Tag Archives: states’ rights

As General Robert. E. Lee Rolls in his Grave . . .

Well, the past week saw’s yet another media shit-storm hit the airwaves generated by a series of disgusting events in the picturesque college town of Charlottesville, Virginia, home of the UVA Cavaliers, Monticello, and its owner, American founding father Thomas Jefferson.

There, a crowd of racist, white-supremacist “right-wing” idiots and thugs got in  a nasty little rumble with a crowd of pc-fascist left-wing idiots and thugs.  (The latter being those heroic champions of “liberal” “tolerance” who go around beating up anybody who dare says anything they disagree with.  They call themselves “Antifa” – which ironically supposedly means “Anti-fascist” –  your typical leftist activist being mentally incapable of actually spelling out or saying the full word “fascist.”)  The melee culminated with one of the racist idiots committing murder by deliberately ramming his Dodge Challenger into the crowd of leftist idiots.

The racist idiots (I apologize for the redundancy; it’s sort of like saying “leftist idiots”) had supposedly gathered in Charlottesville to protest the decision of that town’s board (composed, apparently, of pc bleeding-heart weenie idiots)  to tear down a statue of former CSA commanding general Robert E. Lee, following the Left’s current mania to tear down and obliterate any and all reminders and records of our country’s un-pc past, shoving them down the Orwellian memory-hole.

Of course, both sides in this so-called “debate” are profoundly and abysmally ignorant of the actual Robert E. Lee, whose statue is supposedly at the root of all this crap.  Lee was far from the blood-thirsty, Nazi-like champion of racist hate that today’s fanatic iconoclast Left condemn him as, and that today’s neo-National Socialist “alt-right” thugs celebrates him as.

General Lee (the man, not the Dodge Charger) was by all accounts a true gentleman of the highest order, and a brave and selfless leader of men.   He regarded slavery as a moral evil, and at first opposed succession of the Southern States, stating that if he could, he would free all slaves in the South if it would prevent war.  However, when offered command of the Union Army, he refused to raise his sword against his home country of Virginia, and instead fought on behalf of his native land.  After the war, he accepted defeat graciously and urged reconciliation between North and South.

Similar was the case of the second most revered icon of the South, General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson (of whom I wrote a thesis in college), whose images are also being targeted for destruction by the rabid pc Left.  The Mexican War hero turned VMI professor turned Southern legend was a man of impeccable honor and morals who prior to the war volunteered to educate black children, and spent weeks in fervent prayer that war might be avoided.  Like Lee, he originally opposed secession, but refused to join Washington in fighting against his native state.

I want to pull my hair out every time I hear some self-righteous Yankee ignoramus (often a self-described “conservative”) declare matter-of-factly that Lee, Jackson, etc.  were “traitors” who “betrayed their country.”  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Their motivation for joining the Southern cause (which had a material disadvantage from the start) was actually patriotism.  In those days, one’s patriotic loyalty belonged primarily to his own state (their first “country”), rather than to the federal leviathon centered in Washington, D.C.  To join the federal government in attacking one’s state and people was regarded as an act of unthinkable betrayal.

Such men of honor stand in stark contrast to the ignorant savages of both today’s fascistic Left and racist “Alt-Right” who clashed in Charlottesville last week.

And please, spare me the endless crying about President Trump and his words, even blaming Mr. Trump himself for the violence.  Why in the hell does every damn thing have to be all about Donald J. Trump?  Isn’t the man’s ego big enough already?

The President’s initial condemnation of the ” egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides” may have been too vague or weak for some, but it’s hardly the Hitlerian statement so many (including “conservatives”) are making it out to be.

But of course, today everything is politics, and politics is everything.  For the ghoulish, vulturine Left, every vile act of murder and depraved violence exists as a glorious opportunity to attack political opponents and/or demand the banning or silencing of something they don’t like (second amendment rights, the NRA, conservative talk radio, pro-lifers, Confederate statues, etc.)  Of course, it’s always conservatives or “the Right” that’s to blame, never anybody on the Left nor politically correct causes such as radical Islam – even if the killers are Leftists or screaming “Allah Akbar!”

At least in this last go-around, the violence was gun-free, sparing us (temporarily) the chorus of shrill demands for “gun control” (though “liberals” are still absurdly trying to link the “White Supremacists” and neo-Nazis to the NRA).  What’s next?  Demand the ban of cars?  (Seriously, I wouldn’t put that past them.)  But this helps prove the case, that where there is hatred, evil persons will find means to kill, regardless of what objects the government might try to ban from us commoners.  Evil and hate can’t be legislated out of existence by restricting people’s legitimate rights to own the means to defend themselves.

Much less will it be stopped by the frenzied barbaric push to destroy historical memorials, statues, flags, etc. , seeking to wipe out any part of our history deemed politically incorrect or “offensive” to our bleeding heart snowflakes.  If anything, that will set off the crazies.  After all, the “alt-Right” rally was in response to the decision to tear down a statue, not put one up.

But of course the Left and their media allies have already exploited this ugly little event (no, it’s not a “tragedy” – a tragedy means a fall of someone or something great and noble) to its fullest, using it to reinforce their Big Lie that they have been promoting for decades conflating all conservatives, and even all Republicans (or, in short, anybody and everybody who didn’t support Hillary or Bernie) with racists and neo-Nazis.  In reality, of course, the “White Supremacist” neo-Nazi crowd is a tiny, largely irrelevant fringe, and its race-based National Socialist ideals at odds with American constitutional conservatism.  And it’s being used to justify the radical leftist hysteria to purge our country (especially, but not limited to the South) of any reminders of its history and heritage (an agenda that polls shows is at odds with majority of Americans of all political persuasions).   (Here in Texas, “Antifa” idiots are demanding that statues of Sam Houston – ironically a man strongly opposed to Texas’ joining the Confederacy – be torn down. ) Of course, also, the media’e endless focus on such stupid racially-charged “controversies” serves as a distraction and smokescreen from the much more real and serious issues facing our country.

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Supreme Injustice

I intended to rant on this subject much earlier, but unfortunately have been incapacitated by severe burns, but now I’ll go ahead and finish it, as this still burns me up. . . .

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court issued yet another abortion of justice, striking down Texas’s state laws requiring abortion clinics to be subject to the same medical and sanitary restrictions as hospitals (and preventing the existence of Kermit Gosnell-style horror shows) in a 5-3 decision.  These laws had significantly lowered the rate of abortions in the Lone Star State.  This was a terrible loss, not just for the unborn of Texas, but for states’ rights and federalism.

This proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that for the political Left, and its judicial puppets, the “right” to kill unborn children is regarded as ultimate and supreme, trumping and triumphing over all else.

It, of course, builds on the unholy precedent of Roe v. Wade, which first enshrined baby-killing as a sacred and inviolable “right.”  But this decision takes this evil principle even further; not only is murder in the womb a “right,” but virtually no restrictions or regulations on the killing are to be allowed.

Of course, if the SCOTUS actually followed our Constitution (yeah, okay, you can stop laughing now), we would have neither Roe nor this decision, as nowhere in the Constitution is a right to abortion ever mentioned (all silly “emanations of the penumbra” bullcrap to the contrary).   Neither, of course, is the federal government given an enumerated power of deciding state abortion laws or regulations.  (In many places, taco shops and tattoo parlors are subject to more government regulation than abortion mills.)  Once again, the all-powerful Men in Black simply piss all over the laws of both God and man in service of the almighty leftist idol of “reproductive rights” (aka unrestricted baby-killing).

Ironically, many of the same liberals/leftists celebrating the SCOTUS’s striking down all restrictions on the “right” to abortion (nowhere mentioned in the Constitution) at the same time loudly demand all kinds of restrictions on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

And bizarrely, following the SCOTUS decision, I saw a number of self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” turn their righteous ire, not on the Supreme Court justices who made this abomination of a decision, but instead on the Texas state legislature which made the restrictions on abortion mills, decrying their “devious” and “underhanded” methods.  This was accompanied by much pious finger-wagging lecturing over how “the ends don’t justify the means.”  Thus, the SCOTUS was right to strike them down.  But this is just more nonsense.  There is certainly nothing inherently immoral about the means of toughening standards on abortion clinics to try to bypass pro-abortion court rulings.  Nor, contrary to their shrill accusations, is there any actual “deception” involved.

This seems part of a disturbing trend I’ve noticed within the pro-life movement.  It seems there are more and more people who proclaim themselves “pro-life” and opposed to abortion, yet appear obsessed with attacking other pro-lifers (especially those more politically conservative than themselves), while passively bowing to the pro-abortion left at every chance.

Even though this 5-3 decision would have stood even had Scalia remained alive or replaced by a similar constitutionalist, this should focus conservatives, particularly religious conservatives, on the absolute necessity of defeating Hillary.  Under a Supreme Court, and most federal courts, solidly dominated by leftist justices and judges, things will only get worse, much worse.  While I’m no fan of Mr. Trump, he’s at least provided a list of solid constitutionalist judges he promises to nominate from for Supreme Court Justices.  Can I trust him to keep his word?  I honestly don’t know.  But I know I absolutely can 100% trust Hillary Clinton to nominate leftist activists who will scrap what little’s left of constitutional rule of law, and destroy any semblance of religious liberty.

You’d think Catholics and pro-lifers would wake up and develop a sense of urgency about this.  Yet, instead we have holy folks such as popular “pro-life” left-wing apologist Mark Shea (oh, sorry, Mr. Shea prefers to call himself a “Catholic apologist”) urging Catholics in swing states to vote for Hillary Clinton.  (Ironic coming from a man who spent much his career denouncing voting for “the lesser evil.”)

Nor, I’m afraid, can we look to much in the way of leadership from the U.S. Bishops and their bureaucratic mouthpieces.  They continue to play the charade of rightly preaching against the evils of abortion and euthanasia, while at the same time proclaiming virtually every contentious political issue to be a “life issue,” and insist that we must take the left-wing stance on the rest of these issues (immigration, “gun control,” environmental regulation, etc.) in order to be “truly pro-life.”  This sends the courageous, clear-as-mud message to us saps in the pews to vote however the hell we want, especially if it’s for a left-winger.

Catholic pro-lifers can keep playing these stupid games and losing, or we can take a stand and fight.  Time’s running out.

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

A Gay Old Time

Well, as you probably are aware by now, that oracle of leftwing propaganda, Newsweek, has proclaimed Obama to be, on its front cover, “The First Gay President,” complete with an absolutely fabulous little rainbow halo, thereby confirming what the National Enquirer has been claiming for years now. The President’s “evolution” on the subject of homosexual marriage (after all, evolution is always good, wouldn’t want to be a backwards Neanderthal like me!) paid off handsomely, gaining him buttloads of cash from various liberal advocacy groups, but that of course is of no account, as any endorsement of the sacred cow of “gay rights” earns one automatic canonization in today’s religion of political correctness. Nor does it prevent the continuing orgasmic gushings of homosexual “conservative” Andrew Sullivan, who has a full-fledged schoolgirl crush on the current POTUS. It’s a damn shame that Barry lost out to Bill Clinton on having the honor of “the First Black President.”

While whether this (rather unsurprising) declaration by Obama ultimately helps or hurts his re-election prospects remains to be seen, I thought this would be a good opportunity to discuss the whole issue regarding so-called “gay marriage,” an issue which puts me at odds not only with liberals, but increasingly with libertarians, “conservatives,” and “Catholics” (including self-proclaimed “orthodox” or “conservative” “Catholics”), a disheartening number of which seem happy and willing to directly contradict the teachings of their Faith to jump on board the latest politically correct craze. I suppose this should not be shocking, considering that overwhelming majorities of American “Catholics” reject the Barq of Peter’s moral teachings regarding contraception and other unpopular issues, and that what passes for “Catholicism” in all too many parishes is little more than a vague and fuzzy mixture of warmed-over Marxist socialism and pc sentiments (much like the Democratic Party platform, but with vaguely religious overtones).

Proponents of state-recognized homosexual “marriage” typically would have us believe that if states do not grant legal recognition to same-sex sodomitic relationships as “marriage,” this creates some grave new threat to our American liberties. After all, it’s a short and slippery slope from state governments not handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples to cops posted in bedrooms, homosexuals being burnt at the stake, women being stoned in the streets for adultery, and all the other various and sundry horrors of the Christian American Taliban which is eminent unless right-wing Republicans are kept out of office. (In short, it’s the same list of horrors which are eminent if all employers are not forced to pay for contraceptives.) In fact, we’ll be forced all the way back to the benighted Dark Ages prior to May 17, 2004.

A few points:
First of all, contrary to much of the hysterical shrieking on the left (and libertarian right), this is not a case of “letting government in the bedroom.” Without state recognized “gay marriage,” homosexuals are free to bugger each other to their little hearts’ content without fear of jack-booted government thugs showing up at the door to haul them away. The truth is that the state not recognizing homosexual marriage keeps the state out of gays’ bedrooms. Homosexuals would be neither punished nor rewarded for their sexual activities, but the state would be kept out of the fudgepacking business altogether.  Of course, in today’s sloppy thinking, a “right” to engage in a certain behavior, usually equates to demands for government rewards or subsidiaries for it.  (Thus, “sexual freedom” means a right to taxpayer-subsidized rubbers and abortions.)

Secondly, there is no constitutional right to state recognition of marriage of any kind. As marriage and marriage laws are nowhere mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the matter of state marriage law belongs, per the Tenth Amendment, to “the States respectively, or to the people.” Per the Constitution, federal judges have no right to interfere with the decisions of the people of the respective states on marriage law. Gay marriage proponents like to appeal to the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing equal protection under the law for all citizens, but the truth is that state recognition of something as a “marriage” is a privilege, not legal protection.

I don’t have any intrinsic right to have a contract with my mother, sister, and brother, best pal Joe and his grandmother recognized by the state as a “marriage.” Our relationship may be non-sexual and otherwise morally unproblematic, but it would simply have nothing to do with marriage, which has traditionally been a very specific kind of contract. Trying to redefine marriage to absolutely any grouping of any number of “consenting adults” wanting to have a legal contract (as the more consistent same-sex marriage advocates argue for), would render “marriage” essentially meaningless. But if we are not to include absolutely any and every grouping of consenting adults wanting a marriage license for absolutely any reason, there is certainly nothing special about homosexual sodomy that merits this privilege above others.

This brings us to the central issue of why marriages are recognized by the state in the first place. While liberals and others will try to deny it, the fact is that marriage between man and woman has always been tied to the begetting and raising of children, and forms the best framework for such activity. It is the most basic and fundamental building block of human society. Homosexual buggery can never result in the procreation of children, and has no more intrinsic relation to the purpose of marriage than masturbating to porno videos. While it’s now fashionable for conservatives and libertarians (including many Catholics) to say that government should “get out of the marriage business” altogether, I’m not so sure that the state failing to give any legal recognition to marriage period is such a wonderful thing.

Neither is the Pope, who as head of the CDF, wrote this masterful document, which all Catholics would do well to read and study (though few do): CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS.

It includes a number of arguments from philosophical, anthropological, and legal grounds, but concludes:

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.

Sadly, however, whenever I get into online discussions of this issue with  my fellow “orthodox Catholics,” I’m usually one of the very few who actually agrees with the Church on this issue.  Political correctness has indeed become our new religion, and homosexuality (traditionally numbered by the Church among the Sins that Cry out to Heaven for Vengeance”) is chief among its sacred cows.

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