Wednesday, March 30, 2011


I'd like to recommend that you go over to Lee Stranahan's site and read his article "Media Matter’s Deceptive Editing On Fox Story". Be sure to watch the videos, viewing the Media Matters video before Mr. Starnahan's breakdown of it.

It's important that all of us understand the ways we are getting jerked around by the powerful on both sides. The one thing we deserve, the one thing that we are absolutely owed, is the truth. What we do with it is up to us. However, without it we're like a blind person walking the edge of a cliff. We will eventually make a decision that will cause us great harm that we could avoid if we could only see and understand the situation we face.

I think that the level of emotion that I see on both sides of the debate is caused by this lack of basic, honest information. Most people sense that something is desperately wrong with our country and the world but they can't get their hands around it because they are never given the information, the truth, they need to come to grips with it.

We're being played with like puppets on a string. The truth is the knife we need to cut ourselves free. And the only way you'll find it anymore is by doing your own research and being honest about the information you read. Don't trust anything until you've verified it yourself. And don't just chase a link around from site to site. Find the ORIGINAL source material and read it yourself.

I've found that most of what you read, especially if it's all the rage and everyone is posting it, is suspect at best or an outright lie a good deal of the time.

We can no longer be passive consumers of information, at least not if we want our freedom.


"Marquette University, a 130 year-old Jesuit institution, has announced plans for the school to offer benefits to employees of same-sex couples effective next year.

School president Fr. Robert Wild made the announcement in a March 24 statement.
“Fr. Wild said the benefit provision was an expression of pastoral care and an acknowledgment that health care is a basic human right,” Kate Veene, the school's spokeswoman told EWTN News.

Fr. Wild said that offering same-sex couples medical, dental and vision benefits – currently provided to the university's married heterosexual couples and their dependents – was an issue he'd suffered internal conflict over.

He argued that gay couples “who have legally registered their commitment to each other” merit the same benefits as married couples under the Jesuit principle of “cura personalis” or “care for the whole person.”"

What is it with the Jesuits? If I were to have to choose which religious order is most likely to go off the reservation this would be the one.

Father Wild may have suffered all his internal conflict needlessly since the answer to his dilemma has already been provided by the Church, you know, that creaky old institution that he swore fealty to at one time?

The following excerpts come from a document released by the Vatican's Office for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2003 entitled
"Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons":

The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose...

There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law...

Where the government's policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons...

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection...

Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person. Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex...

It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure...

Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. ..

Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children...

The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.

Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State...

Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law – like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy – to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society....

The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

So is Marquette following either the letter or spirit of Church teaching in granting homosexual couples the same rights regarding health insurance as it does married heterosexuals? According to the document above, a document approved by Pope John Paul II, it doesn't. And for Catholic it's important to note that when the Magisterium speaks in accord like this it means that what it is saying is for all intents and purposes infallible. Catholics, particularly priests, are not free to ignore these sorts of teachings. Regardless of the amount of internal conflict one involves himself in.

We are quickly moving towards a collapse of the Church here in America because not only does the laity refuse to follow Rome but it appears the prelates are refusing to do so, also.

What is truth?

Pray and then pray some more. And keep your eyes fixed firmly on Peter.


"Newt Gingrich suggested Friday that he's not looking to "get past" his three marriages and admitted affairs as a potential stumbling block with voters, arguing it's about admitting to "weaknesses" and "failures" for which he sought God's "forgiveness."

The comments from Gingrich came during his latest trip to Iowa, in an interview on "Iowa Press," set to air Friday evening and again Sunday.

The former House speaker was asked by Associated Press reporter Mike Glover, "You've been married three times. You've had messy divorces. You're campaigning in a state where the Republican Party is dominated by Christian conservatives. How do you get past that?"

Gingrich replied, "I think you don't get past that. I think you tell the truth and I think you share your life's experiences and you admit that you've had weaknesses and that you've had failures and you've gone to God to seek forgiveness and to seek reconciliation and then people make a decision.""

I hope Gingrich is being honest, not just with the voters but with himself, and I hope that he's found the peace and forgiveness that only a relationship with God can bring. That being said, as a voter, and one with a conservative bent, I would have a hard time voting for this guy.

I think that he's brilliant and that of all the candidates on the Republican side so far he'd have the best chance of beating Obama in a one on one debate. He knows history and that's an invaluable asset for a President. He's hard headed enough to stand tough on something he believes passionately. And he's undoubtedly tough.

But, even with all those strengths he has one glaring weakness; he's part of the old guard, a neo-con from the nineties, someone that will support wars overseas and the expansion of American empire. And I can't support that.

We're broke, game over, end of story. It's time for America to retract from the world, gracefully and from a position of strength. Bring the troops back and protect our own shores, develop our resources, live within our means, and learn to get by on the energy we produce here.

We need a President that will lead us into the new reality we face, not one stuck in the age of empire. I don't think Gingrich is that man.


"The cash-strapped MTA may soon put welfare recipients to work scrubbing and cleaning the subways.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority wants to revive its participation in the city's Work Experience Program - which makes the unemployed toil for their benefit checks.

"This is a program that has a proven track record of doing three things: providing low-cost cleaning help for the subway; providing job training to people who need it, and leading directly to full-time employment for many of the people who participate in the program," MTA spokesman Jeremy Soffin said.

The MTA eliminated 173 cleaner positions last year in a series of budget cuts that slashed a total of about 3,500 jobs."
New York Daily News

This is what true "social justice" looks like. As a Catholic I realize that there is a responsibility on the government's part to take care of its citizens when those citizens have no other way to get by. This is because those same citizens supported the government through taxes and service when times were good. It's a two way street.

However, just as those citizens rightfully expected a return on their treasure and energy when it was given to the government, things such as roads, police and fire protection, among others, the government has a right to expect a return from the citizens on money spent to support them in time of need. Again, this is a two way street.

Unlike the Progressive form of "social justice" where self centered greed drives the entire process, true "social justice" has at its core the concern for the other. The government gladly looks to the welfare of the citizen while the citizen gladly labors for his dollar from the government because he realizes that the people from whom the dollars that support them are taken deserve a return on their money.

Concern for the other, on both sides of the equation, makes true "social justice" a worthy and holy undertaking. Narcissism and greed, the two hallmarks of all Marxist enterprises, corrupt and pervert the "social justice" that the Progressives continually try to sell us. This has had the effect of turning most Conservatives against something that properly understood and implemented is a vital component of our human society.

Proving once again that everything Marxism touches goes bad.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011


"Military intervention in Libya, in the judgment of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), “appears to meet” the just-cause criterion of Catholic teaching on just war. The USCCB, however, cautioned that it has “refrained from making definitive judgments” in light of “many prudential decisions beyond our expertise.”

“In Catholic teaching the use of force must always be a last resort that serves a just cause,” Bishop Howard Hubbard of Albany, chairman of the USCCB Committee on International Justice and Peace, wrote in a letter to National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon. “The Catechism of the Catholic Church limits just cause to cases in which ‘the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations [is] lasting, grave and certain’ (#2309). The just cause articulated in UN Security Council Resolution 1973 to demand ‘a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians’ appears to meet this criterion in our judgment.”"
Catholic Culture

We find ourselves in a new war (whether we choose to call it that or not) in yet another Muslim country, backing a group that we know little about but which seems to be, because one of its leaders has said as much, affiliated with al-Qaeda, and the American Bishops have pronounced it just. Why? Because the U.N. is nominally in control of the situation? Or because President Obama is one of their own politically? I don't know but something isn't right.

This is what this same group of Bishops had to say about our invasion of Iraq:

"Based on the facts that are known to us, we continue to find it difficult to justify the resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature. With the Holy See and bishops from the Middle East and around the world, we fear that resort to war, under present circumstances and in light of current public information, would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for overriding the strong presumption against the use of military force.*"

I'm curious how Libya differs from Iraq in "lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature"? We have not been attacked and neither was any other nation in the United Nations coalition. Libya is undergoing an internal civil war, the people having risen up, for whatever reason, to throw off their own government. Sure, Gaddafi is a butcher, a terrorist and a killer. But he's been that way a long time. And yes, he'll kill the people that turned on him if he wins the war. But they knew that going in and still figured it was worth the cost. So how does any of this justify ours or any other nations involvement in this mess?

Also, we didn't go in to stop the fighting. We went in and clearly took sides, backing the rebels with air power and supplies. We clearly intend to see Gaddafi taken out. How does all this fit into your just war theory, Bishops?

This pronouncement from the Bishops seems to me to be more about politics than faith and morals. But then lately most everything from the USCCB seems that way. I'm to the point of not listening to them at all anymore. They've become representatives of the Democrat party, not the Church leaders they're supposed to be.

But, the African Bishops and possibly the Pope disagree with our American Church leaders:

"“The Holy Father's appeal was wonderful news and gives us great comfort. The Pope spoke words that affirm the need for reconciliation, peace and dialogue,” said Bishop Giovanni Innocenzo Martinelli, Apostolic Vicar of Tripoli. On Sunday, March 27, upon praying the Angelus, Pope Benedict XVI launched “an urgent appeal to international organisations and political and military leaders for immediate dialogue, to suspend the use of arms.”

“We have translated today's appeal by the Holy Father into Arabic and we will send it as a voice message to the Libyan Foreign Ministry, for their information,” says Bishop Martinelli. The Apostolic Vicar states that he did not participate in the event of Saturday, 26 March (see Fides 26/03/2011), and that in any case, as he explained to Fides, he would join in only if it had been a peace rally. “They have not asked again for our presence,” says Bishop Martinelli. “It was a manifestation to reaffirm the national unity of Libya. We have joined the tribal leaders, intellectuals and other personalities. I do not think either side wants a divide in Libya. However, this emphasises the need for dialogue to end the crisis,” says the Vicar Apostolic of Tripoli."
Energy Publisher

"Following the midday Angelus prayer this Sunday, Pope Benedict XVI launched the following urgent appeal:

“Faced with the increasingly dramatic reports from Libya, my trepidation for the safety and security of civilians and my concern for the unfolding situation, currently signed by the use of arms, is growing. In times of greatest tension, the need to put to use all means available to diplomacy becomes increasingly urgent and to support even the weakest signs of openness and willingness on both sides involved, for reconciliation in search of peaceful and lasting solutions. In view of this, as I lift my prayer to the Lord for a return to harmony in Libya and the entire North African region, I also appeal to the international bodies and all those in positions of military and political responsibility, for the immediate start of dialogue and the suspension of the use of weapons”.

“Finally, my thoughts turn to the authorities and citizens of the Middle East, where in recent days there have been several incidents of violence, so that the path of dialogue and reconciliation be privileged in the search for a just and brotherly coexistence”."
Catholicism Pure and Simple

Friday, March 25, 2011


Raw Story, a consistently incendiary left wing website is running the following story:

"An Indiana prosecutor and Republican activist has resigned after emails show he suggested Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker stage a fake attack on himself to discredit unions protesting his budget repair bill.

The Republican governor signed a bill on March 11 that eliminates most union rights for public employees.

In an email from February 19, Indiana deputy prosecutor Carlos F. Lam told Walker the situation presented "a good opportunity for what’s called a ‘false flag’ operation."

The Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism discovered the email among tens of thousands released to the public last week following a lawsuit by the Isthmus and the Associated Press.

"If you could employ an associate who pretends to be sympathetic to the unions' cause to physically attack you (or even use a firearm against you), you could discredit the unions," Lam said in his email.

"Currently, the media is painting the union protest as a democratic uprising and failing to mention the role of the DNC and umbrella union organizations in the protest," he continued. "Employing a false flag operation would assist in undercutting any support that the media may be creating in favor of the unions."

Lam resigned from his position after the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism published an article about his email."

I've noticed that this is gaining some traction among some on the left that, like some on the right, grope and grasp for anything that fits their particular world view, regardless of whether it's important or spun so badly as to become meaningless.

I'll assume that this Lam guy wrote the e-mail since he resigned. What does this prove? He's an idiot? The story goes on to say that in a phone call to Wisconsin Governor Walker, someone posing as a Koch brother (the current boogie men on the right if one is to believe the left wing hysteria) suggested a similar "false flag" operation and Walker said that they'd thought about it. Again, so? They didn't do it, did they? Where's the harm in talk, even talk about something ridiculous?

At the same time that we have sites like Raw Story trying to gin up problems for the Republicans most of the main stream media is completely avoiding the story first broken by Glenn Beck and backed up by tapes of a speech given by Stephen Lerner in which Lerner details plans to collapse the American economy by creating a situation where people stop paying there mortgages and by demonizing J.P. Morgan and other financial institutions. You can find details
here, here and here.

So here's the thing. We've got two stories competing for attention, one about a low grade political operative writing an e-mail supporting a stupid and pointless idea that was never acted on and for which he resigned and another reporting a conspiracy that seems to be in motion that has the potential to bring down our economy. If both succeed the first would have limited consequences, embarrassing the Governor and bringing into question the motives of a state issue and those that back it, a motive about which there is little question anyway. The second has international ramifications, with the potential to change everything about the way life in America and the world functions.

One has to wonder why partisan websites such as Raw Story promote political theater at the expense of important stories and further why anyone cares whether Walker got an e-mail or not. We live in extraordinarily dangerous times yet the average American, when they can tear themselves away from American Idol, focuses on partisan bickering and gamesmanship instead of the things that could destroy their lives.

Even if Beck is wrong about the plot he describes he has enough evidence and the threat is big enough that we should focus our attentions there, not on the stupid actions in Wisconsin and Indiana.

We must divorce ourselves from the politicians and the games they play and begin to function as one family working for the survival of our clan. These stupid games can wait for a different time when we, hopefully, once again have the luxury of playing in the dirt like kids.

Grow up America. And act like adults and fix the real problems.

Thursday, March 24, 2011


"A bill proposed by the Missouri General Assembly earlier this month would change some regulations of Proposition B, which passed with 51 percent of voters in November, could occur as soon as next month.

The Missouri Senate passed the bill that amends Prop. B with a vote of 20 to 14 on March 10, according to the Missouri Senate website. When the House votes on the bill in April, the final decision will lie with Gov. Jay Nixon.

The new provisions in House Bill 131 renames Prop. B the Dog Breeders Cruelty Prevention Act and removes the provisions concerning living conditions and specific medical regulations for animals.

House Bill 131 states Prop. B is not applicable to breeders unless they own more than 100 female dogs, and breeders are permitted to own more than 50 dogs.
Other changes to Prop. B that would be omitted deal with scientific facts, such as specific dog cage temperatures, which would harm some puppy breeds, said Representative Zachary Wyatt, R-District 2, who supports the House bill.

The "domesticated animal" provision would be removed because it could mean any animal from a dog to a horse, cow or pig, he said. Therefore, under Prop B, all the regulations would also apply to farm animals, which would be detrimental to agriculture, he said."
Truman Index

There's been a good deal of discussion, most of it on the passionate side, about Prop B both before and after its passage last year in Missouri. Most of the yelling right now revolves around the legislature making changes to the bill after it was voted on by the people.

Prop B was a bill written by the
Humane Society of the United States under the guidance of its CEO and President Wayne Pacelle to whom the following quotes have been attributed:

“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”
— Animal People News, May 1993

"We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States ... We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state. ---Wayne Pacelle, Full Cry Magazine, October 1, 1990.

Can you blame those of us that voted against the bill for just a bit of concern about what the true intent of the legislation is? Section 9 of the act reads as follows:

"”Pet” means any domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof."

Those of us that have domesticated animals other than dogs and cats have quite a few reservations when it comes to the possibility of applying the regulations included in the act to our farm animals. My chickens are "domesticated animals" and they live about 50 feet from my house. Is that near enough for them to fall under the requirements of the act? If so, do I now need to heat and cool their coop and follow all kinds of other regulations that have nothing to do with the health and fitness of my birds? What about hogs, goats and cows? They're all domesticated, too. Do they fall under the regs in the act?

It seems to me, based on the known predilections of the leadership of HSUS that this bill is meant to be something more than just a way to prevent the abuse of dogs in large scale puppy mill operations. It is worded in ways that leave the legal door open for increasing government meddling in farming and private business/property issues, all with the intent of eventually creating legal protections for animals equivalent to those humans posses as a matter of the natural law. And those are the sorts of holes the legislature is trying to plug.

Further, if one reads the bill a glaring problem is found in its lack of establishing an enforcement mechanism or the funding for one. The Senate is trying to rectify that problem by
increasing licensing fees for breeders to as much as $2500.00 to fund more inspectors. It seems that supporters of this bill would be happy with that.

"Missouri Humane Society president Kathy Warnick can't help but feel outraged by watching the Proposition (the Humane Society wrote) get overturned.

"A total miscarriage of justice has occured," Warnick said, "simply because Missouri's citizens voted for Proposition B. The measure passed, and we feel the Senators should have respected the will of the people of Missouri to provide better care and conditions for the animals in Missouri's breeding facilities. We feel very strongly that the Senators have absolutely gutted proposition B, and that they have stripped away the protection Missouri's animals so richly deserve."
Fox 2

I guess it's just because I'm a dumb country boy but I don't see this bill being overturned. I see it being tweaked, corrected or brought into line with other statutory law in Missouri but that's hardly being overturned.

You see, this is the problem with the way the left misuses democracy. Notice how they constantly characterize our form of government as democracy when thats not what we are? The reason for this is because they know that through direct vote an ignorant populace can be coerced into voting for something against their own interest or against the interest of a minority group.

After all, democracy is nothing more than two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner.

"The measure passed, and we feel the Senators should have respected the will of the people of Missouri...". If this is the case I wonder if Ms. Warnik would feel the same way if the people of Missouri had voted to allow dogs and cats to be served as food in our restaurants? Or what if we had voted to take away womens suffrage?

Democracy is nothing more than a tool used by the left to hijack the process in a republic. They know that they'll never get a bill like Prop B through the legislature so they do an end run by getting it put on the ballot, which is perfectly legal. However, it's also perfectly legal and normal for the legislature to amend statutes after they're passed; it happens all the time. Why should Prop B be sacrosanct?

Since the legislature doesn't seem to be looking to throw Prop B out I think that the outrage from the animal rights fringe is mostly for theatrical affect. They have an agenda far greater than the protection of dogs and they thought they had us fooled. Thankfully our reps are doing their jobs and now maybe we can get a law in place that protects both the dogs and the rights of animal owners, producers and breeders.

Isn't that really what most people want?

Tuesday, March 22, 2011


Is this true? I don't know. Business Insider is taking it seriously and I've not often read anything completely crazy there.

Would it be possible to get 20% of the mortgage holders in America to do this? I don't know. While it's probably fairly easy to get the usual suspects to show up to a labor rally you have to consider that most of those people are young or generally unemployed or in jobs that the union controls and they can get off work with no real consequences. In other words, the usual suspects got nothing to lose by going to a rally and marching around shouting.

But there are real costs associated with not paying your house payment, even for a few months. You stop paying and your credit score gets slammed. A lot of employers look at those numbers and base your employment, at least in part, on them. You'll get nailed with late fees and God only knows what other charges. You could get sued or maybe even foreclosed on.

So the question is whether or not SEIU or anybody else could get 20% of American mortgage holders to take that chance. I'd have to say no but then I'm wrong a lot.

At the very least it's good to know that the threat is out there so if we start to see something like this fire off we know what it is and we can brace ourselves for the repercussions.

Prepare and pray. This is shaping up to be a really interesting year.


"Pope Benedict XVI made an urgent appeal to political and military leaders to protect the safety and security of civilians and guarantee the free flow of humanitarian aid inside Libya.

He said the "worrying news from Libya" in the past few days caused him "deep trepidation and fear," and he kept the North African country's people in his prayers during his Lenten retreat March 13-19.

Speaking to pilgrims gathered in St. Peter's Square March 20 for the recitation of the Angelus, the pope said, "I address a pressing appeal to those who have political and military responsibilities" to ensure the safety and security of defenseless citizens as well as guarantee those offering emergency assistance have access to those in need."
Catholic News Service

As a devout and faithful Catholic, one that believes in the power and necessity of the papacy, I've long questioned the repeated calls by recent popes for a world power that can override individual national decisions. In 2008 Benedict visited the U.N. and had this to say:

“Countries that act unilaterally on the world stage undermine the authority of the United Nations and weaken the broad consensus needed to confront global problems, Pope Benedict said on Friday.

The international community must be “capable of responding to the demands of the human family through binding international rules,” said the 81-year-old pope, who spoke after meeting privately with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.He said the notion of multilateral consensus was “in crisis because it is still subordinated to the decisions of a few, whereas the world’s problems call for interventions in the form of collective action by the international community.”
Old Thinker

Sounds good on paper, right? There are two problems with this approach, at least as I see it. The first is that it seems to violate the principle of subsidiarity, a foundational social teaching of the Catholic Church. All solutions should come from the lowest possible level. And power tends to concentrate. If we allow a global authority any power over us it will, slowly and inexorably, aggregate power unto itself, consuming the rights of individual nations and states.

The other problem is that any global organization will be run by politicians. Politicians are always looking for ways to grab more power for themselves while hiding their efforts from the people. What better place to do this than from inside a giant global organization. This current U.N. driven attack against Libya is a perfect example.

The attack, which I believe is purely about oil, has been shrouded by lofty words calling for the restoration of human rights and security for the people of Libya. If there were any real concern at all for the people among the leadership of the U.N. the pope wouldn't be talking about concerns for their safety. But this isn't about people, its about one man, Qaddafi. And its about one country, America, using the obscurity of U.N. actions and mandates to attempt to carry out its own political objectives behind and under the curtain of international agreements and authority. We need to get rid of him to stabilize the oil supply because Europe depends on Libyan oil and we depend on gasoline refined in Europe to supply East Coast drivers.

So now the pope is concerned because the organization he has promoted is being used to run cover for a war for oil that will invariably cause abuses of human rights. And because it's a war carried out by this same global institution how can any one nation be blamed? And how will the pope make the argument that this war isn't about human rights when the system that he has called for to intervene "in the form of collective action by the international community" has done just that? Is the pope so blind that he believes that the U.N. will function as some sort of collective nirvana, a place where Swaziland will have the same political power as America, England, France, Russia and China?

The U.N. does not and will not work as some sort of buffer to unilateral abuses of power by individual states. Instead it is a smokescreen designed and used to cover them. And the pope ought to be able to understand this.

Monday, March 21, 2011


There's no doubt that Casey did what he had to at the time to get out of the problem he faced. And I'm sure he earned a bit of respect for doing it from the guys that have been pushing him around. But, kids being what they are, Casey better learn something about fighting now. I hope his old man knows this and gets to work. This kid is a known push over that everybody is going to figure got lucky once. He's still got no real friends though I bet he gets some hangers on. But they won't back him when the next guy comes along and wants to fight. And you better believe that next guy's out there, just waiting.

Good job Casey, now you know you can do it. But man up because the bigger challenges are yet to come. And remember, even if you get your butt kicked you'll still earn respect and that's what matters. If the bullies know you'll fight back then sooner or later they'll find somebody else that won't. Bullies hate to get hurt.

Oh, and something my old man told me years ago; they never remember HOW you won the fight, just that you won it.


"Sales of previously owned U.S. homes fell unexpectedly sharply in February and prices touched their lowest level in nearly nine years, implying a housing market recovery was still a long off.

The National Association of Realtors said Monday sales fell 9.6 percent month over month to an annual rate of 4.88 million units, snapping three straight months of gains.

The percentage decline was the largest since July."

"Due to having declined by almost 13% mom in January, new home sales were close to their all-time low. Thus we forecast that they will have recovered slightly to about 300k in February – still lower than the 2010 average of 320.5k."
FX Street

Here's the one thing you gotta know. No matter how the government or the investment class tries to spin it, until we start building houses and cars again you aren't going to see a recovery. Those two industries were the last of the big money jobs for blue collar guys like me. And there's millions of us out there with no work and really no hope of ever getting jobs even close to what we once had ever again.

Because of this we aren't buying anything and we won't be anytime soon, if ever. Only the essentials now; no more boats, campers, hunting gear, fishing stuff, home improvements or anything else that doesn't absolutely have to be bought.

It's only a matter of time before that ripples through the economy and the white collar world starts to feel the pinch even more than they have. And then they stop spending and the death spiral tightens.

Buckle up and pray. We've got a long ways to go in this economic downfall.


"Commanders in Afghanistan are bracing themselves for possible riots and public fury triggered by the publication of "trophy" photographs of US soldiers posing with the dead bodies of defenceless Afghan civilians they killed.

Senior officials at Nato's International Security Assistance Force in Kabul have compared the pictures published by the German news weekly Der Spiegel to the images of US soldiers abusing prisoners in Abu Ghraib in Iraq which sparked waves of anti-US protests around the world.

They fear that the pictures could be even more damaging as they show the aftermath of the deliberate murders of Afghan civilians by a rogue US Stryker tank unit that operated in the southern province of Kandahar last year.

Some of the activities of the self-styled "kill team" are already public, with 12 men currently on trial in Seattle for their role in the killing of three civilians.

Five of the soldiers are on trial for pre-meditated murder, after they staged killings to make it look like they were defending themselves from Taliban attacks.

Other charges include the mutilation of corpses, the possession of images of human casualties and drug abuse.

All of the soldiers have denied the charges. They face the death penalty or life in prison if convicted."

These guys are being tried for this so there's no denying it happened. The question I have is why are the photos being released right now? Just as we start yet another war in a Muslim country?

I really, really try to shy away from conspiracies and all the other craziness that is the norm on the 'net but things like this? I don't believe in coincidences of this sort. Somebody's held these pictures, waiting for the right time. I'd put money on it.


"A suspected oil slick has been spotted around 20 miles north from the site of the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion.

Several people reported seeing a rainbow sheen on the surface of the water several miles long just off the coast of Louisiana, to the National Response Center.

Officials have confirmed there is a five-mile wide spill of some substance in the Gulf of Mexico, but have not yet identified it."
Daily Mail

This story has been bouncing around for the last couple days on the net though it doesn't seem to be getting much traction. So, is it a new spill? Or is it oil from the Deepwater blowout finally coming to the surface? I have no idea.

Like just about everything else these days I don't know what's true and what's not concerning the Gulf. To hear the government, big oil and tourist related sources tell it there's no problem at all. On the other hand, there's still reports of dead fish and sickness bubbling up on the net.

My guess, and that's all it is, is that there's a whole lot more going on than we're being told. Common sense seems to say that with all the oil that leaked from Deepwater Horizon and with the little that was removed, something is still out there, lurking and waiting to show itself.

But there's a larger problem. Most of us really don't want to see the world get completely trashed in the search for energy and drilling in the Gulf, regardless of industry propaganda, is a dirty business. But we must have energy to maintain our economy and our way of life. Hell, we must have energy, period.

The arguments that surround the energy debate usually seem to miss that one simple point. We WILL use energy to survive. The only question is, what kind? All energy sources have risks and they'll pretty much all kill in one way or another, whether oil taints the food, coal mines collapse, air pollution causes cancer, radiation poisons or we simply set the house on fire burning wood. Dead is dead.

Many on the left seem to believe that windmills and sunshine (doesn't that just make you feel all warm and fuzzy?) can get the job done. Really? Realistically, if you like your A.C. and heat, driving your car, working in a nice white collar job, having a grocery store with more than two aisles in it and most everything else we take for granted today we either have to burn carbon based fuels or use nuclear. Anything else moves us back.

I'm old enough to remember when houses didn't have air conditioning and neither did cars. I remember when our TV's were 13" and black and white. When I was a kid they didn't call off school because it was too hot and we didn't have air conditioning in the classrooms, either. We didn't have microwaves, computers, cell phones, stereos or i-anything. In other words, our energy footprints were much, much smaller but our lives were much less pampered, too. Hell, I'm the first generation in my family that didn't have to use the privy in the backyard! How much energy do we use just flushing toilets?

All this is to say that we need to come to grips with reality in our arguments over energy. We have to decide what we want. Flush toilets or two-holers in the back yard? Central heat, coal burning furnaces or fireplaces in the winter? Do we want to maintain our modern lifestyle and comfort or will we accept a return to a much simpler and less energy reliant life?

Because, in all our bickering about energy, carbon footprints, nuclear meltdowns and everything else this is the central issue. Until we're honest about the subject there's no point in having the argument.


"The Coast Guard said on Sunday that miles-long patch of discolored goop floating in the Gulf of Mexico appears to be caused by river sediment.

The Coast Guard collected and tested samples of a dark substance after receiving varying reports on Saturday of possible pollution floating on and beneath the water's surface.

The largest sighting described the substance as stretching 100 miles into the Gulf, south of Grand Isle, Louisiana.

An analysis found only trace amounts of petroleum hydrocarbons, oil and grease — all at levels well within the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality's clean water standard.

Sediment carried down the Mississippi River and possibly agitated by dredging is believed to have caused the dark substance, according to a Coast Guard news release.

The Coast Guard also investigated on Sunday an oily substance washing up along the Louisiana shoreline.

Samples of that substance will be tested. It is not suspected to be residual oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill in April."

Sunday, March 20, 2011


Wow! I'm humbled by the number of people looking at this blog at the moment. It seems they've been directed here from another blog named Lee I've never seen this many hits - ever!

It seems that Mr. Stranahan stumbled across this blog while looking for something related to my post regarding Minneapolis House File 171, the bill that has been reported by left wing websites across the web as making it illegal for the poor in Minnesota to have more than $20 in cash in their pocket at any one time. He says that mine was the only site that bothered to track down the law and look into the truth. Based on my searching on Friday I'd have to agree with him.

He noted on his site that I would probably be considered "The sort of fellow that liberals would call a right wing nutjob, if they were being kind." I suspect he's right.

That being said I noticed something on his site, something missing from far too many sites, both right and left; a respect for the truth.

That's all that any of us can ask. Look, we can disagree on damned near any issue. But, if the truth isn't at the root of our disagreement then all we are arguing about is meaningless. We're facing a truly unique time in human history, a time when everything we've known is about to change. If we don't stick with the truth, if we don't insist on the facts, how can we ever arrive at an answer? Right, left, middle, who cares? We're all people and we all have a stake in the future. We must have the facts presented to us so we can make a decision.

We've been put at each others throats as a distraction. We watch the right hand while the left moves the ball. We need to get past our petty differences and have honest conversations about the problems we all face, not as Republicans, Democrats, Marxists or Capitalists but as people, focused on the truth and nothing else.

We're being played by both sides. Pray for wisdom.

Friday, March 18, 2011


This story is all over the lefty sites on the net:

"Minnesota Republicans are pushing legislation that would make it a crime for people on public assistance to have more $20 in cash in their pockets any given month. This represents a change from their initial proposal, which banned them from having any money at all.

On March 15, Angel Buechner of the Welfare Rights Committee testified in front of the House Health and Human Services Reform Committee on House File 171. Buechner told committee members, “We would like to address the provision that makes it illegal for MFIP [one of Minnesota’s welfare programs] families to withdraw cash from the cash portion of the MFIP grant - and in fact, appears to make it illegal for MFIP families to have any type of money at all in their pockets. How do you expect people to take care of business like paying bills such as lights, gas, water, trash and phone?”

House File 171 would make it so that families on MFIP - and disabled single adults on General Assistance and Minnesota Supplemental Aid - could not have their cash grants in cash or put into a checking account. Rather, they could only use a state-issued debit card at special terminals in certain businesses that are set up to accept the card."
Fight Back News

Now, maybe it's just me but when I see a whole group of people going crazy and just reposting the same thing, word for word, on every site that supports a particular political view I get a bit suspicious. So I went and checked the bill out on the Minnesota House of Representatives website. Hard to believe that you can find such obscure info with just a couple clicks, isn't it? Here's, at least in part, what I found:

"Electronic benefit transfer or EBT debit card. (a) Electronic benefit transfer (EBT) debit cardholders in the general assistance program and the Minnesota supplemental aid program under chapter 256D and programs under chapter are prohibited from withdrawing cash from an automatic teller machine or receiving cash from vendors with the EBT debit card. The EBT debit card may only be used as a debit card.

Beginning July 1, 2011, cash benefits for programs listed under paragraph (a) must be issued on a separate EBT card with the head of household's name printed on the card. The card must also state that "It is unlawful to use this card to purchase tobacco products or alcoholic beverages." This card must be issued within 30 calendar days of an eligibility determination. During the initial 30 calendar days of eligibility, a recipient may have cash benefits issued on an EBT card without the recipient's name printed on the card. This card may be the same card on which food support is issued and does not need to meet the requirements of this section.(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), EBT cardholders may opt to have up to $20 per month accessible via automatic teller machine or receive up to $20 cash back from vendor."

After reading this, does it appear to you in any way that the Republicans are trying to limit the amount of cash anyone is allowed to carry? No. They are merely limiting the amount of cash that can be withdrawn from the state issued debit card. I don't know this for certain but I'm guessing that the intent of this is to control how the public monies are spent, limiting purchases to legitimate items and most likely aimed at reducing the ability of the welfare recipients to use public money to purchase drugs and other illegal goods.

What's wrong with this? Does society have nothing to say about how the money it hands over to the indigent is spent? It's our money and we can set the rules. That seems to be a just social contract, social justice if you will.

The internet is a wonderful way to stay on top of the issues of the day but all people, regardless of political persuasion, need to check their facts before running with a story. It's way too easy to become party to the spreading of lies meant to harm one group or another.


"One would think that after the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Americans could at least catch a break for a while with deflationary forces keeping the cost of living relatively low. That’s not the case.

A special index created by the Labor Department to measure the actual cost of living for Americans hit a record high in February, according to data released Thursday, surpassing the old high in July 2008. The Chained Consumer Price Index, released along with the more widely-watched CPI, increased 0.5 percent to 127.4, from 126.8 in January. In July 2008, just as the housing crisis was tightening its grip, the Chained Consumer Price Index hit its previous record of 126.9.

“The Federal Reserve continues to focus on the rate of change in inflation,” said Peter Bookvar, equity strategist at Miller Tabak. “Sure, it’s moving at a slower pace, but the absolute cost of living is now back at a record high in a country that has seven million less jobs.”...

...Bottom line: The cost of living for Americans is now above where it was when housing prices were in a bubble, stock prices at a record, unemployment low and consumer confidence was soaring. Something has gotta give."

As the cost of not only living but also doing business continues to climb one of the things that's going to give is jobs. Here's the deal: businesses are seeing their margins squeezed by the high cost of goods sold while they are finding it nearly impossible to raise their prices due to the unemployment rates in this country. We're going to start seeing more and more small businesses shut their doors as rising costs make it impossible to remain profitable. As an example, this story from our local paper this week:

"After 144 years in business, Droege's Supermarket is turning off the lights. The downtown institution will close next month.

Owners John "Butch" and Judy Droege made the announcement Friday. Employees were told that morning.

"Making the decision to close was a very difficult one for Judy and me," said Butch Droege. "This store is my family's legacy and we feel a personal commitment to our community and the good people of Washington.

"Like many small businesses, we found it increasingly difficult to compete with larger grocery chains and other retailers that stock food items. We believe we have competed admirably, but with continuing changes in the marketplace and consumer buying habits, closing the store now is a prudent decision for our family."

Established by a son of a German immigrant, Droege's Mercantile opened on the corner of Main and Oak in 1867. The store moved to its current location at Main and Lafayette street in 1896, and has been in continuous operation there, headed by a member of the Droege family."
Washington Missourian

I don't know the details and what the actual issues driving this decision were but I'd be willing to bet that at least in part the decision to shut the doors was driven by inflation in their cost of doing business while not being able to pass the costs along. Washington has a Walmart and a couple large chain grocery stores in it and I'm sure that their efficiencies of scale couldn't be matched by the mom and pop operation.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg. How many other small businesses are closing their doors and how many workers does that put out on the street? Further, as the cost of fuel, clothing and food continue to rise and eat into the paychecks of those still fortunate enough to have work how long can even the large chain stores remain profitable? At some point consumers are going to be forced to make major changes in how they spend their money and this will impact everything, most assuredly causing the lose of even more jobs and creating a cycle of collapse. Who's going to buy a new television or computer when they can't even pay the electric bill easily?

And what about the people that have taken crappy minimum wage jobs and the like just to get by after losing their good paying job in the last couple years? At some point they're going to start doing the math and realize that the cost of employment, primarily the cost of fuel to get to work, has become so high that it doesn't make sense to keep going in. Then what? Another guy back on the dole looking for money that we are going to have to borrow from future generations to give to him.

So yeah, a whole lot of things are about to give. Prepare and pray.



This is absolutely amazing. The Missouri Attorney General knows fraud has been committed yet he is essentially refusing to do anything about it because it would take too much work. WTF?!!!!

There's no doubt that some people should be foreclosed upon. But there's also no doubt that the bank or loan servicer that wants to foreclose should have to produce the paperwork to prove that they have a claim on the property they want to foreclose on. That means an unbroken chain of wet signatures each and every time the loan was sold. That means that all taxes and fees should be paid to the county recorder each time a mortgage is sold and that the sale should be recorded in the county courthouse.

Your loan is current? This doesn't affect you? Well, let's think this through. If the banks that are foreclosing on property can't produce a valid note that fulfills all the legal requirements to prove they have the right to foreclose what makes you think that after you pay off your mortgage the piece of paper they give you is valid? How can you be sure that you actually have the title to your property? In Florida banks have foreclosed on property that is owned free and clear because of paperwork problems. And they don't say sorry and just walk away when they get questioned. Homeowners are forced to go to court to defend against these predators.

Just because you pay off the mortgage to the loan servicer how can you be sure that someone else can't still make a claim? In some states title insurers are refusing to insure titles because they can't untangle the web created by MERS.

Our Attorneys General need to do their jobs and fix this problem regardless of how difficult it is. Oh, and regardless of how much money the banks funnel into the political system, too.


I don't know, and it really amazes me that I can say this, whether Obama is anything he claims to be. But then I don't know that I believe anything anymore when it comes to the world of politics, science or finance. Everything is slight of hand and mis-direction, lies and disinformation. And I know I'm not alone.

So the question is if this constant stream of crap that leaves us all feeling as though we've stepped through the looking glass is being intentionally generated to undermine the confidence of the people in the institutions they've come to rely on?

It seems to me that through most of recorded history man has looked outside himself and his institutions for support. We are religious beings. We've always, until the last couple hundred years or so, beginning with the Enlightenment (even the name of that one is a lie), looked to our God for answers in times of stress. Now we've reasoned God away, putting government, science and business in His place.

We've built our houses on the sand of human knowledge rather than the rock of God's wisdom and now the storms are beginning to wash us away.

We're dangerously close to a time that people will begin to look for answers to the hell we've created for ourselves. Since most have lost, because it's been purposely taken from them, the spiritual foundation that is necessary to turn back to God they will focus on the temporal world for a savior. And I'm sure one will rise from the smoke, the fire and the ashes to lead them.

Buckle up and pray, pray, pray!

Thursday, March 17, 2011


"U.S. officials are alarmed at how the Japanese are handling the escalating nuclear reactor crisis and fear that if they do not get control of the plants within the next 24 to 48 hours they could have a situation that will be "deadly for decades."

"It would be hard to describe how alarming this is right now," one U.S. official told ABC News.

President Obama has been briefed by nuclear experts."

He may have been briefed but does he care?

"President Barack Obama will take his first official trip to Brazil this weekend where he will speak in the popular Cinelandia Square in downtown Rio de Janeiro...

...The Obama family will also take in the sights in Rio. A trip to Corcovado mountain, where the Christ the Redeemer statue stands (France gave us Lady Liberty, gave Brazil Jesus) is supposedly on the itinerary. What trip to Rio would be complete without it?"

Monday, March 14, 2011


"The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an atheist activist’s appeal challenging the national motto “In God We Trust.”

Michael Newdow has charged that government references to God are an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state and infringe on his religious beliefs. He has filed numerous lawsuits on the subject. His latest suit concerned the national motto’s place on U.S. coins and currency, contending it makes him an unwilling bearer of a religious message.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals said in an earlier ruling that the phrase is ceremonial and patriotic and “has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion,” the Associated Press reports."

Beyond the obvious relief that I feel in this decision not to take up this case I'm left with a sense of confusion. If Newdow thinks the phrase "In God We Trust" infringes on his religious beliefs and that it violates the First Amendment how does his use of government power to inflict his religious beliefs on the rest of us differ in intent or effect?

This is the problem, well at least one of the problems, with atheists. While they rail against religion of all forms they never quite seem to realize that atheism is as much a religion as Catholicism, Buddhism or Islam. It takes just as much faith, if not more, to believe in nothing as it does to believe in God! One can make a logical argument for the existence of God based on reason alone. Obviously, complete belief is a matter of faith but at least reason can get you close. Arguing for the existence of nothing is just a bit trickier. Even if one were to accept the material arguments for the material world put forth by science those arguments still don't supply an answer for the existence or non-existence of a prime mover.

To say that God doesn't exist is an act of faith and as such atheists, following their own logic, should not be allowed to use government to further their religious agenda by using it to replace the established religious symbolism that is part of America's heritage.

Saturday, March 12, 2011


I know the America I grew up in 50 some odd years ago wasn't perfect - but can't we agree it was better?

Wednesday, March 9, 2011



"According to St. Thomas (II-II, Q. liii, a. 1) scandal is a word or action evil in itself, which occasions another's spiritual ruin. It is a word or action, that is either an external act—for an internal act can have no influence on the conduct of another—or the omission of an external act, because to omit what one should do is equivalent to doing what is forbidden; it must be evil in itself, or in appearance; this is the interpretation of the words of St. Thomas: minus rectum. It is not the physical cause of a neighbor's sin, but only the moral cause, or occasion; further, this moral causality may be understood in a strict sense, as when one orders, requests, or advises another to commit the sin (this is strictly inductive scandal, which some call co-operation in a broad sense), or in a large sense, as when a person without being directly concerned in the sin nevertheless exercises a certain influence on the sin of his neighbor, e.g. by committing such a sin in his presence (this is inductive scandal in a broad sense)."
Catholic Encyclopedia

When reading about Gov Cuomo and the Archbishop this morning scandal is the first thing that came to my mind. Why? Simply because, and this is purely a guess on my part, the Gov., being a politician, is hoping to cut a deal with the Archbishop regarding his current fallout with the Church over the issue of communion and his lifestyle and the Archbishop, by agreeing to meet and discuss state support of Catholic education gives the impression that he he would be open to an accommodation.

Honestly, I don't know what the two men talked about. Maybe Dolan read him the riot act and stated unequivocally that the Church would have nothing more to do with Cuomo until he repented and confessed. If so I applaud the actions of the Archbishop. Unfortunately, based on the articles below, my guess is that this isn't the case.

"Dr. Edward Peters, a consultant to the Vatican’s highest court of canon law, told CNS News that Cuomo committed an “objectively sacrilegious” act that “produces grave scandal” when he received communion on New Year’s Day. Cuomo, a Democrat, is pro-choice and supports gay marriage, two positions the church vocally opposes. Of serious concern to Peters, however, is that Cuomo, who divorced Robert Kennedy’s daughter Kerry eight years ago, is currently living with Food Network host Sandra Lee...

...Peters says that Cuomo should be denied Communion under a rule known as Canon 915 from the church’s Code of Canon Law. According to the code, persons “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.” He also criticized the pastor who celebrated the mass, Bishop Howard Hubbard, for not challenging “the governor to begin his reform of the state with a reform of his person.”"
Daily Caller

"New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan emerged from a private lunch with Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday with quips, quick reflexes to avoid tough political questions and a pledge from the governor to take a new look at the role of Catholic schools.

Dolan wouldn't discuss with reporters any private discussions he may have had about the recent ruckus sparked by a Detroit-based lawyer for the Vatican's high court. Conservative blogger Edward Peters criticized the governor, who is Catholic, divorced and supports abortion rights, for living with his girlfriend, food TV star Sandra Lee, and for taking Communion.

"That's the kind of delicate pastoral issue that this is probably not the best forum to speak about," Dolan told reporters afterward. "Do we dodge those issues? No, we don't. But there is a time and place for everything.""
The Republic

So how is this scandalous? To the average person it will appear that the moral depravity of the Governor is something that can be excused by the Church for a price. If the whole issue of refusal of communion unless the Governor repents is quietly dropped while the state somehow, again quietly, begins to support Catholic schools with tax dollars, it will be obvious to all that the leaders of the Catholic Church don't really believe the words they teach. And if they don't believe them why should anyone else?

Look, it was bad enough when the Vatican was selling redemption in the 16th century to fund the building of churches. But at least they expected people to use their own money. In this case, if the governor cuts his deal, it will appear that Cuomo is being allowed to purchase his salvation with the money of others, a double whammy of ugliness!

So, a word of advice to the Archbishop from out here in the cheap seats. Before you make a deal with the devil and let the state get its claws into our education system, address the personal problems of the Governor. You must separate the two issues because to leave it as it seems is to cause scandal and to potentially lead others into sin. And I'm almost positive that this is not part of your job description.

Tuesday, March 8, 2011


Sure, I know that there's no difference at all between Islam and Christianity but really, when was the last time you heard of a bunch of Presbyterians going on a rampage?

"A mob of nearly four thousand Muslims has attacked Coptic homes this evening in the village of Soul, Atfif in Helwan Governorate, 30 kilometers from Cairo, and torched the Church of St. Mina and St. George. There are conflicting reports about the whereabouts of the Church pastor Father Yosha and three deacons who were at church; some say they died in the fire and some say they are being held captive by the Muslims inside the church.

Witnesses report the mob prevented the fire brigade from entering the village. The army, which has been stationed for the last two days in the village of Bromil, 7 kilometers from Soul, initially refused to go into Soul, according to the officer in charge. When the army finally sent three tanks to the village, Muslim elders sent them away, saying that everything was "in order now."

A curfew has been imposed on the 12,000 Christians in the village.

This incident was triggered by a relationship between 40-year-old Copt Ashraf Iskander and a Muslim woman. Yesterday a "reconciliation" meeting was arranged between the relevant Coptic and Muslim families and together with the Muslim elders it was decided that Ashraf Iskander would have to leave the village because Muslims torched his house.

The father of the Muslim woman was killed by his cousin because he did not kill his daughter to preserve the family's honor, which led the woman's brother to avenge the death of his father by killing the cousin. The village Muslims blamed the Christians."

"Istanbul police’s anti-terror unit apprehended two suspects accused of plotting to assassinate a priest in the city’s Fatih district, Doğan news agency, or DHA, reported Saturday.

Law enforcement officers alleged that a suspect who was identified only as E.T., and who was reported to be under 18 years of age, offered 18-year-old Okan G. 50 Turkish Liras to kill the unnamed priest."
Daily News

"International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned that in the past two days, thousands of Muslims have razed five churches and the homes of two evangelists in Asendabo, Ethiopia. Christian leaders are asking for protection after the Muslim attackers continued burning churches even after the federal police were sent to the town.

The Muslims started the attacks yesterday after falsely accusing the Christians of desecrating the Qur'an. More than ten thousand Muslims shouted "Allah Akbar" (Allah is great) as they burned down five evangelical churches. The government sent the federal police force to protect the Christians after the Muslims burned down the first three churches. The Muslims overwhelmed the police force and burned down two more churches today.

Speaking with ICC, Christian leaders expressed their fear that Muslims will start killing the Christians unless the government sends more security forces to contain the Muslim attackers."

Saturday, March 5, 2011


"Attorney General Eric Holder appeared on Capitol Hill to testify about the Department of Justice's budget request Tuesday and wound up fielding a number of pointed questions on a range of topics. Chief among them was the Department's announcement that it will not defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in current court proceedings.""
Fox News

The question is, can the DOJ, acting under the orders of the President, refuse to enforce federal law? More specifically, can the president order this?

What is the Defense of Marriage Act?

"The Defense of Marriage Act (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996 whereby the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. Under the law, also known as DOMA, no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities."

This passage of the bill followed the guidelines established in the Constitution:

"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States;[2] If he approve he shall sign it..."
Article 1 Section 7 U.S. Constitution

And President Obama swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Last year a federal judge declared DOMA unconstitutional:

"In a major victory for marriage equality advocates, a federal judge in Boston ruled Thursday in two separate cases that a critical portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

In one challenge brought by the state of Massachusetts, U.S. district judge Joseph Tauro ruled that Congress violated the U.S. Constitution when it passed DOMA and took from the states decisions concerning which couples can be considered married."

A stay was issued on part of the decision:

"A Massachusetts federal court decision striking down as unconstitutional a section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act will go on hold pending any appeal by the government.

The U.S. Department of Justice and parties represented by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders on Wednesday agreed to a stay of the decision issued by U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro last month in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management."

This means that all parties involved in the decision agreed to leave the law as it was written pending final adjudication. So DOMA is still, for all intents and purposes, federal law. Yet the DOJ is refusing to enforce it under the orders of the President. This seems to me to be illegal, and if it is, it seems someone should be going to jail or at the very least be brought up on charges of some sort.

And so we have this:

"Rep. Trent Franks, R-AZ, said in an interview that he would support impeaching President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder if the White House does not reverse its decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.

Franks also said he would "absolutely" support defunding the Department of Justice if the administration did not begin defending the 1998 law, when asked by ThinkProgress's Scott Keyes.

Asked whether he would support impeaching Obama and Holder if the administration doesn't reverse course as former speaker Newt Gingrich has suggested, Franks responded, "if it could gain the collective support, absolutely.""
The Atlantic

Dare I point out the hypocrisy of the Obama administration regarding the health care bill and it's very similar legal journey?

"A U.S. district judge on Monday threw out the nation's health care law, declaring it unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause and surely reviving a feud among competing philosophies about the role of government.

Judge Roger Vinson, in Pensacola, Fla., ruled that as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void."
Fox News

A stay was issued in this case just this week by the presiding judge:

"Florida District Court Judge Roger Vinson has ordered a stay on his own ruling voiding the Affordable Care Act because of Constitutional issues. This will allow states and the federal government to continue to implement the health care law while the case is under appeal.

Vinson actually framed the order as a “clarification” to his order from last month. Some states were using the ruling to stop implementation of the law. Vinson cleared this up by staying the ruling, provided that the Justice Department appeal to a higher court within one week..."

The thing is, even though a stay was issued months ago in the DOMA case, meaning that it remains in force, the fed has refused to enforce the law. In the case of the health care bill a conditional stay was just issued two days ago, meaning that for all intents and purposes, up until that time, the health care bill was, at least arguably, no longer law. Yet the administration continued and continues to act as though it were.

We are supposed to be a country based upon the rule of law yet it seems that our commander in chief and his administration consider themselves above that very same law. If the law is not binding on the government then how can it be binding on the people? Have we ceased to be a Constitutional Republic? If so, what have we become?

I think that this does raise constitutional questions that must be addressed and for this reason I believe that impeachment is the proper course of action. The power of the federal government and more specifically the executive branch of that government must be reeled in and brought back under the law established in the Constitution.

And if it can't be, what then? I don't know. But at the very least we'll stop lying to ourselves and everyone else about the nature of our government. The first step to fixing a problem is to admit that you have one.

Below I've reprinted Archbishop Timothy Dolan's remarks concerning the DOMA. They're well worth the read.

"The announcement on February 23 that the President has instructed the Department of Justice to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is an alarming and grave injustice. Marriage, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, is a singular and irreplaceable institution. Only a man and a woman are capable of the “two-in-one-flesh” union of husband and wife. Only a man and a woman have the ability to bring children into the world. Along with that ability comes responsibility, which society historically reinforces with laws that bind mothers and fathers to each other and their children. This family unit represents the most basic and vital cell of any society, protecting the right of children to know and be known by, to love and be loved by, their mother and father. Thus, marriage represents the bedrock of the common good of society, its very foundation and future.

Contrary to the Attorney General’s statement, DOMA does not single out people based on sexual “orientation” or inclination. Every person deserves to be treated with justice, compassion, and respect, a proposition of natural law and American law that we as Catholics vigorously promote. Unjust discrimination against any person is always wrong. But DOMA is not “unjust discrimination”; rather, it merely affirms and protects the time-tested and unalterable meaning of marriage. The suggestion that this definition amounts to “discrimination” is grossly false and represents an affront to millions of citizens in this country.

The decision also does not stand the test of common sense. It is hardly “discrimination” to say that a husband and a wife have a unique and singular relationship that two persons of the same sex—or any unmarried persons—simply do not and cannot have. Nor is it “discrimination” to believe that the union of husband and wife has a distinctive and exclusive significance worthy of promotion and protection by the state. It is not “discrimination” to say that having both a mother and a father matters to and benefits a child. Nor is it “discrimination” to say that the state has more than zero interest in ensuring that children will be intimately connected with and raised by their mother and father.

Protecting the definition of marriage is not merely permissible, but actually necessary as a matter of justice. Having laws that affirm the vital importance of mothers and fathers—laws that reinforce, rather than undermine, the ideal that children should be raised by their own mother and father—is essential for any just society. Those laws serve not only the good of the spouses and their children, but the common good. Those laws are now under relentless attack. If we forget the meaning of marriage, we forget what it means to be a human person, what it means to be a man or a woman. Have we wandered away so far in our society as to forget why men and women matter, and eroded the most central institution for our children and for our future?

The Administration’s current position is not only a grave threat to marriage, but to religious liberty and the integrity of our democracy as well. Our nation and government have the duty to recognize and protect marriage, not tamper with and redefine it, nor to caricature the deeply held beliefs of so many citizens as “discrimination.” On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, I express my deep disappointment over the Administration’s recent decision. I have written of these concerns to the President in separate correspondence, and I pray that he and the Department of Justice may yet make the right choice to carry out their constitutional responsibility, defending the irreplaceable institution of marriage, and in so doing protect the future generations of our children."

Friday, March 4, 2011




I don't know when it happened or why but somewhere along the line our country made a decision that working with our hands was a bad thing. We decided that we'd become a nation of managers, where everyone would have a college education and this would somehow translate into solid jobs and a happy life.

It's a lie.

The truth is that if we don't build things, if we don't take raw materials and create something of value from them them we aren't creating wealth. And as we've now seen, if we try to make money by just skimming a little off the top of other peoples wealth by charging management fees we will, slowly but surely, starve.

We've created a system that rewards non-productive activity with insane amounts of money and punishes those that use tools by forcing the real wages paid to tradespeople down, year after year. Consequently, America has lost the ability to build. Everyone wants to be an office guy with a desk and a computer. The last thing they want to do is sweat and hurt. Everybody wants to make money trading stocks but nobody wants or knows how to use a hammer and a saw to produce something that has intrinsic value and creates real wealth.

I'm not saying that management skills aren't important. They're essential. But we need fewer managers and more producers working in the fields and on the factory floors. We need our managers to be managing productive activity, not just more and more layers of management managing itself. We've got way too many chiefs and not enough warriors.

Now we've lost our factories and plants along with our skills and rebuilding an economy based on production will take years. But, if we don't, we'll be left with nothing. If we can't stand on our own two feet, if we absolutely rely on the Chinese and Indians to make basic essential products then we have become their slaves and we'll be forced to do as they demand.

Thursday, March 3, 2011



"As Congress considers potential federal budget cuts for the upcoming year, the nation's Catholic bishops warned again that the proposed reductions would hurt the poor – both in this country and overseas.

“These are drastic cuts – draconian cuts – that disproportionately target the poorest people,” Bill O'Keefe, Senior Director of Advocacy for Catholic Relief Services, said on Feb. 23."
Catholic News Agency

OK, we get it. The Congress, at least the Republicans, are trying to cut $60 billion out of a $3.84 trillion budget. That's what, 2%, or less? These numbers are so big my grade school math skills fail me. Regardless, these cuts are less than a drop in the bucket. So to call them draconian is an exercise in hyperbole. But we've come to expect that haven't we?

I wonder how Director O'Keefe would solve the problem. Print more money? The economy will collapse. Cut military spending? I'm all for it. Bring our troops home, screw the rest of the world. Of course, that would have a major impact on the poor of the world as dictators and despots fill the vacuum left by the departure of our military. But even this won't stop the collapse. It'll just push it back a bit, or accelerate it, depending on what oil prices do as radical Muslims seize power and the oil fields.

The only way to maintain our sovereignty, thus our ability to help the poor is to reign in our spending, and not by 1 or 2 percent but by something a bit larger, say 40-50 percent. To do that we have to start talking about entitlements because they're the real gorilla in the room, the thing that really makes our economy completely unsustainable, and I'll bet that Mr. O'Keefe will really get upset if we touch anything there.

So to all the Mr. O'Keefe's out there, get over it. All the special interests need to realize that if we don't make "draconian" cuts there won't be an America left. And no matter what else happens, without America the poor will suffer to a much greater extent.

We can't have it both ways anymore; the day of reckoning has arrived. If we don't do what we have to and get our house in order we won't have a house to argue about. The fantasy of limitless resources has come to an end. For the rich and the poor. And the rest of us, too

Wednesday, March 2, 2011


It's time. It's time for our government to be broken. It needs to be smacked down and hard. We must return to the limited government that our Founders envisioned. If it takes a complete collapse then so be it. I understand the hardship, I understand the violence, I understand the absolute terror we're going to go through. But in the end, it seems that unless this corrupt state is destroyed we will be slaves.

We already are.

"Giving Transportation Security Administration agents a peek under your clothes may soon be a practice that goes well beyond airport checkpoints. Newly uncovered documents show that as early as 2006, the Department of Homeland Security has been planning pilot programs to deploy mobile scanning units that can be set up at public events and in train stations, along with mobile x-ray vans capable of scanning pedestrians on city streets.

The non-profit Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) on Wednesday published documents it obtained from the Department of Homeland Security showing that from 2006 to 2008 the agency planned a study of of new anti-terrorism technologies that EPIC believes raise serious privacy concerns. The projects range from what the DHS describes as “a walk through x-ray screening system that could be deployed at entrances to special events or other points of interest” to “covert inspection of moving subjects” employing the same backscatter imaging technology currently used in American airports...

...In August of last year, Joe Reiss, the vice president of marketing of security contractor American Sciences & Engineering told me in an interview that the company had sold more than 500 of its backscatter x-ray vans to governments around the world, including some deployed in the U.S. Those vans are capable of scanning people, the inside of cars and even the internals of some buildings while rolling down public streets. The company claims that its systems’ “primary purpose is to image vehicles and their contents,” and that “the system cannot be used to identify an individual, or the race, sex or age of the person.” But Reiss admitted that the van scans do penetrate clothing, and EPIC president Marc Rotenberg called them “one of the most intrusive technologies conceivable.”"