objectionable is the same as blowing people up. It’s hard to reason with individuals whose minds have been turned to mush by years of moral relativism. [I don’t think it’s mush, and I don’t think it’s moral relativism. I mean, yes, of course the idiocy of moral relativism informs all his thinking, but that’s just a means to an end. Leftism doesn’t adopt anything accidentally, and moral relativism is just another tool with which to attack Christ, His Church, and the values therein that built Western Civilization. I think he and his ilk know exactly what they are doing, and they are doing it on purpose, because the Left hates Christianity more than it hates anything else on earth, and that’s saying a lot. To him, Christianity is the uniquely evil religion in the world today, just as Western Civilization which was created by Christianity is uniquely evil and responsible for all the evils in the world today. Of course, leftists choose to think this, as they recognize in Christianity the only true obstacle to their goal of an Orwellian/Huxleyian world devoid of religion with an all-powerful left-wing government. To this end, islam is a valuable ally. Think on what this guy says, however, when I maintain, with mounting fervor, that once the Left and Islam are done crushing Christianity, they will not turn on each other, but leftism will happily, even eagerly, be absorbed into islam. Yes, there will be some who will not, but the vast majority will happily don the hijab and embrace Mecca, because the underlying objectives and orientations of leftism and islam are the same: a repressive society based on force and the will of the powerful, not on reason, charity, and liberty. In fact, leftism and islam are simply two sides of the same coin, dedicated to the overthrow of Christianity, and seeking the same ends: a cowed and ignorant populace with a narrow few at the top enjoying all the power, freedoms, and spoils. Plus, islam, especially for the powerful, is not at all inconsistent with false “pleasures” the Left likes to push – hedonism, easy access to women, even sodomy. This growing pact between Western leftists and islam is thus not surprising at all, it’s all about opposition to Christ and His Church, and thus has the same father. I must also add, in conclusion to this long comment, that the leftists/liberals/modernists in the Church have essentially the same modus operandi and goals.]
Simmons then turned his attention to Donald Trump, saying that until the GOP nominee came along, America had been moving toward a peaceful, loving “collective.” But now, “people need to blame their discomfort on someone else,” he said.
Which is also BS, it’s just a Hillary ad with a very thin disguise. Every four years, the Republican nominee – or, perhaps in future, whoever is opposing the demonrat – is presented by such people as the devil incarnate, as the uniquely evil threat that simply must be destroyed no matter how vile the democrat nominee may be.
Heck, they tried to turn the total RINO, milquetoast Mitt Romney into a seething racist, sexist, and crazed right-wing radical. It’s always, always about moving the ball forward, keeping the leftist momentum moving ahead at all times. It’s always about the next election, the next court case, the next referendum. They have a singular focus we should really try to emulate. And given that Hillary is the most singularly corrupt, narcissistic, incompetent, and downright evil candidate any of us have ever seen in our lifetimes, it has forced – even coerced – me to plan to vote for Trump, even though I have the gravest doubts about his conservative credentials and find his personal behavior not only toxic, but heart-breaking. To think my country has fallen to the point that either of these people could be elected president is the most damning condemnation of all, but there it is.
Twenty eight years ago, it would have been impossible. But that is how far we have fallen in such a short space of time. And Russell Simmons and his ilk are directly responsible for it. My vote for Trump will be as much a Francis Urquhart to them as anything else.