Tag Archives: conservatives

Leftist Power-lust Trumps All: Our Descent into Madness

Once again, the various events and challenges of life have taken from my ranting time, but God knows there’s been no shortage of things to rant about during that time.

Over the past eight months or so, I watched, at first with bemusement, the left’s increasingly deranged and demented hysteria following the election of Donald J. Trump to President of the United States.  But now there is nothing funny about the deepening madness as the increasingly violent rhetoric and behavior on the left, has led, unsurprisingly, to a bloody assassination attempt (oh, sorry – I was forgetting there for a second that crazed leftist maniacs don’t kill people; guns kill people!  Mea maxima frickin’ culpa), and the largest political coup / witch-hunt in American history threatens to tear about what thin shreds remain of our Republic.

I don’t have time to follow every depressing and sordid twist and turn of this ongoing perverse political saga – that I’ll leave to others – but it is an travesty and outrage on so many different levels.   The same folks who disregarded the actual letter of the law to clear Her Cackling Highness Hillary of her obvious blatant violation of the Espionage Act, and had no problem whatever with Benghazi, Fast & Furious, or use of the IRS to target political opponents – or the prior administration’s illegal spying on political opponents (too bad they weren’t equally vigilant about Russia’s activities) – keep desperately searching for something, anything, to nail Trump on so they can impeach him.  As Joseph Stalin infamously said, “show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”

I’ll start by saying that – as you may have surmised by last year’s posts from during the GOP primaries – I was never exactly a fan of Mr. Trump.  I supported Ted Cruz.  But my issues with Trump, besides his dubious honesty and constant flip-flopping, boil down to him essentially being on yet another big-government big-spending liberal.  But, all LSD-induced lefty hysteria to the contrary, he’s far from the Second Coming of Adolf Hitler.  (To be fair, so was Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama, though he was a soft-Marxist petty banana republic-style thug, which was bad enough.)

Still, for all his faults, Trump remains far preferable to Her Cackling Highness Hillary Rodham Clinton, who would have completed her predecessor’s packing of the courts (including the SCOTUS) with leftist activists, thereby destroying any conservative prospects in our lifetime.  I still thank God that she lost.

I’ve seen Trump’s politics referred to as “extreme right,” which is absurd.  In fact, overall Mr. Trump is the most left-wing Republican president we’ve had in a long time.  (Unsurprising, given that until recently he identified as a liberal Democrat.)  Despite all the left’s screams about “homophobia” and “reproductive rights,” he’s shown no concrete evidence of being a genuine social conservative, and his proposals for trade policies are not that different from Comrade Bernie’s.  That Trump is considered a dangerous ultra-conservative fanatic shows just how far down the rabbit-hole of radical leftist insanity the Democratic Party has gone.

I must say, though, that I’m touched at the sudden concern some of my friends on the left are suddenly expressing concerning  constitutional limits on executive power.  In fact, I’d actually find it heartening if it were at all sincere.  I’ve heard this concern about Trump’s alleged violation of the Constitution from folks who less than a year ago were deriding and pooh-poohing conservative concerns over government over-stepping constitutional limits.  Then, you see, the U.S. Constitution was simply a quaint and oppressive old paper written up by some Evil Dead White Slave-holding Males, completely irrelevant to our Complex Modern Times, and best completely disregarded, lest it stand in the way of our Dear Leaders paving the path to socialist utopia.  But, now, with a Republican in the White House, it suddenly matters again.  (Not that these folks could tell you anything about what the Constitution actually says, other than a vague notion that it somehow demands abortion and gay marriage.)

No, the Constitution matters no more the left than any other laws, to be twisted when convenient to attack and destroy political opponents, and disregarded completely with regards to one’s own “team.”  They really aren’t outraged at Trump because he’s particularly conservative or dictatorial, but simply because he stood in the way of Queen Hillary’s Destined Ascent to the Throne, which they believed her entitled to.  And if a real conservative (say, Cruz), rather than Trump, had beaten Hillary, the reaction would likely be even more vicious, ugly, and deranged.

Hopefully, the ugliness of the current situation will awaken all conservatives to the true nature of the left.  They are the enemy, plain and and simple.  Like the Terminator, they cannot be reasoned, bought or bargained with.  Endless compromise will get us nowhere.  Their goal is absolute power, and they seek to destroy everybody and anybody who stands in their way, and they will stop at nothing to achieve this end.  We need to stop playing their games and fight back – hard – lest we lose this fight forever.  (A good place to start is by supporting the Article V Convention of States.  Texas is in, y’all!)

And the sooner Catholics realize (as in fact Popes repeatedly warned us in times past) that the political Left is not our friend and ally, but our evil and ruthless enemy, the better.   But sadly, many pious souls will not until they inevitably come for them.  Too many have been seduced by the lies and false promises of socialism.  Until then we can expect our bishops to do nothing more than issue endless blandly “non-partisan” statements combining nice sentiments about the value of human life and family with calls for open borders and and an ever-bigger, gun-grabbing welfare state.  And so-called “orthodox Catholic” bloggers and pundits such a will continue to actively support politicians such as Clinton and Sanders, while making statements like Mark Shea’s idiotic claim that his “Catholic Pro-life conscience” compelled  him to support Hillary Clinton.  That’s right, the woman who said religious beliefs opposed to “reproductive healthcare” (aka abortion) “need to be changed.”  God help us.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Antonin Scalia, RIP, and the Fate of the Constitutional Republic (Or, What’s Really at Stake this Election)

Well. I’ve finally got back to ranting and raving (online, that is) with Silly Season 2016 already in full swing.

This month saw the unfortunate passing of the great Antonin Scalia, a judicial giant and true constitutionalist the like of which we may never see again in our lifetime.  May he rest in peace.

While we pray God may rest him in heaven, unfortunately his death leaves those of us Americans left here on earth in a truly perilous situation.  If the Republicans in Congress fail to block any Obama appointees, it may well put the final nail in the coffin of our constitutional republic.

Melodramatic?  Hyperbolic?  I don’t think so when you consider the facts.  There are now only two constitutionalists on the U.S. Supreme Court, Thomas and Alito (the Republican nominees Kennedy and Roberts have proven shameful traitors to our constitution).   And, of course, it’s a given that any and all Obama nominees will be left-wing activists who don’t give a rat’s ass about the Constitution or the intent of the framers.  With an Obama-appointed justice, the court will become nothing more than a rubber stamp for whatever pieces of unconstitutional Marxist despotism he or any future leftist president might cook up.  And no doubt such a court would take judicial activism to new heights (or, rather, depths) of “creative” judicial tyranny.

And this is in addition to Obama packing the federal courts with leftist activists.  (About 40% of current federal judges are Obama appointees.)

The nomination of Supreme Court justices and federal judges is probably the biggest reason this presidential election matters.  And it’s an issue much of the media would have us ignore, preferring to focus on trivialities and nonsense.

Obviously, it goes without saying that if either Hillary Rodham Clinton or Comrade Sanders wins the presidency, we’re all screwed royally.

But what about the Republican side?  Much as I dig his combative un-pc New York style, and even his goofy hair (toupee?), front-runner Donald Trump is no conservative.  Prior to deciding to run as a GOP candidate for Prez, he’s been liberal on neary every issue, and today is often vague on his actual positions.  When he does mention specifics, he too often takes a corporatist statist stance, as with his support of “eminent domain.”  His campaign reminds me of Obama ’08 in that they’re both mostly cult of personality coupled with incredibly vacuous but catchy slogans (“Hope and Change!” “Make America Great Again!”)   While breathing fire all over Ted Cruz and other conservatives, he’s quick to tout how eager he is to “get along” and “make deals” with the liberal Dems in Congress.  Sounds a bit too much like the Establishment Republicans he’s supposed to be against.

Trump has criticized Scalia, and once said his ultra-liberal judge sister would make an excellent Supreme Court justice.  Doesn’t sound like a guy it’s safe to gamble on this year.

No better is GOP Establishment puppet and two-faced weasel Marco Rubio.  This is the man who lied to voters that he would oppose amnesty for illegals, before authoring much of the notorious “Gang of 8” bill, and now lies about his past position, while having the audacity to call Ted Cruz a liar for pointing this out.  His record as a senator is otherwise thin and spotty.  Despite not being present at the voted to defund abortion giant Planned Parenthood, he’s apparently being hailed in certain Catholic circles as a political messiah of sorts.  I have even been accused by some pious souls of “putting my politics ahead of my faith” for supporting Cruz over Rubio.  (Sadly, for many Catholics, belief in an open-borders welfare state has become a chief article of faith, even the chief article of faith.  In NewChurch, things such as the infallibility of Scriptures or “traditional” sexual morality may be open to dispute, but question amnesty or our government’s spending on “social” programs, and it’s anathema sit!)

This leaves Ted Cruz –love him or hate him–as the only actual conservative in the race.  He’s also one of the few U.S. senators who actually kept his promises to voters after going to Washington, and who’s record has been consistently conservative.  No, this isn’t a campaign ad, and I’m not going to promote Cruz as some messiah.  (We should know better than to look for saviors in politicians or government, anyway.)  He’s just the guy running who’s least likely to screw over the country.   Any conservatives voting for Trump or Rubio will have only themselves to blame if we get the shaft.  Frankly, I think there’s way too much on the line this year to gamble here.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Murder, Mayhem, and Madness

You could practically see the gleeful salivating eager anticipation on the faces of liberals a week or so ago, when the news came out of the despicable and senseless murder of three young Muslim students in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.  A “hate crime”!  Against Muslims!  And just after Dear Leader had, no doubt prophetically, warned all us trigger-happy Christian types against the coming bloody “backlash” against Muslims, shaming us with tales of Christian violence from a thousand years ago at a prayer breakfast!  (I suppose bashing long-dead Christians is as close as a dedicated leftist gets to prayer.)

(Btw, regarding the prayer breakfast comments, I’d recommend learning from Dr. Thomas Madden,  who dispels many popular myths on these subjects.  Unlike Obama and various liberal pundits, Dr. Madden is an actual historian and expert on the topic.)

On a message board I was on, a bleeding heart breathlessly announced the news of the Chapel Hill murders, immediately followed by speculative babble about the likely root causes of this crime, namely “ Christian Privilege,” particularly White/Straight/Male/Christian Privilege.  Those damn Straight Christian White Guys again!  This was (quite predictably) followed bya pc diatribe about Christian intolerance against Muslims, gays, and anybody else who’s “different.”

Of course, most of the excitement died down quickly when it was revealed that the killer was in fact a self-described “anti-theist” atheist, as well as a political liberal who was a fan of lefty organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, and various bleeding heart causes like “gay rights,” who committed the murders apparently out of rage over a parking incident.

Whatever his deep dark murky inner motivations for the murder were (and I don’t purport to know them), they clearly had nothing to do with Christianity.

(But he was, in fact, a White Guy.)

I mention that not to score cheap points against atheists and liberals.  Much as I disagree with atheism and the left, the truth is that most atheists and bleeding hearts don’t run around gunning innocent people down.  (They’re usually too busy whining on teh interwebz about “White Christian Privilege” and whatnot.)

But let’s face it, if the murderer had instead been shown to be a self-professed Christian, or been a political conservative (as they doubtlessly had hoped), the media would have a field day, and still be berating us conservative tea-bagging Christian types for the murderous hatred we had fostered, and how the blood was on all our hands.

For the past few decades, it seems the left has desperately attempted to politicize every senseless murder that makes news headlines, with conservatives always being somehow to blame.  (Could the killer be a Tea-Partier?!)  If nothing else, there’s always the predicable-as-clockwork cries of how the murder illustrates the dire need for more restriction of second amendment rights.

This is tied to the ongoing desperate attempt to paint conservative Christians as a hateful, violence-prone bunch (much like ISIS, only nastier).  Never mind the fact that extremely few murders or acts of terror are actually committed by committed Christians or conservatives.

Hating Islam can sometimes be acceptable in politically correct liberal circles, but only when this hatred is balanced by an equal hatred of Christianity (which, after all is the real enemy).   Like with the killer in Chapel Hill who hates all “theists,” Christian and Muslim alike.   Islamic terrorism is commonly used as a club to beat Christians with – “See what happens when people believe in a God?!”  Ironically, those same folks who insist on lumping all “theists” together become very perturbed when it’s pointed out that folks such as Stalin or Mao or that dude in Chapel Hill were in fact atheists.  (“But Real Atheists™ are peaceful!”)

Meanwhile, down here in Texas, the killer of  “American Sniper” Chris Kyle his friend Chad Littlefield was convicted of murder.  I’m glad and thankful that those true American heros received justice, and that the jury didn’t buy the defense’s ridiculous “insanity defense” bullcrap.  Getting yourself high as a kite before going to the gun range may make you an idiot, but it doesn’t make you innocent of murder.    (And I thought smoking weed, much like atheism, was supposed to bring peace’n’luv to the world and make it a better place for us all.  Oh well.)

But in the case of that creep in Chapel Hill, I just might buy the insanity defense.  Anyone that leftist has got to be completely nucking futs in my book.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

More Rotten Business as Usual

More rotten business as usual in politics last week.  (Again, been busy,  my apologies for the lateness of this post.)

First, once more we see the noble bipartisan cooperation between the Jackasses and the GOP “leadership” as they both agree to raise the debt ceiling with no spending limitations, and accelerate our nation’s plunge into bankruptcy to the point of no return.

There should be no doubt left that there is no substantial difference whatever between the Democrats and the Washington establishment Republicans – they are simply two heads on the same insatiably ravenous statist beast, and both are equally contemptuous of true conservatism, and of true conservatives.

Every single Republican Congressman and Senator who did nothing to stand up for conservative principles and oppose the runaway growth of the Leviathan State needs to be tossed out.

Also, in federal tyranny rules, a federal judge ruled the Commonwealth of Virginia’s law (passed by popular vote) limiting legal marriage to a man and a woman “unconstitutional” – showing typical disregard for actual Constitution, which nowhere grants the federal government the power to define or redefine legal marriage.  (See the woefully neglected 10th Amendment.)   Once again, liberal activist twist the actual meaning of the law of the land beyond all recognition in order to advance a left-wing social agenda.  No doubt, this issue will head for the Supreme Court, though I’m not exactly optimistic about how that will turn out – especially given the record of the that traitorous weasel John Roberts as Chief Justice, who puts political game-playing above interpreting the Constitution, and thus gave a green light to the Obamanation of Obamacare.

Dr. Jeff Mirus writes of this issue in CatholicCulture.com, “One of the dangers of any constitution is that eventually it will be used to enforce policies which those who wrote the constitution never even dreamed would be desired in the first place.”

But the danger is not in the Constitution, but rather in the government – made up of power-mad men who are not ones to let a mere piece of paper stand in the way of their power or ideological agendas.  It is just as happy to ignore the Constitution altogether, as its judges are to radically “reinterpret” it.

Without virtue or morality to reign in ambition, the restraints of the Constitution are broken as easily, as our second president John Adams so memorably phrased it, “as a whale goes through a net.”

Given the active on-going onslaught of our courts and federal government against our deepest moral principles, you’d think it time more serious Catholics get behind efforts to reign in the Leviathan State, rather than support its expansion.  The hour draws late.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Immigration and the Suicide of the Right

Republicans in Congress are debating the passing of an “immigration reform” bill that would grant amnesty to 11 million aliens living in the U.S., as well as make it easier for non-immigrant workers to enter the U.S.

Today’s wishy-washy “moderate” Republican “leadership” (McCain, Boehner, & co.) would have us believe that this is somehow a good thing for America and for their party.  For time now, I’ve heard the line from many Republicans and self-described conservatives that Mexicans and other Hispanics are natural conservatives, who will happily flock to the GOP if only we do more to grant amnesty and open the borders.

This is despite the fact that Hispanics, as well as most other immigrant groups, consistently and overwhelmingly vote Democrat.  Democrats won over Hispanic voters by landslide numbers in every single presidential election since 1980, including two years after Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to millions of Mexican immigrants in 1986.  And this was with the GOP running largely “moderate” candidates who would do nothing to restrict immigration, such as Dole, Bush II, McCain, and Romney.

However, I keep seeing conservatives casually state things such as, “all the Republicans need to do is grant amnesty, and their problems with Hispanic voters will be over.”  (While on the internet, this appeared to be said with a straight face.)  This, despite the fact that Republicans granting amnesty has completely failed to win over Hispanics in the past, and the fact that polls show that the majority of Hispanic voters oppose amnesty for illegal aliens.

The truth of the matter is that the majority of Hispanics and those from other immigrant groups vote Democrat rather than Republican, not because of perceived Republican opposition to immigration and amnesty, but for the simple reason that they tend to be more liberal/socialist on just about every issue.

Polls show, for instance, that they are far more in favor of big government policies, and things like gun control, than most Americans.

But, aren’t Hispanics religious, pro-family, pro-life people who are socially conservative?  Some years back, a pro-life conservative woman cheerfully informed me, with a tone of absolute certainty, that Mexican immigrants would create a pro-life Republican majority in America.

Well, not exactly.  Polls show that Hispanics are actually more in favor of legal abortion than Americans as a whole, as well as somewhat more in favor of “gay marriage.”  (That last one actually surprised me.)

The reasons Washington politicians like unrestricted immigration and amnesty are clear enough.  The big-gov Jackasses like it because it ensures a steady supply of new Democratic voters, ensuring that they become a permanent majority and remain in power forever.  The big-business corporatists who have the GOP “leadership” bought and paid for like it because it ensures a steady flow of cheap labor to be exploited.  (Even though it will ultimately ensure the end of the GOP.)  In neither case does it have a damn thing to do with genuine concern for the poor and downtrodden stranger.

However, plenty of well-meaning ordinary folks, including many conservatives and Catholics, have their heads far up their pious posteriors on this issue.  The US Bishops, those reliably enthusiastic cheerleaders for welfare state socialism, continue to crusade for amnesty and open borders, as well as universal tax-payer-supplied benefits for illegals – all in the name of hospitality for the stranger.  (At least one good Bishop went so far as to declare that those opposing amnesty or “immigration reform” are “not pro-life.”)

One conservative commentator (a family friend) even condemned alleged conservative opposition to immigration as a form of “right-wing idolatry of the state.”  This sparked pious gushing from a reader about how much the influx of those holy Mexicans with their “deep devotion to the Virgin of Guadalupe” would improve our country.

And plenty of libertarians adamantly support open borders on “anti-statist” grounds.

The brutal truth is that unrestricted immigration and easy amnesty policies will in fact do nothing to advance the cause of either social conservatism or of liberty, but will result in the increased destruction of both, by ensuring continued left-wing statist rule into the indefinite future.

In fact, it will ensure that Catholics, conservatives, and libertarians will lose on almost every single issue.

The brutal truth is that unrestricted immigration and easy amnesty policies will in fact do nothing to advance the cause of either social conservatism or of liberty, but will result in the increased destruction of both, by ensuring continued left-wing statist rule into the indefinite future.

In fact, it will ensure that Catholics, conservatives, and libertarians will lose on almost every single issue.

Hospitality to the stranger does not mean we must blithely accept and welcome anyone who sneaks or breaks into our homes, much less that we make them members of our household.

Conservatives want enforcement of existing reasonable restrictions on immigration, and not granting law-breakers the same path to citizenship as those who played by the rules.

And anyone who thinks that a country can maintain its unique culture and identity while being flooded with new-comers who do not share it need only ponder the fate of the American Indian after the coming of the white man.

The irony is that if our current trends continue, America will no longer be prosperous land of opportunity that for hundreds of years drew immigrants from over the world to her shores.  Immigration from south of the border actually slowed considerably in the Obama years, not because of increased border security, but because of lack of jobs in the dismal U.S. economy.

My point here is not to bash Mexicans, Hispanics, or immigrants in general (of which, in fact, there are many wonderful, and even conservative, individuals). Rather, Catholics, conservatives, and libertarians, need to wake up and get their heads out of the sand before they give enthusiastic support to policies that will ensure their own demise, as well as that of America.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Day That Lives in Infamy

Tomorrow, as you’re probably aware, we commemorate the 41st anniversary of the abominable Supreme Court decision Roe vs. Wade which (absurdly) declared killing one’s unborn child a “Constitutional Right,” and in effect made abortion-on-demand the law of the land.   The Bishops have declared this a day of prayer and fasting.  (And no, again, the Pope has not told Catholics to shut up about abortion, all liberal lies to the contrary.)

People (including now , sadly, many “Catholics”) try to pigeonhole or dismiss the abortion issue and the right to life as simply another “rightwing” political issue, invented by conservative Republican politicians to divide the country – or something.  However, the right to life should not be a “conservative” or a “liberal” issue, but is in fact a fundamental human value, which should transcend politics.

The right to life is the most fundamental human right the law can guarantee; without the right to life, all other human rights are rendered void.  If the law does nothing to protect the lives of innocent human beings at their most vulnerable, it is worthless.

And, yes, unborn babies (or “fetuses” or “embryos,” or whatever you want to call them) are in fact human beings from conception.  From conception the human embryo/fetus/child is a living being, genetically and biologically distinct from both parents.  And it is human; it does not change at some point from a non-human species.  Yes, the human being in its very early stages of life is undeveloped compared to more mature stages, but so is a newborn infant, or a toddler, compared to an adult.

Growth and development is a continuous, gradual process from conception to adulthood.  This is confirmed by modern biology.  While pro-aborts love to accuse pro-lifers of wishing to impose unscientific religious dogmas on everyone, it is the idea that a human baby suddenly, magically, changes from dead to living, or from non-human to human at birth or some other point that is superstitious and unscientific.

It used to be that advocates of legal abortion typically denied that an unborn child is a human being, calling it a mere “clump of tissue” and such.  But ultrasounds and other modern technology are helping expose that lie.

However, there’s a truly disturbing trend of more and more people who are willing to admit that the unborn child is in fact a human being, but say that it’s okay to kill it anyway.

These folks, following the godless philosophies of Dr. Peter Singer and his ilk, seek to separate the concept of legal “personhood” from an individual being a human being.  According to Singer, not all human beings are “persons,” and “personhood” should be based on various extrinsic factors such as cognitive development and such.  (Using such standards, most liberals should be excluded from “personhood,” but I digress.)

Of course, once we base legal personhood and the right to life on anything other than the fact of being a human being, the standards of “personhood” become ultimately completely arbitrary.  Thus, Singer uses the fact that there is little real difference between an unborn fetus and a newborn infant, to argue not that abortion should be illegal, but for legalizing infanticide.  According to Singer, killing the severely disabled is also acceptable.  In this brave new world, courts and panels of “experts” determine who is and is not a legally-protected “person” – and there’s always room to move the lines.

Ultimately, the fight over abortion is between those who believe human life is itself intrinsically sacred, against those who see human life as in itself worth, and only given worth to others on subjective extrinsic criteria.

Some people (pro-abortion liberals, as well as some “conservatives”) accuse pro-life conservatives such as myself of hypocrisy.  How can we claim to be for small limited constitutional government, while at the same time support the power of the government to take away the individual’s choice to have an abortion?

The truth is that the Roe v. Wade decision was hardly a victory for limited, constitutional government, but trampled the rights of states and the peoples, granted god-like powers to the federal judiciary, and made hash of the Constitution.  Before Roe, per the Tenth Amendment, laws concerning abortion belonged to the individual states.  Roe v. Wade took this power from the respective states and granted it to the federal government, smashing any state restrictions on abortion.  The SCOTUS justices justified their decision by citing unstated “rights” supposedly hiding deep in the dark “emanations of the penumbra” (literally, “emissions from a shadow”) of the fourteenth and other amendments.

Thus, in one blow, on no solid basis in the Constitution whatever, killing the unborn child was declared a universal “constitutional right,” and the Supreme Court granted itself the power to declare which human beings are and are not legal “persons” having a right to live.

Legal protection of the life of all innocent human beings (including the unborn) is simple justice.  Every law puts some restriction on human choice (or rather puts legal consequences on certain choices).  No one talks about being “pro-choice” in matters such as theft or rape (or the murder of persons already born).  So unless you’re an absolute anarchist, “pro-choice” arguments are utterly bogus.

Ironically, many liberals and leftists arguing that an all-powerful “right to choose” trumps the baby’s right to life, oppose the right to choose in countless other areas.  I’ve argued with many a liberal who adamantly argues for the right to choose to kill an unborn child, while equally adamantly arguing against the right of individuals to choose certain health insurance plans, or weapons for personal defense (to use just two examples.)  For the liberal, many things in fact trump absolute human choice, but human life itself is not one of them.

“Pro-choice” was never anything more than a dishonest and sophistical propaganda slogan.

And speaking of abortion, Phil Lawler of Catholic Culture beat me to this one last week, but his piece, “Pope Decries Abortion; Sun Expected To Rise in East,” confirms some points I’ve been making here regarding the shallowness of the “mainstream” media in reporting on Pope Francis and abortion.  Apparently, according to the AP, the only reason the Vicar of Christ could possibly have for upholding the Church’s two-millennia-old teachings against abortion is to throw a bone to us disgruntled conservatives.  Sigh.

Yes kids, the Pope is Catholic, and abortion is still very, very bad.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cold, Hard Facts & the Hot Air of Lefty Moralism

Here, I am, sitting here freezing my royal right-wing rear end off in sunny Texas, reading about the heroic rescue mission of the rescue mission of the Russian ship Akademik Shokalskiy, which had been trapped in unusually heavy ice off the Antarctic coast.   The ship was on an “eco-tourism” mission, led by an Australian “climate-change professor,” to explore the effects of global warming.  The irony of this incident, while largely ignored by the “mainstream” media (newsflashes generally said nothing of the purpose of the ship’s voyage), was quickly picked up by conservative media, sparking more of the usual quarrelling over “global warming.”

At the same time, much of the U.S. is in the grip of an exceptional cold front, and last summer, a satellite measured the coldest temperature ever recorded on earth

It’s true that individual cold fronts and satellite temperature recordings don’t in themselves disprove the existence of man-made global warming (though, as others have pointed out, imagine the massive media hoopla that would result if that satellite had recorded, rather than the coldest temp, the hottest temperature ever on earth!).

However , the common leftist creed of imminent secular apocalypse –in which our only hope for salvation lies in massive government taxation, spending, and regulation– is looking nowadays increasingly less like proven, scientific fact, and more like ideologically-driven hysterical hot air.

After all, not long ago, Al Gore and other climate-change evangelists solemnly assured us that polar ice would soon be completely gone, and after centuries of fluctuations, global temperature would perpetually sky-rocket ever-upward, per the infamous “hockey-stick” graph.

Some scientists believe that, due to natural fluctuations in the solar activity, the earth is set to enter a period of cooling, perhaps even another ice age.  Don’t get me wrong; I’m no climate change Denier (the ultimate modern heresy, next to “homophobia”).  Climate change is very real – centuries ago, glaciers extended clear into Ohio.  However, the climate appears to be affected by many unpredictable factors, of which man-made “greenhouse gasses” may be only a comparatively small component.

For a long time, folks on the left used the allegedly dire threat of global warming as a means of claiming the moral high ground.  See, according to the lefties, if I was really, truly pro-life (instead of a phony right-wing wannabe), I would put aside my childish obsession with abortion, and focus instead on the graver evil of Global Warming, which, unless massive government action was taken NOW, would kill nearly everyone on the planet.

We pro-lifers (so they told us) were faced with a thorny and fiendish moral dilemma straight out of a Chris Nolan Bat-flick.  Unless we supported  the blatantly pro-abortion liberal politicians who alone could save us, BILLIONS WOULD DIE from the ravages of Man-made Global Warming . . . and WE would be morally responsible!

We pro-lifers (so they told us) were faced with a thorny and fiendish moral dilemma straight out of a Chris Nolan Bat-flick.  Unless we supported  the blatantly pro-abortion liberal politicians who alone could save us, BILLIONS WOULD DIE from the ravages of Man-made Global Warming . . . and WE would be morally responsible!

But, hey, much as it sucks, better for the government to increase its support of the slaughter of the unborn than to allow everyone to roast like marshmallows from conservative-caused global warming (CCGW).

See, not only was I an idiot for clinging to my guns and religion and failing to jump aboard the Hope’n’Change bandwagon, but leftists even insinuated that I was a horrible parent and outright monster, willing to sacrifice the future of my own children (and all life on earth) for the sake of right-wing ideology and the Evil Oil Barons (maniacal laugh, maniacal laugh).

(Call me a heartless cynic, but I remain of the belief that the weather will be just the same whether Elephants or Jackasses are elected to high office.  Enviro measures such as cap’n’trade will only increase energy prices, hurting the poor most, and push yet more polluting industry to unregulated places like China.)

The other great moral claim of the Left (especially the Catholic Left) was, of course, Obamacare.  If we were “truly pro-life” (in the beautiful Seamless Garment tradition), we must support Obama and socialized medicine, or else millions of poor folks would die in the streets.

All us right-wingers were really mean cold-hearted bastards for opposing it.

(Those righteous and dutiful defenders of the Almighty Welfare State, the U.S. Bishops, were shocked –shocked! – when the law enforcing the socialized medicine they had so piously pushed for turned around to bite them in their collective holy ass by forcing businesses and organizations to buy insurance plans covering contraception and abortifacients.   I don’t think it paranoia to surmise that coverage of surgical abortions will be next.)

Of course, Obamacare has already proven itself be just as much of a fraud as the “global warming” racket will no doubt prove to be, and now only the most die-hard lefties and Obamaites still support it.  The only ones to gain from either are the politicians and bureaucrats running the ever-more-rapidly growing Leviathon state.

It’s past time men of good will, especially Catholics, wise up and stop falling for such stupendous statist scams.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

JFK and other Right-wing Extremists

The reason the government is in deficit is because you have more than 4 million people unemployed, and because the last 5 years you have had rather a sluggish growth, much slower than any other Western country. I am in favor of a tax cut because I am concerned that if we don’t get the tax cut that we are going to have an increase in unemployment and that we may move into a period of economic downturn. . . .  I think this tax cut can give the stimulus to our economy over the next 2 or 3 years. I think it will provide for greater national wealth. I think it will reduce unemployment. I think it will strengthen our gold position. So I think that the proposal we made is responsible and in the best interests of the country.

Obviously, I’m quoting some unhinged right wing-nut here.  You know, some poor  idiot who actually believes in that supply-side voodoo economics nonsense that almost destroyed our country back in the Dark Ages of the Reagan years.

After all, everyone knows that, rather than being created by the hard work and ingenuity of people in the private sector, the wealth of our country is created by being shat out the backsides of our all-wise and benevolent politicians, to be justly spread around by federal government bureaucrats.

Well, actually that quote was from liberal icon President John F. Kennedy, in an interview in 1963, just months before he was shot dead by the Communist-supporter Lee Harvey Oswald, fifty years before Friday.  (Thanks, Neil Cavuto, for source.)

(No, I don’t buy the conspiracy theories, which stem in part, I believe, from an inability of many liberals to accept that a leftist was actually responsible for that vile deed.)

I’m quoting JFK here not to worship or canonize the man.  (Unfortunately, one of President Kennedy’s most enduring legacies was his assurance that his Catholic Faith would have no impact on his actions in office – an attitude shared by countless American “Catholics” today.  Even among most Catholics, it seems that separation of church and state has devolved into separation of any moral principles from politics and law, a practice which has led not to freedom, but simply to immoral—and increasingly despotic—government.)

Nor am I trying to make him out to be some kind of conservative hero.  Rather, I’m using him to illustrate just how far the Democratic Party has plunged over the past fifty years.

For many years now, “liberal” Democrats routinely denounce and ridicule any call for tax-cuts, or any reduction or check on the runaway growth of the federal Leviathon.

And even the allegedly “conservative” Republican establishment is determined to squash any “extremist” trouble-makers – anyone who might actually be serious about trying to hold government to constitutional limitations.

Though I don’t follow such things closely, I’m seeing more and more in the media these days warning of the dire threat to our nation supposedly posed by the “extremists” who allegedly are taking over the GOP – and of the threat of “polarization.”  (See my earlier post, “Through Polarized Lenses.”)

“Extremist,” of course, is their preferred term for constitutional conservatives.

Such vacuous name-calling, of course, is a perfect way to avoid any kind of substantial discussion or debate on the issues.  Rather than discuss what is in fact right or wrong for our country, any dissent from the prevailing agenda of the ruling class in Washington is denounced off-hand with the label “extremism.”  Let’s not get bogged down in discussion of constitutional law or actual policies.  All you need to know is that “extremists” are bad because they’re “extreme,” and “moderates” are good, because they’re, well, “moderate.”

We no longer judge politicians or policies by any standard of right and wrong, or adherence to rule of our nation’s law (the Constitution), but instead by their alleged distance from some undefined “center.”

Personally, I think they should resurrect the old Soviet-era word, “deviationist.”  It’s at least more accurate, as what they mean by “extremists” are those who deviate from the agenda of The Party.

Of course, I personally happen to find limited government abiding by the rule of constitutional law to be quite moderate and sensible, and the unlimited power of a government unrestrained by rule of law to be “extreme” and dangerous.  But never mind me.  I’m a troglodyte nutjob extremist.

Happy Thanksgiving, y’all!

(Yeah kids, that’s “Thanks-Giving,” as in giving thanks to God.  You bleedin’ hearts can put that in your pipes and smoke it.)

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lies, Damned Lies, and Golden Opportunities

(Blogger’s note:  This material was originally intended for last week, but due to my schedule lately, I did not have time to finish it then.  My sincere apologies for this being overdue.)

Oh how the mighty have fallen!  The man who not so long ago was so widely hailed as our new Secular Messiah, and Savior of the World, keeps revealing himself to be more and more pathetic with every day, proving himself to be, in the words of Clint Eastwood (because, as I’ve said before, the words of Hollywood actors are of infinite importance), “the greatest fraud ever perpetuated on the American people.”

First there was his incredibly shameless, and artless, lying about his lying about Obamacare.

“Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really like that plan, what we said was you could keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law was passed.”

(Italics added.)  Of course, Dear Leader had never once said that last part before.   (Ha, ha!  Fooled ya suckas!”)

That one, in my humble opinion, beats out Slick Willie’s classic “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is,’ is.”

Then there was his half-assed, insincere “apology” for the debacle he had forced upon the nation, followed by his trying to wriggle out by saying insurance companies can offer their old plans (which had to be scrapped in order to comply with the new legislation) – thus, in typical Obama fashion trying to avoid responsibility for the damage, and putting the blame back on those Evil Insurance Companies.

You’d think now would be the perfect time for “conservative” Republicans to attack Obama and the Dems with all they got.  But instead, the GOP establishment (after doing virtually nothing to stop this disaster), wants to sit back and let it Obamacare “implode of its own weight.”

In the meantime, Washington and their media cronies are spending all their ammo on Ted Cruz and the Tea Party, frantically scrambling to dig up any dirt they can.  (OMG!  Cruz liked to drink in college!  And he was . . . get this!  . . . ambitious!  So unlike humble “choom room” Barry.)

We’re supposed to fear the sinister ambitions of those rare politicians who dare suggest the government actually follow constitutional limits, while at the same time putting our faith and trust in politicians (of either party) who constantly and shamelessly expand the power of unlimited, lawless government.  It’s all for our own good, of course.

 

,Now is a golden opportunity to fight for the principles of freedom and limited constitutional government, against this spectacular failure of the federal leviathan.   Men follow courage of conviction.  Nobody follows spineless compromise, or those who stand for nothing.  Yeah, it mucked up history, but “conservatives” would do well to sit down and watch Mel Gibson’s Braveheart, and ponder its lessons

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,