I was born, though I don't remember the event, in Tucson, AZ. So now the US has effectively surrendered sovereignty over a stretch of land, 80 miles north of the border!
The Fish and Wildlife folks--the Federal Fish and Wildlife folks--have closed off part of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge to Americans, ceding de facto control of the area to Mexican Illegal Border Crossers and Smugglers. Paul Babbeu is the Sheriff of Pinal County, and cites a massive upsurge in violence and traffic in the area over the last four months, and inaction by the federal government over repeated requests for help, National Guard troops, and anything else that would stem the tide. He says the border is literally out of control. He says that he doesn't control part of his county--which is about the size of Connecticut.
Sheriff Babbeu pointed out that controlling the border is the duty of the Federal Government, and they are refusing to do so.
I think it's simply because Hispanics tend to vote Democrat, and the Party controls this regime sees that it can gain more electoral power by inaction than by duty. Likewise I think that the Bishops wrong headed refusal to implement the whole of catholic teaching in this area is in the hope that more Hispanics will equal more Catholics, to replace those that have been driven off by modernism, homosexuality, malfeasance and mismanagement in the Church.
As usual, us poor ordinary folks are the ones who will get screwed. Like the people of Arizona, who suffer one of the--if not the--highest crime rates in the US, with 80% of infractions in AZ being perpetrated by illegals.
TRIUMPHALIST--YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT?
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Bishop Stuff
The Bishops are doing their Florida Meeting thing. And Cardinal George is speaking out.
He has said that "Sister" Carol Keehan choose the President--in effect picked politics and Stateism over the Bishops and Catholicism--and that she and her like minded "Religious" are attempting to set up a parallel Magisterium, and acting as if it had authority.
He also did something our bishops usually don't have the courage to do, he placed blame. He said that Sr. Keehan and her group, the CHA were largely responsible for the passage of the Health Care bill, presumably because they made it possible for Obamacists to say they had the support of Catholics.
Bring on that Rod that Benedict was talking about last Friday!
He has said that "Sister" Carol Keehan choose the President--in effect picked politics and Stateism over the Bishops and Catholicism--and that she and her like minded "Religious" are attempting to set up a parallel Magisterium, and acting as if it had authority.
He also did something our bishops usually don't have the courage to do, he placed blame. He said that Sr. Keehan and her group, the CHA were largely responsible for the passage of the Health Care bill, presumably because they made it possible for Obamacists to say they had the support of Catholics.
Bring on that Rod that Benedict was talking about last Friday!
Kudos to Hilliary, A Stiff Poke in the Eye to San Francisco!
Hilliary Clinton is not my favorite politician, but I have a policy of speaking up when a politician I dislike and frequently slam does something good. And Ms. Clinton has done so.
She is addressing the problem with human trafficking, into sex slavery mainly, in the US. The US has been placed on the list of suspect nations for human trafficking for the first time. And it is not only a horrifying truth and a humiliating experience for a nation that prides itself on it's commitment to personal liberty, and one of whose defining events was a violent and protracted civil war waged in part to end it, it's judgment against us as a people.
Yet at the same time there is a ballot measure in San Francisco that needs a good look: It's billed as a decriminalization of Prostitution. (Which a city doesn't have the authority to do--it's a state law in California, and they cannot refuse to enforce it legally.) The law says that the law enforcement shall not allocate any resources for the investigation and prosecution of prostitutes and prostitution. No exception made for minors, or those entrapped into SFs "massage parlor' trade, which is already notorious for employing minors, and illegal aliens victimized by human traffickers.
This is simply wrong, a bill touted to the public as a protection for women "sex workers" that is really an empowerment for pimps and slavers.
Glenda Hope who runs an outreach for AIDS and sex workers in SF said she would have voted for it, if she had only listened to it's proponents, but after reading it she is opposed, noting that the average age for entry into prostitution in SF is 12 to 14.
The measure also prevents the City's Law Enforcement from applying for grants or applying grant money to fight the Human Sex Slave Trade in the City. SF is already one of the hubs for that trade on this Continent (the other is New York City).
The measure is expected to pass with about 75% of the vote. After all, San Francisco is a sex positive city. And if you can't rent a minor for a little afternoon debauchery, how is that sex positive.
I will now say something I shouldn't: How do we arrange for another major Earthquake and Fire? It might work this time, because Bank of America is too shaky to finance the rebuilding, like it did last time.
She is addressing the problem with human trafficking, into sex slavery mainly, in the US. The US has been placed on the list of suspect nations for human trafficking for the first time. And it is not only a horrifying truth and a humiliating experience for a nation that prides itself on it's commitment to personal liberty, and one of whose defining events was a violent and protracted civil war waged in part to end it, it's judgment against us as a people.
Yet at the same time there is a ballot measure in San Francisco that needs a good look: It's billed as a decriminalization of Prostitution. (Which a city doesn't have the authority to do--it's a state law in California, and they cannot refuse to enforce it legally.) The law says that the law enforcement shall not allocate any resources for the investigation and prosecution of prostitutes and prostitution. No exception made for minors, or those entrapped into SFs "massage parlor' trade, which is already notorious for employing minors, and illegal aliens victimized by human traffickers.
This is simply wrong, a bill touted to the public as a protection for women "sex workers" that is really an empowerment for pimps and slavers.
Glenda Hope who runs an outreach for AIDS and sex workers in SF said she would have voted for it, if she had only listened to it's proponents, but after reading it she is opposed, noting that the average age for entry into prostitution in SF is 12 to 14.
The measure also prevents the City's Law Enforcement from applying for grants or applying grant money to fight the Human Sex Slave Trade in the City. SF is already one of the hubs for that trade on this Continent (the other is New York City).
The measure is expected to pass with about 75% of the vote. After all, San Francisco is a sex positive city. And if you can't rent a minor for a little afternoon debauchery, how is that sex positive.
I will now say something I shouldn't: How do we arrange for another major Earthquake and Fire? It might work this time, because Bank of America is too shaky to finance the rebuilding, like it did last time.
Calling it Cowardly Bullshit.
Just a couple of things:
Comedy Central won't even mention Mohammed's name. They say it's cultural sensitivity, but a quick look at the history of the thing reveals that they are afraid of Islamic Terrorists, not supported of religious respect. Because, at the same time they spend lots of program time slamming Catholic and Catholicism. A recent comedy program had a lot of it's humor directed at slamming Catholicism as and Christianity as "crazy junk", "shit" and "ridiculous".
The reason of course is that while we may get angry, or even write letters or boycott, we probably wont behead them. Or bomb them. Or even sue them. So they make money off of anti catholic and anti christian bigotry.
Now It's not just Comedy Central. This is an international trend, and when one looks overseas, one sees that we actually have it easy. Unlike Kenya.
Kenya is 70% Christian, and they are about to approve a new constitution that disallows many things for Christians, and give constitutional recognition to sharia courts. (Islam is followed by about 12% of Kenyan citizens.) It also allows for abortions. Christians have been protesting the constitution, opposing it's adoption. They have the votes, after all.
Except that on the 13th of this month, a pro life rally opposing the constitution was hit with two bombs.
There are two explanations going around, both frightening. One is that extremist sympathizers with the current government are trying to intimidate the Christians into silence. The other is that religious extremists who want to insure constitutional recognition of Sharia courts are trying to undermine Christian opposition.
So folks, when you get mad at Comedy Central, remember to give thanks that they aren't throwing bombs at a population that is unlikely to bomb back. And reflect on something--from the Roman Empire, through the Crusades, to this June in Kenya, Christians have been subject to violence at the hands of Stateists, and of Muslims, counting on the fact that we tend not to wield violence as freely as they.
It's Bullshit, Bullying and Cowardice to do so, but oppressors are usually cowards.
Comedy Central won't even mention Mohammed's name. They say it's cultural sensitivity, but a quick look at the history of the thing reveals that they are afraid of Islamic Terrorists, not supported of religious respect. Because, at the same time they spend lots of program time slamming Catholic and Catholicism. A recent comedy program had a lot of it's humor directed at slamming Catholicism as and Christianity as "crazy junk", "shit" and "ridiculous".
The reason of course is that while we may get angry, or even write letters or boycott, we probably wont behead them. Or bomb them. Or even sue them. So they make money off of anti catholic and anti christian bigotry.
Now It's not just Comedy Central. This is an international trend, and when one looks overseas, one sees that we actually have it easy. Unlike Kenya.
Kenya is 70% Christian, and they are about to approve a new constitution that disallows many things for Christians, and give constitutional recognition to sharia courts. (Islam is followed by about 12% of Kenyan citizens.) It also allows for abortions. Christians have been protesting the constitution, opposing it's adoption. They have the votes, after all.
Except that on the 13th of this month, a pro life rally opposing the constitution was hit with two bombs.
There are two explanations going around, both frightening. One is that extremist sympathizers with the current government are trying to intimidate the Christians into silence. The other is that religious extremists who want to insure constitutional recognition of Sharia courts are trying to undermine Christian opposition.
So folks, when you get mad at Comedy Central, remember to give thanks that they aren't throwing bombs at a population that is unlikely to bomb back. And reflect on something--from the Roman Empire, through the Crusades, to this June in Kenya, Christians have been subject to violence at the hands of Stateists, and of Muslims, counting on the fact that we tend not to wield violence as freely as they.
It's Bullshit, Bullying and Cowardice to do so, but oppressors are usually cowards.
Your Tax Dollars at Work
May actually be involving you in practices contrary to the Faith, against your will and largely without your knowledge.
The GAO has released figures that put the total tax dollar contributions through grants and contracts with groups promoting abortion at an amount of more than a billion dollars between 2002-2009. The money went mainly to six groups.
The groups are Planned Parenthood Federation of America, International Planned Parenthood Federation, Population council of the United States (shouldn't that be "depopulation council'?) Guttmacher Institute, Advocates for Youth and Sexuality Information and Education council of the United States.
Just thought you'd like to know.
The GAO has released figures that put the total tax dollar contributions through grants and contracts with groups promoting abortion at an amount of more than a billion dollars between 2002-2009. The money went mainly to six groups.
The groups are Planned Parenthood Federation of America, International Planned Parenthood Federation, Population council of the United States (shouldn't that be "depopulation council'?) Guttmacher Institute, Advocates for Youth and Sexuality Information and Education council of the United States.
Just thought you'd like to know.
A Gay Activist Looks at Reality
BeyondChron is an alternative online daily out of San Francisco. They have an article up by Paul Hogarth, discussing Ballot Initiatives for Gay Marriage and other issues.
He quite simply thinks they are a bad idea, because when the population votes, the Gays lose the election. He goes on to say that the problem is that the Gays have not been able to make a firm case in the hearts and minds of the general population, and that until they do they will continue to lose. He suggests that they quit using their resources, time and political capital in losing efforts and instead concentrate on educating the electorate, and convincing people that it's a good idea to approve Gay Marriage.
He seems convinced that until they can do that, all their efforts will fail or backfire. He also notes that pre election polls tend to give gays more favorable results than they actually get. He has the common sense to note that the reason isn't that people change their minds, it's that they are afraid to give an honest answer. That those who are going to vote yes say so, but that many who are going to vote no say they are undecided.
Given the campaign of vindictive intimidation, extortion, vandalism and mob action that took place after the passage of Proposition 8, the fear of an honest answer without the privacy of the voting booth is reasonable.
So maybe they are getting the message that our society will tolerate them easily, but we will not empower them through Marriage, because deep down, most of us think that it's just not good for society as a whole to have gay marriage.
In a related item, Elton John has come out against Gay Marriage, saying that civil unions give all the important legal protections of marriage, and they don't need to get married, that that's is something for straight people that Gays don't need to emulate. I think he links it to a separate identity, and sees it as trying to emulate straight people--not unlike the "Butch and Fem" dichotomy of 70s gay and lesbian relationships.
He quite simply thinks they are a bad idea, because when the population votes, the Gays lose the election. He goes on to say that the problem is that the Gays have not been able to make a firm case in the hearts and minds of the general population, and that until they do they will continue to lose. He suggests that they quit using their resources, time and political capital in losing efforts and instead concentrate on educating the electorate, and convincing people that it's a good idea to approve Gay Marriage.
He seems convinced that until they can do that, all their efforts will fail or backfire. He also notes that pre election polls tend to give gays more favorable results than they actually get. He has the common sense to note that the reason isn't that people change their minds, it's that they are afraid to give an honest answer. That those who are going to vote yes say so, but that many who are going to vote no say they are undecided.
Given the campaign of vindictive intimidation, extortion, vandalism and mob action that took place after the passage of Proposition 8, the fear of an honest answer without the privacy of the voting booth is reasonable.
So maybe they are getting the message that our society will tolerate them easily, but we will not empower them through Marriage, because deep down, most of us think that it's just not good for society as a whole to have gay marriage.
In a related item, Elton John has come out against Gay Marriage, saying that civil unions give all the important legal protections of marriage, and they don't need to get married, that that's is something for straight people that Gays don't need to emulate. I think he links it to a separate identity, and sees it as trying to emulate straight people--not unlike the "Butch and Fem" dichotomy of 70s gay and lesbian relationships.
Trautman
How long is this guy going to be allowed to sew dissension and division within the ranks of the Catholic Church?
He has a new article on the US Catholic web page, decrying the new translation. It has at least one inaccuracy: He says that Vatican II called for the Liturgy to be celebrated in the vernacular. It didn't. In fact, if you were to simply read the documents of Vatican II you would find a clear directive saying that the people should be taught to make the Latin Responses to the Liturgy. It allowed for the celebration of the Mass in the vernacular, it did not mandate it. It did mandate that the people should be making the responses, the so called "dialog Mass", that arose in the first half of the 20th century as part of a rebirth of liturgical studies. (And now I'm going to make people angry with me again, and probably lose a few readers. IAW the rubrics of the 1962 missal, which allow for the faithful to make the responses, people worshiping in the Extraordinary Form should make those responses. Sitting silently and praying the Rosary is a liturgical abuse that Vatican II tried to correct with the directive about responses!) The whole Ordinary Form thing wasn't envisioned by the Council Fathers, and certainly the theologically indefensible distortions of the current English translation would leave them aghast. By the way--English is the only language that had this problem.
Troutman needs a good dose of Shut-The-F**k-Up administered vigorously by the Vatican, The Faithful and possibly by his Mom.
He has a new article on the US Catholic web page, decrying the new translation. It has at least one inaccuracy: He says that Vatican II called for the Liturgy to be celebrated in the vernacular. It didn't. In fact, if you were to simply read the documents of Vatican II you would find a clear directive saying that the people should be taught to make the Latin Responses to the Liturgy. It allowed for the celebration of the Mass in the vernacular, it did not mandate it. It did mandate that the people should be making the responses, the so called "dialog Mass", that arose in the first half of the 20th century as part of a rebirth of liturgical studies. (And now I'm going to make people angry with me again, and probably lose a few readers. IAW the rubrics of the 1962 missal, which allow for the faithful to make the responses, people worshiping in the Extraordinary Form should make those responses. Sitting silently and praying the Rosary is a liturgical abuse that Vatican II tried to correct with the directive about responses!) The whole Ordinary Form thing wasn't envisioned by the Council Fathers, and certainly the theologically indefensible distortions of the current English translation would leave them aghast. By the way--English is the only language that had this problem.
Troutman needs a good dose of Shut-The-F**k-Up administered vigorously by the Vatican, The Faithful and possibly by his Mom.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Covering Up
Representative Bob Etheridge (D--NC) got a little excited. Like excited enough to manhandle a citizen who asked him if he supported President Obamas agenda. And to scream at him, etc.
That was last week. Did you hear about it? No?
That's because the press isn't reporting on it anymore than they have too.
Although they could give air time to a republican making a crack about Barbara Boxers hair, as it it were important.
No, there's no press bias or cover up. Move along. Nothing to see.
That was last week. Did you hear about it? No?
That's because the press isn't reporting on it anymore than they have too.
Although they could give air time to a republican making a crack about Barbara Boxers hair, as it it were important.
No, there's no press bias or cover up. Move along. Nothing to see.
The Two Are Related
Well, it's that time of year again. You know, when the weather turns warm and all the phreaks in America go outside to share their phreakishness. From Ren Faire, to Buckskinning, to Street Festivals of Performance Art, to Scottish Games, it's all on Display. Including the Gay Pride Marches.
St. Francis Xavier Church in New York City is participating in the Pride March for 27 June. Their Ordinary, Abp. Timothy Dolan has "requested" that they not participate. (Now, I learned that a "request" from a superior was a polite way to give an order, but I guess they're banking on the fact that it wasn't "technically" an order.
They're brochure says, in part: "We are looking forward to spending this day of celebration, ministry, and the living out of our mission statement as a parish". They have placed their identity as a parish above thier identity as Catholics. It is clearly more important to them to accounted part of the GLBT friendly folk that part of the Catholic Church.
Abp. Dolan needs to step in. My advice to him would take three steps. The first is to declare Rev. Joe Constantino, SJ to be no longer pastor of that Church. He has the right to do this. The second would be to declare Constantino personna non gratia in his Archdiocese--he has the right to do that as well. (Constantino is a member of the Society of Jesus--an organization of Pontifical right. Abp. Dolan has limited authority over him.) The third step is to turn the Parish over to the ministries of an orthodox religious community that has the expertise to correct the obvious doctrinal errors, and the moral courage to invite those who will not correct themselves to leave.
I hope for this outcome.
Because after all, in his homily for the Sacred Heart, His Holiness said:
"The Church too must use the shepherds rod, the rod with which he protects the Faith against those who falsify it, against currents that lead the flock astray. The use of the rod can actually be a service of love. Today we can see that it has nothing to do with love when conduct unworthy of the priestly life is tolerated. Nor does it have to do with love if heresy is allowed to spread and the faith is chipped away, as if it were something that we ourselves had invented".
Notice something--he mentioned heresy. He also mentioned things unworthy of a priestly life. His Holiness has just said something very important--the smack down is coming! Benedict doesn't just say things. He acts on the things he says. And looking at these two items, one can see both the reason so many faithful Catholics who accept the Teachings of the Church are sad and angry, and why we see rays of hope.
Parishes like St. Francis Xavier have managed to flourish for so long because of the Truce of 1968. Pope Benedict has just declared it over.
Let's all say a Prayer of St. Michael, and Our Father , a Hail Mary and a Glory Be today that Abp. Dolan will think of His Holinesses words, and take vigorous action, using his shepherds rod.
(BTW--you can go to www.stxavier.org/social.php and read all about their "Lesbian Catholics" group, and their "Gay Catholics" group and their "Zen Medidation" group. It's time to clean house.)
St. Francis Xavier Church in New York City is participating in the Pride March for 27 June. Their Ordinary, Abp. Timothy Dolan has "requested" that they not participate. (Now, I learned that a "request" from a superior was a polite way to give an order, but I guess they're banking on the fact that it wasn't "technically" an order.
They're brochure says, in part: "We are looking forward to spending this day of celebration, ministry, and the living out of our mission statement as a parish". They have placed their identity as a parish above thier identity as Catholics. It is clearly more important to them to accounted part of the GLBT friendly folk that part of the Catholic Church.
Abp. Dolan needs to step in. My advice to him would take three steps. The first is to declare Rev. Joe Constantino, SJ to be no longer pastor of that Church. He has the right to do this. The second would be to declare Constantino personna non gratia in his Archdiocese--he has the right to do that as well. (Constantino is a member of the Society of Jesus--an organization of Pontifical right. Abp. Dolan has limited authority over him.) The third step is to turn the Parish over to the ministries of an orthodox religious community that has the expertise to correct the obvious doctrinal errors, and the moral courage to invite those who will not correct themselves to leave.
I hope for this outcome.
Because after all, in his homily for the Sacred Heart, His Holiness said:
"The Church too must use the shepherds rod, the rod with which he protects the Faith against those who falsify it, against currents that lead the flock astray. The use of the rod can actually be a service of love. Today we can see that it has nothing to do with love when conduct unworthy of the priestly life is tolerated. Nor does it have to do with love if heresy is allowed to spread and the faith is chipped away, as if it were something that we ourselves had invented".
Notice something--he mentioned heresy. He also mentioned things unworthy of a priestly life. His Holiness has just said something very important--the smack down is coming! Benedict doesn't just say things. He acts on the things he says. And looking at these two items, one can see both the reason so many faithful Catholics who accept the Teachings of the Church are sad and angry, and why we see rays of hope.
Parishes like St. Francis Xavier have managed to flourish for so long because of the Truce of 1968. Pope Benedict has just declared it over.
Let's all say a Prayer of St. Michael, and Our Father , a Hail Mary and a Glory Be today that Abp. Dolan will think of His Holinesses words, and take vigorous action, using his shepherds rod.
(BTW--you can go to www.stxavier.org/social.php and read all about their "Lesbian Catholics" group, and their "Gay Catholics" group and their "Zen Medidation" group. It's time to clean house.)
Monday, June 14, 2010
South Carolina Senate Race
The victory of Alvin Greene in the Democratic Primary was a bit disconcerting to the Party in SC. Well...maybe a bit more that a bit.
They are still trying to figure out how this guy so dominated the primary election, trouncing their anointed candidate. They are calling for investigations into how the votes were cast, and who voted for him and....and...and... .
One thing they are doing is questioning his mental stability. Well, from what I can read that might not be an uncalled for query, except that the Law doesn't say you have to be sane to run, just not declared incompetent.
Jim Clyburn, of the SC Legislature says that he think that Green is a plant. Here's a quote "I never said he was a republican plant. I said he was someones plant. ...I saw the patterns in this. I know a democratic pattern, I know a republican pattern and I saw... elephant dung all over the place". So much for saying you didn't say he wasn't republican plant.
I have another idea: The SC Democratic Party is way out of touch with their electorate. And, they are about to shoot themselves in the foot with this one. Because Mr. Green has already asked a question in public: it the bru-ha-ha about him being black? And that is a question that will get mileage in South Carolina--because of history as late as the 1980s and the Democratic Party in that state.
They are still trying to figure out how this guy so dominated the primary election, trouncing their anointed candidate. They are calling for investigations into how the votes were cast, and who voted for him and....and...and... .
One thing they are doing is questioning his mental stability. Well, from what I can read that might not be an uncalled for query, except that the Law doesn't say you have to be sane to run, just not declared incompetent.
Jim Clyburn, of the SC Legislature says that he think that Green is a plant. Here's a quote "I never said he was a republican plant. I said he was someones plant. ...I saw the patterns in this. I know a democratic pattern, I know a republican pattern and I saw... elephant dung all over the place". So much for saying you didn't say he wasn't republican plant.
I have another idea: The SC Democratic Party is way out of touch with their electorate. And, they are about to shoot themselves in the foot with this one. Because Mr. Green has already asked a question in public: it the bru-ha-ha about him being black? And that is a question that will get mileage in South Carolina--because of history as late as the 1980s and the Democratic Party in that state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)