jump to navigation

Trump Effect – Significant Loosening of Onerous Gun Regs Coming? March 21, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, firearms, fun, It's all about the $$$, manhood, Society, true leadership.
5 comments

A final quick post for the day, someone leaked a propositional memorandum from a senior ATF official, who advocated – somewhat shockingly – for the roll back of several onerous gun regulations, including ending the ban on the import of so-called assault weapons (imposed by the first Bush, showing yet again how perennially left this family leans) and lifting restrictions on acquiring and owning silencers.

It’s difficult to discern if these proposals have any chance of being implemented, but it’s a positive sign and a massive improvement over the gun-ban-by-stealth that was practiced constantly by the Obamanation, which floated 2nd Amendment destroying notions like trying to ban all non-lead ammo as being “armor piercing,” and all lead ammo as being bad for the environment (doing so would have essentially made all ammunition illegal).  Here’s to hoping that the Trump effect starts sinking even into entrenched lefty bureaucracies like the BATF:

The second-highest-ranking official at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has written a proposal to reduce gun regulations, including examining a possible end to the ban on importing assault weapons into the United States.

The “white paper” by Ronald B. Turk, associate deputy director and chief operating officer of the ATF, calls for removing restrictions on the sale of gun silencers; allowing gun dealers to have more guns used in crimes traced to their stores before the federal government requires additional information from the dealer; and initiating a study on lifting the ban on imported assault weapons.

“Restriction on imports serves questionable public safety interests, as these rifles are already generally legally available for manufacture and ownership in the United States,” Turk wrote of the ban on imported AR-15s and AK-style weapons.

The 11-page white paper, obtained by The Washington Post, is titled “Options to Reduce or Modify Firearms Regulations.” The proposal opens with the wording of the Second Amendment and is dated Jan. 20. [Somebody bucking for a promotion?!  Nevertheless, eminently sensible proposals.  All the ban on so-called assault weapon imports has done is to make many firearms more expensive.  You can still buy a used Norinco SKS in Canada for $150, but the same gun costs twice as much (and much more just a short while ago) in the US because of the nearly three decade ban on imports.]

“This white paper offers a disturbing series of giveaways to the gun industry that would weaken regulatory oversight of the gun industry without adequate consideration of the impact on public safety,” said Chelsea Parsons, vice president of guns and crime policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

“ATF has long described its regulatory function as a core part of its law enforcement mission to fight gun crime, yet this paper seems to prioritize reducing perceived burdens on the gun industry over an interest in protecting public safety from the illegal diversion of firearms,” Parsons said. [No, it is oriented towards reducing the restrictions of rights owed to every American citizen as part of their God-given right to self-defense.  Lifting the ban on assault weapons would actually HARM the gun industry in the US as a lot of guns now being made domestically (in part, the receivers have to be manufactured in the US to be legal) would be replaced by cheaper imports.  But I’m sure their focus group data tells them that denigrating a faceless industry sells, while being honest about their intent to ban every citizen the right to defend themselves at all manifestly does not.]

……….“Silencers are very rarely used in criminal shootings,” the white paper states. “Given the lack of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety.”

Gun-control advocates point out that machine guns, regulated under the same law as silencers, are also rarely used in crime because of the difficulty of obtaining them. [Wrong.  They aren’t used because they are large, bulky, and hard to hide.  Criminals thrive on hiding their intent until the last possible moment, large weapons like “machine guns” are totally counter to that, inane Hollywood depictions aside.]

In 1989, the George H.W. Bush administration banned the import of semiautomatic assault rifles. [As one of its first acts.  Bushes I am so totally done with you.] Turk’s white paper, which refers to them as “modern sporting rifles,” notes that their use has “increased exponentially in sport shooting.”

I don’t know anything else about this Ronald Turk in question, but what he proposes is wholly sensible and well suited to the preferences of a large number of Americans.  Americans repeatedly demonstrated their hostility to the gun-banning attempts of the previous regime.  They demonstrated their desire for a return to the rightful interpretation of the 2nd Amendment through the election of Trump, among many other things.  Moving to loosen restrictions like this is exactly what a civil servant should be doing, trying to implement the expressed will of the people.

But the entrenched elites, including the very lucrative NGO issue-advocacy industry, do not like that.  That represents only a tiny portion of the resistance Trump, for all his warts, is running into.  Hopefully he can overcome this and implement at least some of his reforms.  At the very least, Hillary Clinton will never be president, and that’s an awesome thing in and of itself.

Death Worship Is a Common Feature of Dying Cultures March 21, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, asshatery, Basics, contraception, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society.
1 comment so far

So reports have been coming from the Netherlands and Belgium with grim regularity telling of numerous souls being murdered by doctors, against their wills, because the doctors have decided their case is hopeless and that these people deserve to die.  Formerly called murder, even genocide, this mass taking of human lives is now dressed up in the mild sounding euphemism of euthanasia.

This is also exactly what people, mostly convicted Christians, warned would happen if states, strapped for cash with massive aging populations and taxpayer funded and government administered health care systems, started “allowing” people to commit suicide by doctor if they wanted to.  From an occasional permission it soon morphed into mass use and now appears headed towards something towards compulsory participation.

The Church, of course, has always held a “consistent life ethic,” which declares that thou shalt not murder an innocent no matter how inconvenient or annoying they may be.  That ethic once informed thinking throughout the West, but since the West has chosen to pretend God doesn’t exist, that ethic went out the window, first with chemical contraception, then baby murder on demand, and then the murder of the elderly and sick.  Some of these people aren’t even particularly sick, which plainly indicates that something like a Brave New World death date of 60, or Logan’s Run “carousel” at 30, may not be the stuff of science fiction anymore.

After all, it’s cheaper and easier for all involved, most especially those government bureaucrats calling the shots, to just kill people at a certain date before they start to get sick, rather than waiting for the endless drain and expense of those nasty old sick people:

In the Netherlands an elderly woman suffering from dementia was held down against her protests as a lethal injection was administered by a doctor. In the days before her “euthanasia” she repeatedly said “I don’t want to die.” The doctor was cleared of wrongdoing.

Another elderly woman in the Netherlands was euthanized due to her supposed “unhappiness” about living in a nursing home. This despite testimony from the staff that she was often “content and friendly.”

Doctors in the Netherlands and Belgium have also routinely euthanized patients with depression. Now, a law to “legalize euthanasia for perfectly healthy people who hold ‘a well-considered opinion that their life is complete’” is being considered in the Netherlands. [Doctors in these nations are just another form of bureaucrat. They work for the government in one form or another.  We all know from personal experience just how faultless bureaucracies are, right?  Ever had a run in with a bad doctor or out and out quack?  I have.  Want someone like that given the power of life and death over you?]

In the US, Washington, DC and five states—California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington—euthanasia is legal. Should we be concerned? [In any nation with not only legalized baby murder but a hundred other moral atrocities ongoing constantly with government approval, we should be more than concerned. Terrified, outraged, is more like it.]

Advocates tell us euthanasia allows a patient to “skip the suffering and die with dignity.” Based on this, euthanasia advocates advocates suggest that until we walk in the shoes of someone who wants assistance in dying, who are we to deny them “death with dignity”? The idea that an individual has an “inalienable right” to use their body as they see fit has some appeal. [Notice the similarity in language to the pro-aborts?  Notice how they reduce immutable truths, literally conveyed by God, to endlessly nebulous, amorphous things like feelings?  There is a reason for that.  Logically, what they propose is unacceptable and easily refutable.]

Liz Carr is the creator of the hit British anti-euthanasia play Assisted Suicide: The Musical. Carr grew up with and still suffers from severe disabilities. In her youth she visited some emotional “dark places” where she saw no hope. Born in 1972, Carr feels lucky that euthanasia was not yet on the cultural radar. It is her belief that the movement can encourage disabled individuals to believe their life “isn’t worth living.” [Thank you.  People are endlessly susceptible. If they weren’t, multi-hundred billion dollar industries like Madison Avenue would not exist.  It is even possible to talk people into wanting to kill themselves.]

In the Wall Street Journal, Sohrab Ahmari conducted a compelling interview with Carr who argues we “don’t know what assisted suicide means or what the consequences are.” We just clap along to a mindless mantra “the right to die, the right to die.”

Why shouldn’t we exercise “self-determination” and choose how and when we die?

Ahmari cautions, “The death-with-dignity case is often based not on the lived experience of people with disabilities, but on the subjective judgments of others.”

“Legalizing euthanasia doesn’t empower you,” argues Carr. “It empowers doctors.”

Doctors that are, in the nations in question, essentially agents of the state. “Oh, but there are review boards to insure there are no abuses.”  Review boards can easily be stacked, especially when everyone has been similarly indoctrinated, where everyone or almost everyone has the same biases and the same interests at stake.

This also shows the ubiquitous tendency of left-wing governments and societies towards mass death.  They cannot exist without causing mass death.  Every single leftist society that has ever come into being has been sustained by the deaths of millions, be they Jews, rural Chinese peasants, Russian kulaks, or unborn babies.  Now the elderly and sick are becoming too expensive to fit into the great leftist utopia, so they have to go.  Yet we are the Nazis, they tell us daily.  The mirror must not get much use in left-wing households.

But the projector sure does.

Who knew the 25th century would look like mid-70s Hyatt Regency lobbies?

DON’T GO TO COLLEGE! March 15, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Domestic Church, family, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, scandals, secularism, Society, Tradition.
34 comments

Interesting video by Stefan Molyneux below, and one that is most timely for my family.  To make matters bearable for my wife, we “paired up” my oldest and 2nd oldest daughters, born 18 months apart, into the same school grade when the started kindergarten many years ago. This made eminent sense, as the twins came after these two and would constitute their own grade.  So my oldest daughter started homeschooling at age 6 while the next was 4.

But what that also means is that I will have two girls graduating high school the same year, 2018.  For a long time, however, we have had the strong sense that our oldest daughter was not destined for college, while her younger sister was much more likely to go.  And that’s very much turned out to be the case.  Our oldest might go to community college or get a 2 year degree in some kind of artistic field.  Her sister, however, is taking the standardized tests and doing really very well.  She might wind up with a better score than any I was able to attain by the time she’s done.

Right now, however, she’s leaning towards a natural science degree, in a “hard science” like biology.  While she’ll probably attend UD – which is her school of choice – I kind of view a BS in natural science as sort of the floor  for a major that makes getting a degree worthwhile, economically. Especially when you factor in the fact that UD is a private university. I’m also leery of biology as a degree, even at a fairly Catholic uni like UD, because the field of biology is eaten up with the cult of evolution.

The commentary from Stefan Molyneux plays into this thesis.  It makes me want to encourage her exploring engineering a bit more, perhaps biomedical engineering as a cousin she is close to is majoring in right now at UT-San Antonio.  But J really wants to stay close to home.  We’ll see.

I have been pretty upfront with my kids, however.  If they want to get a degree, it needs to be in some field where there is a reasonable payout for the hideous expense involved, be it finance, compsci, engineering, hard science, management information systems, or whatever.  Otherwise, they better get pretty close to a full ride scholarship, or it ain’t happening.  I am also hopeful that online degrees of low cost but sufficient gravitas really begin to emerge as my kids enter college. That might be another alternative.

It is a brilliant point to bring up the fact that making college “free” would have the direct effect of radically reducing the worth of having a college degree – about akin to a high school diploma today.  Then an entire new level of credentialization would have to emerge to replace what college is today – be it post-graduate degrees or something beyond PhD.

Interestingly, that is why my alma mater – The University of Texas – has fought for years to keep its enrollment below 50,000, with about 30-35,000 of those being undergrads (of whom maybe 60-70% actually graduate with a degree).  They have done this for several reasons – limitations of space as an urban university, funding limitations, etc., but also because they want the degrees to have a certain value.  At present, UT graduates about 7-8000 undergraduates a year.  There are typically about 300-400,000 living graduates at any one time.  If UT did what A&M is doing, which is expanding to 70,000-80,000 or beyond, they would produce twice as many graduates and potentially reduce the value of their degrees.

It is exceedingly odd for me to say this, though it is a sense I have had developing over the past several years (college not being worth the expense in many degree fields, in addition to being a source of very dangerous indoctrination).  My parents were the first people in both of their families to ever get college degrees, though my mom did not get hers until she was nearly 40.  My brother and sister and I all went to college as a matter of course.  My wife’s experience is similar.  And yet she only used her degree professionally for a few years before graduating to full time motherhood (which may well be the case for most of my daughters).  Here I feel like I am turning my back on something that has been taken for granted as a critical part of the ascent to the upper middle class in this country for generations.

Yet, there are fewer and fewer reasons to obtain degrees of exponentially increasing cost.  There are sources of learning available anywhere in the world today that were unimaginable when I was of college age.  The college experience is increasingly dangerous for souls.  I just had the lamentable tale related to me a few days ago of a father whose daughter was totally lost in the sexular pagan leftist zeitgeist, a zeitgeist she absorbed while a student at Oklahoma University, of all places.  There are very few intellectually and morally “safe” colleges.  I strongly recommend children either go to a college they can attend while living at home, or living with family that can be trusted implicitly.

Lots of factors. Lots of opportunities for soul-crushing mistakes.  Err on the side of caution.  Perhaps more specifically, err on the side of what is the safest route morally and ecclesiastically, even if that involves something of an economic penalty. Easy for me to say, however.

Scott Adams Explodes Cult of Gaia, Reveals Falsehood of Climate Models March 10, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in attachments, cultural marxism, error, foolishness, fun, huh?, It's all about the $$$, persecution, Revolution, silliness, Society, technology.
comments closed

Scott Adams of Dilbert fame, who has been revealing himself to be quite the anti-leftist of late, attacks the cult of gaia-worshipping climate activists who have been telling  us constantly for over 40 years that Mother Earth is doomed, DOOMED, unless – surprise! – their favorite political platforms are enacted.  And these same people tell us how terrible it is for Christians to influence politics with their religious views.  What about YOUR religious views, sunshine?

At any rate, this is pretty good, just how many climate models turn out wrong, for just one to be right?  Is it 50?  100?  5000?  How many that might be right, today, were right 20 years ago, or will be in another 20 years?  I can tell you the answer: none.

This is a sort of Occam’s Razor logic that is deadly to fantasists:

I will bet anyone $1 million dollars that I can come up with a climate forecast model that ignores C02 and still predicts the temperature 30 years from now to within half a degree. Does anyone want to take that bet?

Obviously there is a trick involved, so I won’t accept your bet for ethical reasons. But let’s see if you can figure out how I could win that bet every time.

I am 100% confident I can build a climate prediction model, using my current skill set, that will predict the measured temperature in 30 years to within half a degree.

Furthermore, you can pick whatever measurement type and place you want for the bet. My trick does not depend on doing anything clever with the measurement itself.

I can also build an accurate climate prediction model for any local geography. I can do it for the ocean or the air. And in each case, I have a 100% chance of getting the right answer to within half a degree.

Would you take the bet?………

……..how I could make a climate model that is right every time?

All I need to do is make a hundred different models, each producing output that is half a degree apart, until I have at least one model that fits every possible outcome. My models would look like this:

Model 1: Current Temp + .5 degrees

Model 2: Current Temp + 1 degree

Model 3: Current Temp + 1.5 degrees

Etc.

And I’d include all the temperatures below the current temperature too, just in case we start to cool off. In 30 years, one of my prediction models will be correct by chance. I’ll throw away all the loser models and collect my $1 million bet.

Now keep all of that in your head and take a second look at this headline. Does this model still look impressive? I’m guessing there were quite a few prediction models in the past, and lots of them now too. One of them will be more accurate than the others in 30 years.

Does that really tell you anything?

My point here is that I don’t care how many climate models are accurate if you don’t tell me how many were wrong. If 99 out of 100 climate scientists create models that are wrong, and one gets it right, would you bet on that winning model to stay right in the future?

Trump Offers to Continue Funding Planned Barrenhood IF They Stop Aborting – Guess What They Said? March 10, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, contraception, cultural marxism, disaster, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, paganism, scandals, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

As if you need to guess. Planned Murderhood, which exists for no other reason than to be not only the leading baby murderer in the country but also the primary advocate for keeping abortion legal, turned down Trump’s offer to fully fund them at their desired level if they would only stop killing babies.  So much for abortion only being “3% of their business,” it is the one non-negotiable activity they perform, their most “sacred” satanic sacrament they adhere to:

Half a billion dollars in federal funding isn’t enough to keep Planned Parenthood from what it does best — abortions. This week, Planned Parenthood proved once again that, for all their talk of “women’s health,” their business IS abortion.

On Monday, The New York Times reported that the Trump administration made an informal proposal to the nation’s largest abortion provider: You can keep your federal funding if you stop taking the lives of unborn children.

PP refused, as abortion services are simply “nonnegotiable.”

“Let’s be clear: Federal funds already do not pay for abortions,” Dawn Laguens, the executive vice president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said. “Offering money to Planned Parenthood to abandon our patients and our values is not a deal that we will ever accept. Providing critical health care services for millions of American women is nonnegotiable.”

That’s at least the talking point. But money is fungible (as anyone who has ever handled currency ought to understand).

GOP officials, of course, promised relentlessly on the campaign trail that they’ll get taxpayer dollars out from under the abortion giant. It was an issue that found new life in 2015 after undercover videos from the Center for Medical Progress purported to show PP involved in a large-scale fetal tissue racket.

This all begs the question: If Planned Parenthood was really concerned about vital low-cost health services for women, and really thought the organization would not be able to adequately service patients without an enormous taxpayer kickback, why would it put said handouts on the chopping block for something it says is such a negligible part of its entire existence?

Because it’s all a crock……..

…….Given what the public now knows about the kind of operation that Planned Parenthood is running all over the country, and the Republican promises made to voters in the 2016 election cycle, there’s absolutely no reason that they should continue receiving a red cent of public money.

That is, if the courts will allow it.  Texas’ attempt to defund Planned Murderhood was rejected by a West Texas Bush ’41 appointed federal district court judge.  Texas plans to appeal, but the odds are the courts will reject Texas’ arguments that Planned Barrenhood’s non-abortion services are neither vital nor irreplaceable in the vast majority of the state.  Which, of course, is a lie, but whatever it takes to keep the evil leftist sacrament of abortion viable.

This Planned Barrenhood de-funding will be another major test of both Trump and the Republican Congress.  In Trump I think it safe to say his commitment to social conservatism remains mostly unproven, and in Congress decades of evidence reveal their social conservative principles to be almost entirely campaign prevarications.  So I don’t expect Banned Parenthood to be defunded, but I hope and pray I will be proven wrong.

 

US Bishops Oppose Appeal of Johnson Amendment – Why? March 7, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, different religion, Endless Corruption, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

I saw the following excerpt of a lengthy interview Archbishop Lori gave to the Catholic Register recently on the subject of the new presidency and the prospects it brings to the Church, and in addition to being generally disappointed with the bishop’s general view of much of the Trump agenda he was queried about, I was very surprised by this particular excerpt:

What is your assessment of the president’s proposal to eliminate the Johnson Amendment?

That’s, of course, a very complex question. We would certainly want to see, more specifically, what the president might have in mind. As a general rule, it is not a good idea for churches to engage in partisan politics. I believe that, generally, that proves to be a great distraction from our central task and mission, which is to preach the Gospel. Furthermore, I think it would have a tendency to unnecessarily divide our congregations.

I would recognize that the Johnson Amendment is lived out fairly unevenly, across religious lines, but in general, I think we would eye the adjustment of this amendment warily. I think that’s the best adverb I can give you. We are looking at this carefully and warily.

The Johnson Amendment, for those who don’t know, was something created by the corrupt, racist Lyndon Johnson in 1954 and tacked onto a defense appropriations bill to punish the churches who had opposed his 1952 candidacy to the US Senate from Texas.  Johnson only won by literally manufacturing votes in magical ballot boxes, but he had faced criticism from various churches for some of his stands and he did not want to have to deal with that again.  So, he created an amendment that churches that endorse or oppose specific candidates would lose their precious tax-exempt status.  The amendment was shockingly non-controversial at the time, but it has had enormous ramifications.

Now why would the bishops not favor being freed from this restriction on their ability to speak freely and endorse the most moral, most worthy candidates, and oppose those who are unworthy?  There are two reasons, really – money, and ideology.

Regarding the money, the USCCB – and Lori was speaking in at least a semi-official capacity for the USCCB in this interview – is wholly dependent on federal funding for almost all of their activities, activities which have come to be thoroughly politicized by this very same funding.  Something like 90% of Catholic Charities and 92% of Catholic Relief Services funding comes directly from US taxpayers.  One could imagine that, if freed of the Johnson Amendment the bishops would be placed in a very difficult position, not wanting to anger either party by openly opposing some or many (or all) of their candidates.  Such politicking could place their precious, precious billions at risk.  Can’t have that.

In addition, one can easily forecast how divided and lukewarm the bishops would be in determining which candidates to endorse or oppose.

Think how many very difficult, uncomfortable stands out milquetoast bishops would have to take should the Johnson Amendment be repealed.  The house divided they worry about is their own conference’s alienation from faithful souls.  Either way they went, they’d be angering a large proportion of their sharply divided flock, but in most of these cases, there is a clear, Catholic moral imperative to support one candidate and oppose another. Right now, they have the perfect excuse not to speak out much more forcefully against pro-abort, pro-contraception, pro-perversion, etc., candidates.  They simply can’t speak out for fear of losing that “holy” tax exempt status.  It’s great cover.

But it’s also a huge shirking of duty and conduct unworthy of a shepherd of souls.  In fact, much of the division among those in this country who apply the name Catholic to themselves stems precisely from the bishop’s unwillingness to take clear stands on moral issues, and, more importantly, impose ecclesiastical penalties against politicians and others of notoriety who advocate for positions contrary to the Doctrine of the Faith.  How many pro-abort politicians have been denied Communion, for instance?  How many have been condemned by name?  How many morally worthless, mealy-mouthed “voting guides” have been trotted out over the years, always containing just enough  morally ambiguous language to give a shade of cover for those who want to vote for politicians who advance morally reprehensible positions?

Overall, this commentary reveals the moral corruption at the heart of the USCCB and most national episcopal conferences.  Not only do they try to enforce a rigid conformity, blocking individual ordinary’s ability to speak out by imposing penalties against those who do, they also reveal a bureaucratic contractor more concerned with getting paid than saving souls.  Repealing the Johnson Amendment would allow the Church and the protestant sects and others to have a stronger impact on the electoral landscape than they’ve had in decades, and thus materially improve the moral condition of this nation.  In point of fact, one can trace the steady decline in morals in this country almost in a direct line back to 1954 – that is to say, the silencing of the churches played a significant role in the subsequent moral collapse of this nation.

But perhaps many of our shepherds today consider that much more of a feature, than a bug.  Whatever keeps  the gravy train rolling……is that their primary concern?  And how many of them favor the Church to be a mute, subservient, loyal and dutiful NGO-type contractor to the government, rather than the radically countercultural Body of Christ and vehicle of salvation she is intended by our Lord to be?

Mexican Bishops Excoriate Trump for Precisely Emulating Mexican Policy….. March 3, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Immigration, It's all about the $$$, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society.
comments closed

……..policy over which they have never expressed much concern.  Cynical, much?  The Mexican government constantly and quite roughly deports any and all illegal immigrants they catch coming over their southern border – that is, if those immigrants don’t have sufficient inducements with which to bribe Mexican officials, not all of which involve money, if you know what I mean.  The Mexican Church has had very little to say about that.

But in a sense, this very much makes sense, as bishops for a given country should have as their primary concern the well-being of their own citizens. Of course, Mexicans in the US have in a very real way repudiated their citizenship and as often as not rejected the Church (either there or here, huge numbers are walking away from the Faith).  I can understand some degree of loyalty, but for the most part, this just seems like ugly politicking of a most base kind.

See what you think:

The Catholic Church in Mexico has accused the government of adopting an attitude of fear and “submission” over US President Donald Trump’s immigration measures, which it labeled “terrorism.”

Mexican authorities “only make declarations and promises, their reactions are lukewarm and they also show fear and even worse, submission,” read an editorial in the Church’s From the Faith weekly.

The editorial, entitled “Migrant Terrorism,” criticized Trump’s immigration measures, which aim to expel millions of undocumented migrants from the United States.

The Trump administration issued tough new orders Tuesday for a sweeping crackdown on illegal immigrants……..[Umm, the only ones really under threat of deportation are those who have criminal records]

“What Mr Trump does is not only apply inhuman legalism, but a real act of terror,” the editorial said. [But the Mexican government does any different? And why aren’t you castigating your government for its corruption and horrific policy which has driven so many Mexicans to flee in the first place.  Most importantly – how much income does the Church in Mexico derive from remittances from Mexican expatriates living in the US?  I bet it is not insubstantial]

The new rules make it easier for US Border Patrol and immigration officers to quickly deport any illegal immigrants they find, with only a few exceptions, principally children.

But on Thursday, US Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson met with Mexican ministers promising no “mass deportations” or use of military force to expel immigrants.

Trump has infuriated Mexico by insisting the country pay for a border wall to keep undocumented immigrants out. Mexico’s foreign minister has warned that his country will impose tariffs on US products if the United States taxes Mexican imports to finance a the wall. [Good luck keeping your collapsing oil industry alive if you do that]

How the Elitist Uniparty Works February 28, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, asshatery, contraception, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, rank stupidity, Revolution, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
comments closed

Barbara Bush is headlining a fundraiser for Planned Butcherhood here in Texas. Franklin Graham is not amused:

Franklin Graham is calling out former President George W. Bush’s daughter, Barbara Pierce Bush, for speaking at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser on Thursday, saying that raising funds for the abortion business is like raising money for Nazi death camps.

“Planned Parenthood is the #1 abortion provider in the United States,” Graham wrote in a Facebook post yesterday. “Raising funds for this organization is like raising money to fund a Nazi death camp — like Auschwitz, except for innocent babies in their mother’s wombs!”

The Christian evangelist and son of Billy Graham continued: “Reports say they [Planned Parenthood] perform over 300,000 abortions per year. And this is the organization whose employees were caught on video trying to sell baby body parts over wine. Disgusting.”

Bush will be the keynote speaker at the fundraiser for Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas. Individual tickets to the event cost $150, and sponsorship levels go up to $20,000.

As LifeSiteNews reported, Bush’s company, Global Health Corps, which promotes “health equity,” works closely with Planned Parenthood, which Bush labeled an “exceptional organization.” A senior staffer for GHC is a former board member of Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and the Hawaiian Islands, and the Pacific Northwest Abortion Fund.

Bush and Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards “are enthusiastic supporters of each other’s work,” The New York Times reported in an article celebrating their alliance.

When it comes to social issues, Bush seems to have imbibed the liberal worldview of former First Lady Laura Bush, who is pro-abortion-on-demand and pro-“gay marriage.”

………Barbara Bush also supported Hillary Clinton’s run for president.

So, I’m an ardent pro-lifer.  I know many others who are.  I can’t say I know many of those ardent pro-life fathers and mothers whose kids wound up becoming pro-abort.  I’m far from sure I know any couples where the husband and wife ostensibly disagree stridently on matters such as abortion and pseudo-sodo-marriage.  The point being, this is further evidence whatever slight pro-life stands Bush ’43 took were probably simply for political expedience and not related to some deeply held belief.

It’s more than passing odd that this formerly leading family of the Republican party has so many close and happy associations with ardent leftists.  That’s what I mean by self-serving elitist uniparty.  They all attend the same institutions, go to the same parties, marry within the group, seek to please the same corporate masters, and wind up believing pretty much the same things.

More on the Bush family’s long-time love affair with contraception and abortion.  Yes it’s Mother Jones but there are many other articles from less left-wing sites confirming the same thing, but this one gave the most detail.

Milo What? Islamic Professor Defends Rape and Slavery at Georgetown February 24, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Immigration, It's all about the $$$, persecution, rank stupidity, scandals, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

As you can guess, the reaction to the proclamation of these particular abhorrent beliefs has been just a little bit different from what was directed at Milo, because a prof is a member of the great left-wing machine and leftists always take care of  their own.  h/t to reader skeinster who sent this along (I know reports of this have been around for a while but they were fairly scattered so it’s likely many have not seen this):

Two weeks ago today, a professor from Georgetown University publicly rose to the defense of slavery and rape, and not a single major media outlet—with the exception of a blogger on the Washington Post website and a brief posting on foxnews.com—has said a word about it. The absence of outrage is not hard to figure out: Jonathan Brown’s defense was limited to Islam. [yet another sign that islam is the de facto state religion of this country]

Brown, a convert to Islam, holds an endowed chair in Islamic studies at Georgetown. The Jesuit-run institution has a wealthy benefactor in Saudi Arabia, a nation which bans Christianity. How sweet.

What did Georgetown get from this arrangement? Money, and a lot of it. Twelve years ago, Saudi Arabia wrote a check to the Jesuit-run institution for $20 million; it went to support the school’s Center for Muslim Christian Understanding, run by Brown. And what did Saudi Arabia get from this peculiar “understanding”? Legitimacy. [And much more than that.  They got the silence of a Catholic university on the evils of islam. They got influence at a body that in turns greatly influence mainstream Catholic thought.  They got influence on American and Catholic thought leaders for years to come.  They got more and more acceptance of the idea that islam is deserving of special rights and privileges]

The fruit from this decayed tree is now apparent. Georgetown now employs a tenured professor who defends slavery and rape, provided the slavemasters and rapists are Muslims. This is apparently Georgetown’s idea of diversity. It also shows how phony the school is. Why all the handwringing about Georgetown’s ownership of American slaves in the 19th century when it employs defenders of slavery today?

Brown’s position was not made in the heat of debate. If anything, his comments were well prepared: they were delivered at the Islamic Institute for Islamic Thought. After being criticized by some, he tried to walk it back, offering a lame Tweet that meant nothing.

“As a category, as a conceptual category that exists throughout states and trans-historically,” Brown said clumsily, “there’s no such thing as slavery.” It gets better. “I don’t think you can talk about slavery in Islam until you realize that there is no such thing as slavery.” [Naturally.  If you can’t defend your religion’s behavior on a subject, pretend the subject doesn’t exist.  Also, taqqiyah.]

It is not certain what Brown would say to slaves in Mauritania and Somalia today—they are owned by their Muslim masters. Would he tell them to stop promoting fake news?……..

Brown is also incompetent. If slavery doesn’t exist in Muslim-run nations, why the need to justify it? “Slavery cannot just be treated as a moral evil in and of itself,” he opined. He really means it. “I don’t think it’s morally evil to own somebody because we own lots of people all around us.” [This guy is really screwed up.  Go figure for a western convert to islam]

(Who he owns he did not say, but perhaps the Southern Poverty Law Center will look into it. Maybe I’ll convert to Islam and see if I can buy him. I’ll use my credit card—Mastercard for the Master.)

When someone in the audience challenged Brown, he became indignant, as well as inconsistent. “The fact that there was slavery is wrong [thus did he contradict his remark that there was no such thing in Islam]. Okay. If you’re a Muslim, the prophet of God…had slaves. He had slaves. There’s no denying that. Are you more morally mature than the prophet of God? No, you are not.” [HE’S DEMANDING STUDENTS ACCEPT THE DICTATES OF ISLAM, A FALSE SATANIC RELIGION, ON A CATHOLIC CAMPUS!!! This is an appeal to authority based on his view that Mohammad – if he existed – is supposedly “god’s” prophet.  Does Brown know that, unlike Christ, Mohammad worked no miracles, did no great good deeds witnessed by tens of thousands, in short gave absolutely zero evidence of any supernatural connection or powers short of a book he wrote, alone, under supposed guidance from Gabriel?  Does Brown admit of the satanic verses where the Koran (at least, a version where these bits are not expunged) admits that satan fooled Mohammad?  Did satan ever trick Christ into teaching error?]

One would hope that all of us are more morally mature than Muhammad. After all, he was not only a slavemaster and an advocate of violence, he consummated his marriage with his bride Aisha when she was nine years old. That’s what we call rape.

Speaking of which, Brown went on to say that non-consensual sex—it’s called rape—is okay with him, at least if the offenders are adherents to Islam. He took aim at the Western notion of “consent,” maintaining that “It’s very hard to have this discussion because we think of, let’s say in the modern United States, the sine qua non of morally correct sex is consent.”

Continuing his defense of rape, Brown criticized Americans for making a big deal about individual rights. “We fetishize the idea of autonomy to the extent that we forget, again who’s really free? Are we really autonomous people?” In other words, since none of us is really autonomous, the difference between us and a rape victim is more contrived than real. [And you can tell from this exactly how far into islam this guy has gone, and it’s pretty damned deep.  This is exactly why islamic societies are so backwards, hidebound, superstitious, and casually disdainful of human life. They place no value on the self as a unique soul created in the image and likeness of God – or to the extent they do, they have horribly perverted this understanding precisely in order to justify Mohammad’s abhorrent, amoral behavior.]

Brown and Georgetown would be on the front page of every newspaper in the nation if he had justified Christians enslaving and raping Muslims.

Dang straight.  Good piece by Deal Hudson.

This is what the Left has in store for you folks.  Get rid of Christianity, create a failed totalitarian leftist state, then submit to the almighty allah.

Brown does a fine job of revealing the demonic immorality at the heart of islam, as well as islam’s inability to logically, rationally defend itself.  The appeals to authority start within moments.  And I would say Christianity’s long struggle to extirpate slavery from Western civilization sufficiently establishes its inherent moral superiority.

Only a muslim extremist would claim differently.  Good to know just what $20 million in dirty Saudi oil money will buy.

SPLC As Bad, Cynical, Ideological as You Would Expect February 23, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in cultural marxism, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Immigration, It's all about the $$$, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, the enemy.
comments closed

Just some data to confirm what you already knew: the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which probably did some good and helpful work decades ago in helping to undermine and eliminate the legacy of the Jim Crow South, long ago became just another corrupt agent of leftist agitprop.  More specifically, they’re simply another attack wing of the demonrat party, trading on the good name and legacy they built up decades ago to engage in nakedly biased, partisan political attacks.

And typical for politically favored institutional attack dogs, their attacks are typically based on outright falsehoods and incredibly manipulated “data.”  As a for instance, in the wake of Trump’s election – and frankly mere days after the event – the SPLC claimed that “attacks” against  muslims had skyrocketed, as had the number of anti-muslim “hate” groups.

How did this horrible outbreak of persecution occur?  By broadcasting doubtful, or even inventing, incidents (many of which have been very publicly debunked) and listing things like billboards and individuals who hold beliefs the very far left SPLC finds wrong as being purveyors of “hate,” even if these beliefs are held by a large majority of Americans.  FrontPageMag has catalogued a partial list of some of their recent inventions and false condemnations of largely innocent people, who simply happen to think differently than they do, and it’s an amazing compilation:

“Huge Growth in Anti-Muslim Hate Groups During 2016: SPLC Report,” wails NBC News. “Watchdog: Number of anti-Muslim hate groups tripled since 2015,” FOX News bleats. ABC News vomits up this word salad. “Trump cited in report finding increase in US hate groups for 2nd year in a row.”

The SPLC stands for the Southern Poverty Law Center: an organization with slightly less credibility than Ringling Bros and Barnum & Bailey Clown College, and without the academic degree in greasepaint.

And you won’t believe the shameless way the SPLC faked its latest Islamophobia crisis.

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s latest “hate group” sightings claims that the “number of anti-Muslim hate groups increased almost three-fold in 2016.”

That’s a lot of folds.

And there is both bad news and good news from its “Year in Hate and Extremism.”

First the good news.

Casa D’Ice Signs, the sign outside a bar in K-Mart Plaza in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, is no longer listed as a hate group. The sign outside the bar had been listed as a hate group by the SPLC for years. The owner of Casa D’Ice had been known for putting politically incorrect signs outside his bar. So the SPLC listed the “signs” as a hate group. (Even though there was only one sign.) Not the bar. That would have made too much sense.

Since then Casa D’Ice was sold and the SPLC has celebrated the defeat of another hate group. Even if the hate group was just a plastic sign outside a bar.

But the bad news, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, is that anti-Muslim hate groups shot up from only 34 in 2015 to 101 in 2016.

What could possibly account for that growth? Statistical fakery so fake that a Vegas bookie would weep…….

…….The SPLC decided to count 45 chapters of Act for America as separate groups.

How do you get a sudden rise from 34 to 101 hate groups? It helps to suddenly add 45 chapters of one group. Act for America isn’t a hate group. It’s also just as obviously not 45 groups.

Act for America was only listed as one group in the 2015 list. It shot up to 45 now.

Furthermore Act for America boasts not 45, but 1,000 chapters across the country. Why list just 45 of them? Look at it from the SPLC’s perspective. Next year, it can add 200 chapters and claim that anti-Muslim hate groups once again tripled. And then it can do the same thing again the year after that……..

……..[T]he SPLC makes a point of highlighting the locations of likely terrorist targets. [People who oppose radical islam, for instance, or who uphold traditional morality] And the Southern Poverty Law Center’s map of hate has been used by terrorists before.

Floyd Lee Corkins opened fire at the headquarters of the Family Research Council. The conservative Christian organization had been targeted by Corkins because of its appearance on the SPLC’s list.

“Southern Poverty Law lists anti-gay groups. I found them online,” Corkins later confessed to the FBI.

When Leo Johnson, the building’s African-American manager, attempted to stop Corkins, the SPLC shooter told Johnson that he didn’t like his politics and opened fire. The SPLC gunman had planned to kill everyone in the office, but Johnson’s heroic actions saved their lives. The African-American building manager was forced to undergo painful surgeries because of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate list.

Despite its role in the terror attack, the SPLC continues to target the Family Research Council.

None of the so-called “Anti-Muslim hate groups” listed by the SPLC have shot anyone. The SPLC has……

……..But there is one barrier to being listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

No amount of overt anti-Semitism from CAIR’s Nihad Awad would ever get the Islamist hate group listed as a hate group. Even CAIR’s flirtation with Neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers can’t get it on the hate map. The SPLC collaborated with the Muslim Public Affairs Council despite its anti-Semitism.

Instead the SPLC lists counterterrorism organizations such as the Investigative Project on Terrorism, the Clarion Project and the David Horowitz Freedom Center which point out their terror ties as hate groups.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is greedy, cynical and dishonest.

Shorter post – the SPLC are thoroughgoing leftists who trade on the name and sufferings of those who truly fought discrimination and unjust persecution in order to advance leftism. If a person or group leans left, or is perceived as being part of the leftist coalition, as muslims are (even though muslims would destroy them, and take away so much of the sexual license leftists purport to love), they can literally do no wrong.  If a person or group (or sign) is perceived as standing in opposition to leftism, they can do no right, and the SPLC will be quite happy to unjustly tar that individual as some kind of hate-mongerer, if they hold beliefs counter to the religion of sexualized secular paganism.  It’s a travesty what they are allowed to do, but it’s part and parcel of the Left here and throughout the West.

Indeed, the SPLC has long listed traditional Catholic groups like the SSPX as “extremist” and supposedly guilty of one bad “-ism” or another.  That’s because traditional Catholics uphold morals and decency, and those things are bad, because large parts of the leftist coalition would get bad feelz if someone “judged” their sodomizing or adulterating.  They also have listed anti-abortion groups as “hate groups.”  Soooo………they’re bad.  Finis.

I pray to have the time tomorrow to post something much more substantive than these endless catalogs of the left’s moral failings and frank evil.  They’re important, but I will try to focus tomorrow and next week on much more Catholic-focused posts.