An Email from my brother in law, While I vouch for the person who wrote it as being a veteran I can vouch for my agreement...
Subject: An interesting commentary from a female Air Force veteran who is now a talk show host
KIT LANGE'S PREDICTIONS FOR THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY. Now that America has shown us all that affirmative action even works in politics, I've compiled a list of things that you can probably expect to happen. These predictions are 80% gleaned from information I have access to,and 15% gut instinct based on many years of research, historical study, andbeing glued to current affairs. The other 5% is just anger at my countrymen's stupidity - I admit it. - Websites and mass emails offering"free grants," courtesy of the government and "Obama's wealth redistribution." Actually, this one's a freebie, because I have an email with a date and timestamp of literally 7minutes after Obama was declared the winner, offering exactly that.
- Israel will understand this election was the end of any type of assistance military or otherwise, from the U.S., and will stop holding back their defense at the request of the American administration. Look for a first strike on Iran soon, as well as increased activity by the Israeli military in general. - Look for Iranian retaliation-against American targets. That goes doubly forother terrorist organizations. We just elected a man with the full endorsement of every major terrorist group in the world as leader of the free world. It's the political equivalent of hiring a child molester to babysit your kids while you leave for the weekend. Not only is HE going to have fun with your child, but he'll probably sit and watch while his friends come over and do it too. - Look for far-left justices appointed to the Supreme Court, effectively tyingup the entire government in a trifecta of liberal humanism, the buzzwords of which remain empty platitudes like "hope and change."
- Military cases of troops being tried and convicted for killing the enemy in combat will continue to rise-and the conviction/plea-bargain rate will stay at nearly 100%, as the government seeks to use the best men and women this country has to offer as sacrificial lambs on the altar of global appeasement.
- Look for the slow but steady erosion of rights you have
enjoyed for your entire lives-all the while being told it's "for your owngood." Restrictions on gun ownership, home schooling, encouraged dependenceon the ever-growing federal government. More nanny-state provisions will be put into place to protect the "disadvantaged" and the "poor," (read: lazy,uneducated, unwilling to better themselves) even while groups like the unborn, the mentally handicapped, elderly, and terminally ill are slowly pushed toward euthanasia. Of course, this will be done with feel-good phrases like "death with dignity," "not wanting to be a burden," and"merciful release from suffering," all of which ignore the basic fact that we are killing people without their consent for the "good of the people."Before you tell me I'm crazy, let's just remember that Barack Obama was the ONLY senator in the Illinois state senate to vote against providing medical care for babies who were inconsiderate enough to survive an abortion. Also,look for taxes to go up. Yes, they'll go up.
- You think the economy is bad now? Just wait. You'll have the most expensive"free" health care ever. Bread lines aren't just for Russians anymore. We have traded experience for color, freedom for slavery-and the irony is that the average American sheeple thinks their vote somehow righted an ancient wrong, somehow ENDED the specter of slavery and ushered in some beautiful era of liberty. In reality, we are about to be less free than you ever thought possible. I watched the faces of those crowded into the mob (excuse the pun) in Chicago. They stared at Obama like he was a god, an idol, apanacea to their every want and need. We have truly failed as a nation if weare at the point where we feel we must look to one man to take care of us all, to be our father figure and our sugar daddy. The eyes of Obama and McCain were also telling. McCain acted with class and grace in his concession speech, offering the most honorable response I've seen yet. I don't agree with all of McCain's positions, but it cannot be denied that the man has served his nation-at permanent and severe detriment to himself-for half a century. His eyes were clear and sincere, honest. His speech underlined the very reasons why, of the two men offered, he was hands down the best choice.
Conversely, Obama's eyes were cold, calculating. His manner was smug and still carried the arrogance he has always had. His facial expression was one of barely disguised disdain for everything people like me believe in. His body language was smooth, polished-too much so. He is charismatic to those who don't know what to look for, and he is inspiring to those who cannot or will not think for themselves. However, too many who voted for him are guilty of the most dangerous kind of hypocrisy. You see, we are told dailythat we must not see color, just mankind. (We are all family, you know-or so we're told.) And yet Barack Obama was handed the White House on a silver platter by a fawning media, a bevy of foreign donors (who, to this day and in violation of U.S. election laws, remain nameless and unaccounted for),and a populace who voted based on color instead of right and wrong-even in the face of the most damning evidence against a Presidential candidate in many years, perhaps ever.
It is said that the people receive the government they deserve. Sadly, I fear that's correct. We have become complacent, unwilling to see the writing on the wall, content to frolic in the warm water without bothering to notice that it's been getting hotter by the minute.
So enjoy your victory. Jump around. Have a party, and make fun of those of us who fought to make sure your "messiah" didn't get access to the most powerful position in the world. Just remember when it all comes crashing down: You own the White House, the Congress, and soon the Supreme Court.You'll have no one to blame but yourselves. As for me, I'm buying my handguns this week.
Thanks and a tip of my beret to Raymond.
Dieu le Roy!
de Brantigny
Monday, December 29, 2008
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
The Tyranny of the factions
In a democracy the majority voice makes the law. That is what I have been taught though out my life. In a tyranny it is the minority who make the law. I suppose we can say that California is soon to be added to those places which will be ruled by a tyranny. I stopped believing this sometime ago. Here are three examples why...
Supporters of Proposition 8, the California initiative that eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry last month, reacted with surprise and dismay this weekend to the announcement by the state's attorney general that he had reversed his position and would ask California's high court to invalidate the measure.
Jerry Brown, the state's attorney general--and a leading candidate to replace Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor in two years--filed papers on Friday asking the state Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8, which amends the state's Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.
Votes do not count. Wake up America. The left, the vocal minority, who care not a wit about your rights, who believe that you are not smart enough to rule your family, raise your children, your country, and are to stupid to be tolerant and therefore must be made to toe the line drawn by them. I can not make these things clearer than California. The people in California have spoken that they wish a marriage to be between a man and a woman, yet they have coerced the Attorney General to request that the proposition be overturned. Californians are fools, see what your "tolerant" attitude has gotten you? Nothing, especially no respect.
Minnesota, still can't determine who will be the next Senator. Every time it seems that current Senator Norm Coleman is in the lead, the exclown/failed Air America radio show host Al Franken(stein)'s supporters find more votes for him in a trunk of a car. Minnesota! The election was 7 1'2 weeks ago! Finish it up or rename your state Florida. To bad Richard J Daley wasn't in charge of the count.
In another tyrannical move the outgoing President, George W. Bush gave money away to the big three. In an act reminiscent of a Caesar,the big three received their money which was rejected by most Americans, and the Senate, and given more money than even the House had voted on, by none other than George W. Bush. Whereas the financial institutions were given money to play with and make their CEO's more wealthy, the Auto industry has three months to get up and run more efficiently. Yeah right. In march the Big Three will get more money and the government will own more of the business. By next Christmas, the UAW will own GM and Chrystler. This is a move to nationalize this industry nothing less. Health care will be next. America will roll over for this too.
Like the Girondins the Republicans will do nothing to forestall the Jacobin Democrats. the factions are on the same side...
Dieu Le Roy.
de Brantigny
Supporters of Proposition 8, the California initiative that eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry last month, reacted with surprise and dismay this weekend to the announcement by the state's attorney general that he had reversed his position and would ask California's high court to invalidate the measure.
Jerry Brown, the state's attorney general--and a leading candidate to replace Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor in two years--filed papers on Friday asking the state Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8, which amends the state's Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.
Votes do not count. Wake up America. The left, the vocal minority, who care not a wit about your rights, who believe that you are not smart enough to rule your family, raise your children, your country, and are to stupid to be tolerant and therefore must be made to toe the line drawn by them. I can not make these things clearer than California. The people in California have spoken that they wish a marriage to be between a man and a woman, yet they have coerced the Attorney General to request that the proposition be overturned. Californians are fools, see what your "tolerant" attitude has gotten you? Nothing, especially no respect.
Minnesota, still can't determine who will be the next Senator. Every time it seems that current Senator Norm Coleman is in the lead, the exclown/failed Air America radio show host Al Franken(stein)'s supporters find more votes for him in a trunk of a car. Minnesota! The election was 7 1'2 weeks ago! Finish it up or rename your state Florida. To bad Richard J Daley wasn't in charge of the count.
In another tyrannical move the outgoing President, George W. Bush gave money away to the big three. In an act reminiscent of a Caesar,the big three received their money which was rejected by most Americans, and the Senate, and given more money than even the House had voted on, by none other than George W. Bush. Whereas the financial institutions were given money to play with and make their CEO's more wealthy, the Auto industry has three months to get up and run more efficiently. Yeah right. In march the Big Three will get more money and the government will own more of the business. By next Christmas, the UAW will own GM and Chrystler. This is a move to nationalize this industry nothing less. Health care will be next. America will roll over for this too.
Like the Girondins the Republicans will do nothing to forestall the Jacobin Democrats. the factions are on the same side...
Dieu Le Roy.
de Brantigny
Friday, December 12, 2008
No more bailouts!
Maggie Gallagher
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson looks like an investment banker. He's a big guy, whose large hands, broad shoulders and balding head signal he's got the drive, the cojones, to be an alpha male in the once-intensely competitive world of big money.
The owlishly round glasses suggest intellect, and overall, his combination of physicality and IQ remind one of the way Wall Street had become a kind of Roman Circus of nerd gladiators, transforming surging aggression into extraordinary material abundance.
Until lately.
Something else is increasingly obvious about Paulson: He doesn't have a clue.
Remember when he went before Congress and asked for a "really big number" to throw at the credit crisis? Neither Republicans nor Democrats wanted to be the ones to take the hit for Americans' plunging portfolios and accelerating sense of economic crisis. Maybe both parties had a lingering sense of responsibility, of the need to rise above partisanship to "do the right thing." So they gave to this man the power to pass our money around like popcorn or peanuts. And the stock markets plunged anyway.
Paulson has already abandoned the plan he laid out before Congress of using $700 billion of our money to buy out bad mortgage debt. His new idea is to buy bank stocks to inject more money into the system.
General Motors once had a plan too: sell enough good cars to make a profit. General Motors' new plan is to use taxpayer dollars to keep the management team that sent GM to brink of bankruptcy firmly in control.
Bankruptcy of a big company is not the horrible thing it once was for the economy. Under Chapter 11, the courts supervise a new management team and restructure debt in a way that keeps the key wealth-producing asset -- a working corporation -- intact. That way creditors get paid and workers have jobs.
Avoiding bankruptcy is a way for the GM management team to keep their jobs and for labor unions to get taxpayer dollars to avoid facing economic realities, too. And, of course, this is just the beginning. Why automakers and not airlines? Why airlines and not appliances? More companies in trouble will be lining up with grave public arguments about how much better off we all will be when our money is in their pockets.
I remember vividly standing in the lobby of a local hospital, watching a few minutes of the bailout bill testimony on television. A woman in green scrubs -- a lab technician -- stopped with me to watch. I will never forget the sheer fury in her voice. "The bums," she muttered. "They take care of each other -- who's going to take care of us?"
In the atmosphere of crisis at the time, weeks before an election, perhaps the bailout vote can be forgiven. Perhaps.
But let us draw a line in the sand, here and now, to prevent the emergence of that horribly deformed system, crony capitalism.
No more bailouts.
Piggies
George Harrison
Have you seen the little piggies
Crawling in the dirt
And for all those little piggies
Life is getting worse
Always having dirt to play around in.
Have you seen the bigger piggies
In their starched white shirts
You will find the bigger piggies
Stirring up the dirt
Always have clean shirts to play around in.
And in their styes with all their backing
They don't care what goes on around
And in their eyes there's something lacking
What they needs a damm good whacking.
Yeah, everywhere there's lots of piggies
Playing piggy pranks
And you can see them on their trotters
Down at the piggy banks
Paying piggy thanks
To thee pig brother
Everywhere there's lots of piggies
Living piggy lives
You can see them out for dinner
With their piggy wives
Clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon.
Thanks to Carlos.
de Brantigny
Latest news. The Bill failed to gain the number of votes needed to bring it to the floor of the Senate.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson looks like an investment banker. He's a big guy, whose large hands, broad shoulders and balding head signal he's got the drive, the cojones, to be an alpha male in the once-intensely competitive world of big money.
The owlishly round glasses suggest intellect, and overall, his combination of physicality and IQ remind one of the way Wall Street had become a kind of Roman Circus of nerd gladiators, transforming surging aggression into extraordinary material abundance.
Until lately.
Something else is increasingly obvious about Paulson: He doesn't have a clue.
Remember when he went before Congress and asked for a "really big number" to throw at the credit crisis? Neither Republicans nor Democrats wanted to be the ones to take the hit for Americans' plunging portfolios and accelerating sense of economic crisis. Maybe both parties had a lingering sense of responsibility, of the need to rise above partisanship to "do the right thing." So they gave to this man the power to pass our money around like popcorn or peanuts. And the stock markets plunged anyway.
Paulson has already abandoned the plan he laid out before Congress of using $700 billion of our money to buy out bad mortgage debt. His new idea is to buy bank stocks to inject more money into the system.
General Motors once had a plan too: sell enough good cars to make a profit. General Motors' new plan is to use taxpayer dollars to keep the management team that sent GM to brink of bankruptcy firmly in control.
Bankruptcy of a big company is not the horrible thing it once was for the economy. Under Chapter 11, the courts supervise a new management team and restructure debt in a way that keeps the key wealth-producing asset -- a working corporation -- intact. That way creditors get paid and workers have jobs.
Avoiding bankruptcy is a way for the GM management team to keep their jobs and for labor unions to get taxpayer dollars to avoid facing economic realities, too. And, of course, this is just the beginning. Why automakers and not airlines? Why airlines and not appliances? More companies in trouble will be lining up with grave public arguments about how much better off we all will be when our money is in their pockets.
I remember vividly standing in the lobby of a local hospital, watching a few minutes of the bailout bill testimony on television. A woman in green scrubs -- a lab technician -- stopped with me to watch. I will never forget the sheer fury in her voice. "The bums," she muttered. "They take care of each other -- who's going to take care of us?"
In the atmosphere of crisis at the time, weeks before an election, perhaps the bailout vote can be forgiven. Perhaps.
But let us draw a line in the sand, here and now, to prevent the emergence of that horribly deformed system, crony capitalism.
No more bailouts.
Piggies
George Harrison
Have you seen the little piggies
Crawling in the dirt
And for all those little piggies
Life is getting worse
Always having dirt to play around in.
Have you seen the bigger piggies
In their starched white shirts
You will find the bigger piggies
Stirring up the dirt
Always have clean shirts to play around in.
And in their styes with all their backing
They don't care what goes on around
And in their eyes there's something lacking
What they needs a damm good whacking.
Yeah, everywhere there's lots of piggies
Playing piggy pranks
And you can see them on their trotters
Down at the piggy banks
Paying piggy thanks
To thee pig brother
Everywhere there's lots of piggies
Living piggy lives
You can see them out for dinner
With their piggy wives
Clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon.
Thanks to Carlos.
de Brantigny
Latest news. The Bill failed to gain the number of votes needed to bring it to the floor of the Senate.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Blago, Rezko, and Obama
The famous last words of Blagojevich, "Go ahead and tape me", now rival the famous last words of Custer, "Those indians sure look peaceful. See how they are coming out to greet us?"
Now Obama may have his first scandal and he has yet to take the oath!
de Brantigny
Now Obama may have his first scandal and he has yet to take the oath!
de Brantigny
AFL-CIO
Is it because they don't like fast food?
Two of America’s largest unions have denounced McDonald’s Corp. this week following Crain’s story that the company is mobilizing franchisees against a law designed to make it easier for workers to unionize.
The Service Employee International Union encouraged its 1.8 million members to send letters to McDonald’s in support of the proposed Employee Free Choice Act. The AFL-CIO issued a press release saying it plans to make sure the 10 million working men and women who make up our membership know that McDonald’s has just announced a whopper of a campaign against their economic interests and against their hopes for an economy that works for all, not just for the CEOs.”
McDonald’s USA President Don Thompson urged 2,400 franchisees to “contact your U.S. senators and representatives to oppose” the Employee Free Choice Act in a Nov. 25 memo obtained by Crain’s. He also wrote that McDonald’s formed a “response team” to help franchisees “actively participate in the opposition to the EFCA.”
The EFCA, or “card-check” bill, would enable unions to organize a workplace by obtaining the signatures of a majority of workers on authorization cards. Current law requires secret ballots. In addition, the legislation would establish a bargaining process that could lead to binding arbitration for labor contracts. President-elect Barack Obama supports the bill.
Possibly the executives of the AFL-CIO are just a little bit out of touch with the world. I mean eating in all the big resturants they don't get out to much with the real people. Maybe they could have come up with better phrasology. Burger King makes Whoppers, even Homer Simpson knows that. In any event a secret ballot has always been the "American" way.
Now if Obama could just get rid of the secret ballot at election time...
de Brantigny
Two of America’s largest unions have denounced McDonald’s Corp. this week following Crain’s story that the company is mobilizing franchisees against a law designed to make it easier for workers to unionize.
The Service Employee International Union encouraged its 1.8 million members to send letters to McDonald’s in support of the proposed Employee Free Choice Act. The AFL-CIO issued a press release saying it plans to make sure the 10 million working men and women who make up our membership know that McDonald’s has just announced a whopper of a campaign against their economic interests and against their hopes for an economy that works for all, not just for the CEOs.”
McDonald’s USA President Don Thompson urged 2,400 franchisees to “contact your U.S. senators and representatives to oppose” the Employee Free Choice Act in a Nov. 25 memo obtained by Crain’s. He also wrote that McDonald’s formed a “response team” to help franchisees “actively participate in the opposition to the EFCA.”
The EFCA, or “card-check” bill, would enable unions to organize a workplace by obtaining the signatures of a majority of workers on authorization cards. Current law requires secret ballots. In addition, the legislation would establish a bargaining process that could lead to binding arbitration for labor contracts. President-elect Barack Obama supports the bill.
Possibly the executives of the AFL-CIO are just a little bit out of touch with the world. I mean eating in all the big resturants they don't get out to much with the real people. Maybe they could have come up with better phrasology. Burger King makes Whoppers, even Homer Simpson knows that. In any event a secret ballot has always been the "American" way.
Now if Obama could just get rid of the secret ballot at election time...
de Brantigny
Separated at birth
Eric Holder, Obama's choice for Attorney General
Graham Stedman, Oprah's Beau. Coincidence?
de Brantigny
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Four Big Lies about the Big Three Automakers
NEWSMAX article
Monday, December 8, 2008 3:58 PM
By: Dan Weil
With congressional Democrats and the Bush administration agreeing in principle during the weekend to drop a few billion on General Motors and Chrysler, all signs point to a government-backed auto industry bailout. But could the crisis in Detroit be the product of myth, spin and outright lies?
As the nation inches closer to an unprecedented investment in private industry, Newsmax has examined the falsehoods being spread to promote the deal. Indeed, the exact amount of money to be doled out isn’t clear yet. GM and Chrysler executives testified before Congress last week that they need $14 billion to survive until March 31.
Whatever the total, a number of financial experts say it would be money better left unspent until the Big Three and their supporters agree to level with the American taxpayers. Until the car makers can offer convincing proof that they will be able to produce cars at a reasonable price that customers will want to buy, here are four of the biggest whoppers they are relying on to get a massive infusion of American tax dollars:
1. Detroit’s wages really aren’t out of sync with those of auto workers in other countries.
It has been well established that total compensation for U.S. auto workers, including pensions and benefits, comes in around $70 per hour. That compares to $45 per hour for Japanese workers.
But some auto industry supporters have distorted the argument. They use the American workers’ hourly wage without benefits – about $30 an hour – and compare that number to the $45 hourly total compensation for Japanese workers. Then they claim that U.S. auto makers are actually more labor efficient than their Japanese counterparts.
Obviously that’s not comparing apples to apples. If you are looking at apples versus apples, a new auto plant in India offers hourly pay of only $19.
And it’s not just line workers who are overpaid. Ford’s chief executive Alan Mulally earned $22 million in total compensation last year – a year that helped push the company toward oblivion. Asked last month if he thought he deserved a pay cut, Mulally said, “I think I’m all right where I am.”
Top executives at Bear Stearns, AIG, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch probably felt the same way right before their companies went under.
2. The auto industry is unique and therefore must be bailed out.
It’s true that auto companies, including suppliers, etc., account for about 3 percent of economic output and employ at least 1 million people. But those numbers aren’t dependent on the financial status of the Big Three.
If the companies go into bankruptcy and come out stronger, the industry will employ about the same amount of people. If not, foreign auto makers will produce more cars in the U.S. and pick up many of these workers.
Plenty other uniquely American industries are taking it on the chin, and no one is calling for a bailout of those sectors. Take newspapers for example. One could argue they are far more important for the functioning of our democracy than the Big Three auto companies.
Newspapers are firing workers right and left and shifting more of their operations to the Internet. And they will have to continue doing so until they can put out a news product cheaply enough and well enough so that readers will pay to read it, and advertisers will pay to appear in it.
That’s called adjusting to a changed market place, something the Big Three have largely failed to do since first facing foreign competition in the 1970s.
3. Bankruptcy for the Big Three will mean the end of the U.S. auto industry.
That is simply poppycock. A prepackaged bankruptcy actually could leave the major automakers in better shape than they were prior to the financial crisis. Since the mid-1990s, the Big Three made most of their money on gas guzzling SUVs and trucks. That simply won’t cut it anymore. Bankruptcy will force the auto makers to quicken their shift to smaller cars.
Plenty of companies have emerged stronger from bankruptcy. Nearly all the major airlines have gone through that process and came out stronger than when they entered. Some industry apologists have argued that American consumers won’t buy any cars from the Big Three if they are in bankruptcy because of concern that warranties won’t be honored.
But as long as the companies offer quality autos at reasonable prices and make it clear that warranties will remain in place no matter what happens to the companies themselves, American drivers will want the cars.
Meanwhile, bankruptcy would give the Big Three an opportunity to rework their labor contracts, cutting compensation, and to jettison incompetent executives.
4. A limited aid package now will ensure the industry’s long-term future.
The amount of money being bandied about, $15 billion to $25 billion, is chump change. GM and Chrysler are bleeding $2 billion in cash a month. So the high end of the bailout range keeps them in business for about a year. Then what? Without major changes in their business model, they’ll simply be coming back to Washington with their hands out again.
The Big Three have had so many opportunities to change their practices since the first oil crisis of the early 1970s, yet they have been reluctant to budge. GM still has eight brands of cars, even though critics have pointed out for years that’s probably about seven too many.
As recently as last month, GM CEO Rick Wagoner had the gall to tell Congress: “What exposes us to failure now is not our product lineup, or our business plan, or our long-term strategy.”
Until Wagoner and others at the Big Three come to realize those are exactly the factors that have put the industry on the brink of failure, there is no hope for improvement. And it’s not a bailout that’s going to make auto companies implement the adjustments they need to survive.
And remember, this current "bailout" bears no resemblance to the rescue of Chrysler in 1980. In 1980, Congress passed, and President Carter signed, a law giving a U.S. government guarantee of a private $1.5 billion loan to Chrysler. Not one dollar of taxpayer funds was ever used in the deal. It's also important to remember that import tariffs sheltered Chrysler and the Big Three from Japanese competition in the 1980s. And unlike today, Chrysler also had a clear plan to make a comeback and the loan was relatively small.
All of the automakers should follow Chrysler's 1980s success story: create a viable business plan for the future and get private sources to fund it.
de Brantigny
Monday, December 8, 2008 3:58 PM
By: Dan Weil
With congressional Democrats and the Bush administration agreeing in principle during the weekend to drop a few billion on General Motors and Chrysler, all signs point to a government-backed auto industry bailout. But could the crisis in Detroit be the product of myth, spin and outright lies?
As the nation inches closer to an unprecedented investment in private industry, Newsmax has examined the falsehoods being spread to promote the deal. Indeed, the exact amount of money to be doled out isn’t clear yet. GM and Chrysler executives testified before Congress last week that they need $14 billion to survive until March 31.
Whatever the total, a number of financial experts say it would be money better left unspent until the Big Three and their supporters agree to level with the American taxpayers. Until the car makers can offer convincing proof that they will be able to produce cars at a reasonable price that customers will want to buy, here are four of the biggest whoppers they are relying on to get a massive infusion of American tax dollars:
1. Detroit’s wages really aren’t out of sync with those of auto workers in other countries.
It has been well established that total compensation for U.S. auto workers, including pensions and benefits, comes in around $70 per hour. That compares to $45 per hour for Japanese workers.
But some auto industry supporters have distorted the argument. They use the American workers’ hourly wage without benefits – about $30 an hour – and compare that number to the $45 hourly total compensation for Japanese workers. Then they claim that U.S. auto makers are actually more labor efficient than their Japanese counterparts.
Obviously that’s not comparing apples to apples. If you are looking at apples versus apples, a new auto plant in India offers hourly pay of only $19.
And it’s not just line workers who are overpaid. Ford’s chief executive Alan Mulally earned $22 million in total compensation last year – a year that helped push the company toward oblivion. Asked last month if he thought he deserved a pay cut, Mulally said, “I think I’m all right where I am.”
Top executives at Bear Stearns, AIG, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch probably felt the same way right before their companies went under.
2. The auto industry is unique and therefore must be bailed out.
It’s true that auto companies, including suppliers, etc., account for about 3 percent of economic output and employ at least 1 million people. But those numbers aren’t dependent on the financial status of the Big Three.
If the companies go into bankruptcy and come out stronger, the industry will employ about the same amount of people. If not, foreign auto makers will produce more cars in the U.S. and pick up many of these workers.
Plenty other uniquely American industries are taking it on the chin, and no one is calling for a bailout of those sectors. Take newspapers for example. One could argue they are far more important for the functioning of our democracy than the Big Three auto companies.
Newspapers are firing workers right and left and shifting more of their operations to the Internet. And they will have to continue doing so until they can put out a news product cheaply enough and well enough so that readers will pay to read it, and advertisers will pay to appear in it.
That’s called adjusting to a changed market place, something the Big Three have largely failed to do since first facing foreign competition in the 1970s.
3. Bankruptcy for the Big Three will mean the end of the U.S. auto industry.
That is simply poppycock. A prepackaged bankruptcy actually could leave the major automakers in better shape than they were prior to the financial crisis. Since the mid-1990s, the Big Three made most of their money on gas guzzling SUVs and trucks. That simply won’t cut it anymore. Bankruptcy will force the auto makers to quicken their shift to smaller cars.
Plenty of companies have emerged stronger from bankruptcy. Nearly all the major airlines have gone through that process and came out stronger than when they entered. Some industry apologists have argued that American consumers won’t buy any cars from the Big Three if they are in bankruptcy because of concern that warranties won’t be honored.
But as long as the companies offer quality autos at reasonable prices and make it clear that warranties will remain in place no matter what happens to the companies themselves, American drivers will want the cars.
Meanwhile, bankruptcy would give the Big Three an opportunity to rework their labor contracts, cutting compensation, and to jettison incompetent executives.
4. A limited aid package now will ensure the industry’s long-term future.
The amount of money being bandied about, $15 billion to $25 billion, is chump change. GM and Chrysler are bleeding $2 billion in cash a month. So the high end of the bailout range keeps them in business for about a year. Then what? Without major changes in their business model, they’ll simply be coming back to Washington with their hands out again.
The Big Three have had so many opportunities to change their practices since the first oil crisis of the early 1970s, yet they have been reluctant to budge. GM still has eight brands of cars, even though critics have pointed out for years that’s probably about seven too many.
As recently as last month, GM CEO Rick Wagoner had the gall to tell Congress: “What exposes us to failure now is not our product lineup, or our business plan, or our long-term strategy.”
Until Wagoner and others at the Big Three come to realize those are exactly the factors that have put the industry on the brink of failure, there is no hope for improvement. And it’s not a bailout that’s going to make auto companies implement the adjustments they need to survive.
And remember, this current "bailout" bears no resemblance to the rescue of Chrysler in 1980. In 1980, Congress passed, and President Carter signed, a law giving a U.S. government guarantee of a private $1.5 billion loan to Chrysler. Not one dollar of taxpayer funds was ever used in the deal. It's also important to remember that import tariffs sheltered Chrysler and the Big Three from Japanese competition in the 1980s. And unlike today, Chrysler also had a clear plan to make a comeback and the loan was relatively small.
All of the automakers should follow Chrysler's 1980s success story: create a viable business plan for the future and get private sources to fund it.
de Brantigny
Bailouts or is the government moving towards socialism
We have been listening to the proposed bailout of the auto industry for the last month or more. Frankly I am becoming bored by it all. This is unfortunate because my boredom will lead to apathy. Apathy is the grey area in which the Jacobin faction operates in this country.
Have you noticed that the auto mobile industries, the so called "Big Three" threaten disaster for the nation if they are not bailed out for their previous inability to modernize and build cars which Americans will buy. I for one am totally against any bailout. Ford, GM, and Chrysler have all one great problem, Americans like bargains. The "Big Three" have pandered to the unions to the point that auto prices have increased far above the other 3 auto makers.
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi has refused to allow any of these automakers from claiming chapter 11 bankruptcy which would have required a re-negotiation of all contracts. The Unions could have their excessive benefits decreased, such as a starting wage of $28 an hour. This would not do in a Congress run by a Democratic faction which moves us closer and closer to a socialist government.
Of course the "Big Three" auto CEOs have not helped themselves. Flying 3 separate private jets like rock stars to Washington expecting adulation was a huge mistake. The driving to Washington in cars was probably just as stupid, allowing the media to portray them as full of contrition, when in actuality it was an advertising ploy.
Then we have the mortgage banking industry debacle, which congressman Barney Frank refuses to take responsibility for, even though he and his accomplices were told 2 years ago that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were in trouble.
AIG the insurance giant has been bailout out and its executives expect a huge bonus!
So now the taxpayers are funding a bonus. How about the stoke holders!? This is hubris.
Enough!
de Brantigny
Have you noticed that the auto mobile industries, the so called "Big Three" threaten disaster for the nation if they are not bailed out for their previous inability to modernize and build cars which Americans will buy. I for one am totally against any bailout. Ford, GM, and Chrysler have all one great problem, Americans like bargains. The "Big Three" have pandered to the unions to the point that auto prices have increased far above the other 3 auto makers.
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi has refused to allow any of these automakers from claiming chapter 11 bankruptcy which would have required a re-negotiation of all contracts. The Unions could have their excessive benefits decreased, such as a starting wage of $28 an hour. This would not do in a Congress run by a Democratic faction which moves us closer and closer to a socialist government.
Of course the "Big Three" auto CEOs have not helped themselves. Flying 3 separate private jets like rock stars to Washington expecting adulation was a huge mistake. The driving to Washington in cars was probably just as stupid, allowing the media to portray them as full of contrition, when in actuality it was an advertising ploy.
Then we have the mortgage banking industry debacle, which congressman Barney Frank refuses to take responsibility for, even though he and his accomplices were told 2 years ago that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were in trouble.
AIG the insurance giant has been bailout out and its executives expect a huge bonus!
So now the taxpayers are funding a bonus. How about the stoke holders!? This is hubris.
Enough!
de Brantigny
Speaking of 3rds
There are now three former Governors of Illinois locked up. "Honesty" is forgotten as a by word for the "Land of Lincoln". A fourth former Governor is now out of prison.
CHICAGO – AP
Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested today on charges that accuse him of trying to benefit from his ability to appoint President-elect Barack Obama's replacement in the U.S. Senate.
The U.S. Attorney in Chicago says federal investigators bugged Blagojevich's campaign offices and placed a tap on his home phone. At a news conference on Tuesday, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said the corruption charges represent "a truly new low."
An FBI affidavit says the 51-year-old Democrat was intercepted on wiretaps conspiring to sell or trade the vacant Senate seat for personal benefits for himself and his wife.
FBI chief Robert Grant says even seasoned investigators were stunned by what they heard on those tapes.
Fitzgerald described the situation by saying: "We were in the middle of a corruption crime spree and we wanted to stop it."
The governor has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.
Did I mention the governor is a democrat? Calls are being made for (this supporter of President-elect Obama's) impeachment. It is feared that an appointment by "Blago" as a prisoner would tarnish the chances of keeping the US Senate seat vacated by Obama in democratic control. Point of fact to the legislature in Illinois, Blagojevich has yet to be tried. In any case the legislature should not worry, it appears that Illinois doesn't care who's a crook...
Recently Governor Blagojevich asked President Bush to commute the sentence of former Governor Ryan, who is currently in prison for coruption, contracts and leases and driving licenses to people, illegal aliens, and those unfit to drive legally. The corruption scandal that led to Ryan's downfall began over a decade earlier as a federal investigation into a deadly crash in Wisconsin that killed six children. The investigation revealed a scheme inside Ryan's secretary of state's office in which unqualified truck drivers obtained licenses through bribes.
de Brantigny
CHICAGO – AP
Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested today on charges that accuse him of trying to benefit from his ability to appoint President-elect Barack Obama's replacement in the U.S. Senate.The U.S. Attorney in Chicago says federal investigators bugged Blagojevich's campaign offices and placed a tap on his home phone. At a news conference on Tuesday, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said the corruption charges represent "a truly new low."
An FBI affidavit says the 51-year-old Democrat was intercepted on wiretaps conspiring to sell or trade the vacant Senate seat for personal benefits for himself and his wife.
FBI chief Robert Grant says even seasoned investigators were stunned by what they heard on those tapes.
Fitzgerald described the situation by saying: "We were in the middle of a corruption crime spree and we wanted to stop it."
The governor has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.
Did I mention the governor is a democrat? Calls are being made for (this supporter of President-elect Obama's) impeachment. It is feared that an appointment by "Blago" as a prisoner would tarnish the chances of keeping the US Senate seat vacated by Obama in democratic control. Point of fact to the legislature in Illinois, Blagojevich has yet to be tried. In any case the legislature should not worry, it appears that Illinois doesn't care who's a crook...
Recently Governor Blagojevich asked President Bush to commute the sentence of former Governor Ryan, who is currently in prison for coruption, contracts and leases and driving licenses to people, illegal aliens, and those unfit to drive legally. The corruption scandal that led to Ryan's downfall began over a decade earlier as a federal investigation into a deadly crash in Wisconsin that killed six children. The investigation revealed a scheme inside Ryan's secretary of state's office in which unqualified truck drivers obtained licenses through bribes.
de Brantigny
Yes We Can!
During the run-up to the election we were told that Hillary if elected would just have a redux of the Clinton administration, and McCain if elected would institute a 3rd Bush administration. So Obama has been elected kept Bush appointees and returned Clinton appointees to his administration. Did I miss something? Business as usual...
Of course the liberal faction is all upset because he is not living up to his campaign promises. He has yet to serve one day as president.
de Brantigny
Of course the liberal faction is all upset because he is not living up to his campaign promises. He has yet to serve one day as president.
de Brantigny
Friday, December 5, 2008
Wave goodbye to America...
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:24:42 +0000
Peter Hitchens, Daily Mail
Anyone would think we had just elected a hip, skinny and youthful replacement for God, with a plan to modernize Heaven and Hell – or that at the very least John Lennon had come back from the dead.
The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilization. At least Mandela-worship – its nearest equivalent – is focused on a man who actually did something.
I really don't see how the Obama devotees can ever in future mock the Moonies, the Scientologists or people who claim to have been abducted in flying saucers. This is a cult like the one which grew up around Princess Diana, bereft of reason and hostile to facts.
It already has all the signs of such a thing. The newspapers which recorded Obama’s victory have become valuable relics. You may buy Obama picture books and Obama calendars and if there isn't yet a children’s picture version of his story, there soon will be.
Proper books, recording his sordid associates, his cowardly voting record, his astonishingly militant commitment to unrestricted abortion and his blundering trip to Africa, are little-read and hard to find.
If you can believe that this undistinguished and conventionally Left-wing machine politician is a sort of secular savior, then you can believe anything. He plainly doesn't believe it himself. His cliche-stuffed, PC clunker of an acceptance speech suffered badly from nerves. It was what you would expect from someone who knew he'd promised too much and that from now on the easy bit was over.
He needn't worry too much. From now on, the rough boys and girls of America’s Democratic Party apparatus, many recycled from Bill Clinton’s stained and crumpled entourage, will crowd round him, to collect the rich spoils of his victory and also tell him what to do, which is what he is used to.
Just look at his sermon by the shores of Lake Michigan. He really did talk about a ‘new dawn’, and a ‘timeless creed’ (which was ‘yes, we can’). He proclaimed that ‘change has come’. He revealed that, despite having edited the Harvard Law Review, he doesn't know what ‘enormity’ means. He reached depths of oratorical drivel never even plumbed by our own Mr Blair, burbling about putting our hands on the arc of history (or was it the ark of history?) and bending it once more toward the hope of a better day (Don't try this at home).
I am not making this up. No wonder that awful old hack Jesse Jackson sobbed as he watched. How he must wish he, too, could get away with this sort of stuff.
And it was interesting how the President-elect failed to lift his admiring audience by repeated – but rather hesitant – invocations of the brainless slogan he was forced by his minders to adopt against his will – ‘Yes, we can’. They were supposed to thunder ‘Yes, we can!’ back at him, but they just wouldn't join in. No wonder. Yes we can what exactly? Go home and keep a close eye on the tax rate, is my advice. He'd have been better off bursting into ‘I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony’ which contains roughly the same message and might have attracted some valuable commercial sponsorship.
Perhaps, being a Chicago crowd, they knew some of the things that 52.5 per cent of America prefers not to know. They know Obama is the obedient servant of one of the most squalid and unshakeable political machines in America. They know that one of his alarmingly close associates, a state-subsidized slum landlord called Tony Rezko, has been convicted on fraud and corruption charges.
They also know the US is just as segregated as it was before Martin Luther King – in schools, streets, neighborhoods, holidays, even in its TV-watching habits and its choice of fast-food joint. The difference is that it is now done by unspoken agreement rather than by law.
If Mr Obama’s election had threatened any of that, his feel-good white supporters would have scuttled off and voted for John McCain, or practically anyone. But it doesn't. Mr Obama, thanks mainly to the now-departed grandmother he alternately praised as a saint and denounced as a racial bigot, has the huge advantages of an expensive private education. He did not have to grow up in the badlands of useless schools, shattered families and gangs which are the lot of so many young black men of his generation.
If the nonsensical claims made for this election were true, then every positive discrimination program aimed at helping black people into jobs they otherwise wouldn't get should be abandoned forthwith. Nothing of the kind will happen. On the contrary, there will probably be more of them.
And if those who voted for Obama were all proving their anti-racist nobility, that presumably means that those many millions who didn't vote for him were proving themselves to be hopeless bigots. This is obviously untrue.
I was in Washington DC the night of the election. America’s beautiful capital has a sad secret. It is perhaps the most racially divided city in the world, with 15th Street – which runs due north from the White House – the unofficial frontier between black and white. But, like so much of America, it also now has a new division, and one which is in many ways much more important. I had attended an election-night party in a smart and liberal white area, but was staying the night less than a mile away on the edge of a suburb where Spanish is spoken as much as English, plus a smattering of tongues from such places as Ethiopia, Somalia and Afghanistan.
As I walked, I crossed another of Washington’s secret frontiers. There had been a few white people blowing car horns and shouting, as the result became clear. But among the Mexicans, Salvadorans and the other Third World nationalities, there was something like ecstasy.
They grasped the real significance of this moment. They knew it meant that America had finally switched sides in a global cultural war. Forget the Cold War, or even the Iraq War. The United States, having for the most part a deeply conservative people, had until now just about stood out against many of the mistakes which have ruined so much of the rest of the world.
Suspicious of welfare addiction, feeble justice and high taxes, totally committed to preserving its own national sovereignty, unabashedly Christian in a world part secular and part Muslim, suspicious of the Great Global Warming panic, it was unique.
These strengths had been fading for some time, mainly due to poorly controlled mass immigration and to the march of political correctness. They had also been weakened by the failure of America’s conservative party – the Republicans – to fight on the cultural and moral fronts.
They preferred to posture on the world stage. Scared of confronting Left-wing teachers and sexual revolutionaries at home, they could order soldiers to be brave on their behalf in far-off deserts. And now the US, like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World. How sad. Where now is our last best hope on Earth?
Peter Jonathan Hitchens (born 28 October 1951 in Sliema, Malta) is a British journalist and author. A reporter for the Daily Express for most of his career, he left the paper in 2001 and currently writes for the The Mail on Sunday. Hitchens was educated at The Leys School, the Oxford College of Further Education, and the University of York. He married Eve Ross in 1983; they have three children. Although raised as an Anglican, Hitchens learned soon after his marriage that his mother, who had committed suicide when he was in his twenties, was of partly Jewish ancestry[1]. His older brother is Christopher Hitchens, also a prominent journalist.
The night we waved goodbye to America... our last best hope on Earth
Thanks and a tip of the beret to my brother in law Raymond...
Jhesu+Marie
de Brantigny
Peter Hitchens, Daily Mail
Anyone would think we had just elected a hip, skinny and youthful replacement for God, with a plan to modernize Heaven and Hell – or that at the very least John Lennon had come back from the dead.
The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilization. At least Mandela-worship – its nearest equivalent – is focused on a man who actually did something.
I really don't see how the Obama devotees can ever in future mock the Moonies, the Scientologists or people who claim to have been abducted in flying saucers. This is a cult like the one which grew up around Princess Diana, bereft of reason and hostile to facts.
It already has all the signs of such a thing. The newspapers which recorded Obama’s victory have become valuable relics. You may buy Obama picture books and Obama calendars and if there isn't yet a children’s picture version of his story, there soon will be.
Proper books, recording his sordid associates, his cowardly voting record, his astonishingly militant commitment to unrestricted abortion and his blundering trip to Africa, are little-read and hard to find.
If you can believe that this undistinguished and conventionally Left-wing machine politician is a sort of secular savior, then you can believe anything. He plainly doesn't believe it himself. His cliche-stuffed, PC clunker of an acceptance speech suffered badly from nerves. It was what you would expect from someone who knew he'd promised too much and that from now on the easy bit was over.
He needn't worry too much. From now on, the rough boys and girls of America’s Democratic Party apparatus, many recycled from Bill Clinton’s stained and crumpled entourage, will crowd round him, to collect the rich spoils of his victory and also tell him what to do, which is what he is used to.
Just look at his sermon by the shores of Lake Michigan. He really did talk about a ‘new dawn’, and a ‘timeless creed’ (which was ‘yes, we can’). He proclaimed that ‘change has come’. He revealed that, despite having edited the Harvard Law Review, he doesn't know what ‘enormity’ means. He reached depths of oratorical drivel never even plumbed by our own Mr Blair, burbling about putting our hands on the arc of history (or was it the ark of history?) and bending it once more toward the hope of a better day (Don't try this at home).
I am not making this up. No wonder that awful old hack Jesse Jackson sobbed as he watched. How he must wish he, too, could get away with this sort of stuff.
And it was interesting how the President-elect failed to lift his admiring audience by repeated – but rather hesitant – invocations of the brainless slogan he was forced by his minders to adopt against his will – ‘Yes, we can’. They were supposed to thunder ‘Yes, we can!’ back at him, but they just wouldn't join in. No wonder. Yes we can what exactly? Go home and keep a close eye on the tax rate, is my advice. He'd have been better off bursting into ‘I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony’ which contains roughly the same message and might have attracted some valuable commercial sponsorship.
Perhaps, being a Chicago crowd, they knew some of the things that 52.5 per cent of America prefers not to know. They know Obama is the obedient servant of one of the most squalid and unshakeable political machines in America. They know that one of his alarmingly close associates, a state-subsidized slum landlord called Tony Rezko, has been convicted on fraud and corruption charges.
They also know the US is just as segregated as it was before Martin Luther King – in schools, streets, neighborhoods, holidays, even in its TV-watching habits and its choice of fast-food joint. The difference is that it is now done by unspoken agreement rather than by law.
If Mr Obama’s election had threatened any of that, his feel-good white supporters would have scuttled off and voted for John McCain, or practically anyone. But it doesn't. Mr Obama, thanks mainly to the now-departed grandmother he alternately praised as a saint and denounced as a racial bigot, has the huge advantages of an expensive private education. He did not have to grow up in the badlands of useless schools, shattered families and gangs which are the lot of so many young black men of his generation.
If the nonsensical claims made for this election were true, then every positive discrimination program aimed at helping black people into jobs they otherwise wouldn't get should be abandoned forthwith. Nothing of the kind will happen. On the contrary, there will probably be more of them.
And if those who voted for Obama were all proving their anti-racist nobility, that presumably means that those many millions who didn't vote for him were proving themselves to be hopeless bigots. This is obviously untrue.
I was in Washington DC the night of the election. America’s beautiful capital has a sad secret. It is perhaps the most racially divided city in the world, with 15th Street – which runs due north from the White House – the unofficial frontier between black and white. But, like so much of America, it also now has a new division, and one which is in many ways much more important. I had attended an election-night party in a smart and liberal white area, but was staying the night less than a mile away on the edge of a suburb where Spanish is spoken as much as English, plus a smattering of tongues from such places as Ethiopia, Somalia and Afghanistan.
As I walked, I crossed another of Washington’s secret frontiers. There had been a few white people blowing car horns and shouting, as the result became clear. But among the Mexicans, Salvadorans and the other Third World nationalities, there was something like ecstasy.
They grasped the real significance of this moment. They knew it meant that America had finally switched sides in a global cultural war. Forget the Cold War, or even the Iraq War. The United States, having for the most part a deeply conservative people, had until now just about stood out against many of the mistakes which have ruined so much of the rest of the world.
Suspicious of welfare addiction, feeble justice and high taxes, totally committed to preserving its own national sovereignty, unabashedly Christian in a world part secular and part Muslim, suspicious of the Great Global Warming panic, it was unique.
These strengths had been fading for some time, mainly due to poorly controlled mass immigration and to the march of political correctness. They had also been weakened by the failure of America’s conservative party – the Republicans – to fight on the cultural and moral fronts.
They preferred to posture on the world stage. Scared of confronting Left-wing teachers and sexual revolutionaries at home, they could order soldiers to be brave on their behalf in far-off deserts. And now the US, like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World. How sad. Where now is our last best hope on Earth?
Peter Jonathan Hitchens (born 28 October 1951 in Sliema, Malta) is a British journalist and author. A reporter for the Daily Express for most of his career, he left the paper in 2001 and currently writes for the The Mail on Sunday. Hitchens was educated at The Leys School, the Oxford College of Further Education, and the University of York. He married Eve Ross in 1983; they have three children. Although raised as an Anglican, Hitchens learned soon after his marriage that his mother, who had committed suicide when he was in his twenties, was of partly Jewish ancestry[1]. His older brother is Christopher Hitchens, also a prominent journalist.
The night we waved goodbye to America... our last best hope on Earth
Thanks and a tip of the beret to my brother in law Raymond...
Jhesu+Marie
de Brantigny
Sunday, November 30, 2008
George W Bush and abandoning Conservativism
Carlos Caso-Rosendi has writen an opinion piece for his blog casorosendi.com. We agree on this. Here I sit in Chicago at my parents home surrounded by Liberals. They know I am a conservative, so they instantly assume I approve of GWB. No amount of discussion can disuade them from this idea that to be conservative means Republican. It is frustrating for a Monarchist. Carlos has captured my thoughts and has verbalized they far better than I...
We are at the midnight hour of election day in America. Two years ago, the so called "conservatives" in power took a beating at the polls. Did that happen because the administration policies were too conservative, and the country wanted a more liberal course?
No.
It happened because, after 9-11, the Republican administration started behaving like the Lyndon Johnson administration, growing the size of government and spending money as if there was no tomorrow. Hurricane Katrina showed us an incompetent U.S. President, surrounded by incompetent executive aides. One must admit that one of them was aptly named "Brownie". At this point I must make a serious effort not to make a very crass analogy. But I digress.
The war in Irak—justified or not—was incompetently managed until good Gen. Petraeus was given the command and the tools and personnel to turn the disaster around. Gen. Petraeus did an excellent job, militarily and politically. He certainly deserves our grateful admiration. Why those changes were not implemented 48 months before? I hate to repeat myself but no synonyms of "incompetence" come to mind.
Meanwhile, government kept growing. Apparently, the network of national security and intelligence agencies that worked brilliantly for decades keeping the nefarious Soviets at bay, was not enough to keep a bearded idiot plotting in a cave from harming us. We had to move everything around and create Homeland Security. Again, I have no idea if that was necessary or not, but one thing I know: it was not a cheap move.
Then came the financial debacle cooked in the halls of Fraudie Mac and Phony Mae under the watchful eyes of our beloved House Financial Services Committee and Senate Banking Commission. Oh! If we had appointed them to take care of the World Trade Center Towers, may be they would have guarded them with the same zeal they guarded the jeweled minarets of Fraudie Mac and Phony Mae! Too bad we did not think of that! Here we are left with a $300,000,000,000 i.o.u. That is the down payment to "save our economy." Thank you our dear Harvard and Yale MBA's!
Not surprisingly, the American voters would have elected ANYONE but a Republican to the presidency this year of the Lord 2008. The size of the punishment fits the size of the monumental incompetence of the pseudo-conservatives. Am I glad they were conservatives! Should they have been liberals, we could be sending our firstborn to China to pay for the latest piece of crap made in Tianjin!
And finally, this prickly issue of the "pro-life" vote. Thanks to you, incompetent pseudo-conservatives, we may have handed the helm and power of the United States to the most Malthusian, pro-abortion administration ever. The little progress we had made for the pro-life cause in the last eight years, is sure to be steamrolled by the hordes of Planned Parenthood and the Party of Death. Wear that in your conscience, Brownies.
I have one more thing to do and that is to congratulate Mr. Barack Obama for an efficient and effective campaign. Sen. Obama, with little political experience managed to organize a winning force out of nothing. Quite a contrast with the administration's gang that could not shoot straight: they got a country with a surplus of reserves and left it nearly bankrupt. We voted for McCain eight years too late!
I hope to see a few of you disappear from the Conservative Movement and retire. You have money and can do it without a problem. To the leaders of the Virginia Republican Party, and those Catholic Conservative 'leaders'—especially those who cannot keep it in their pants—to the whole Bush Brigade, including our most loyal General Pro-Choice: my sincere thanks. It will be nice not to see you any more.
To Mr. McCain, my admiration and sincere thanks for fighting the good fight and also for introducing Sarah Palin to the Conservative scene. She is like a breath of fresh air. I have high hopes for her. God bless both of you and your families.
Palin 2012
Thank You Carlos...
God Remains King!
de Brantigny
We are at the midnight hour of election day in America. Two years ago, the so called "conservatives" in power took a beating at the polls. Did that happen because the administration policies were too conservative, and the country wanted a more liberal course?
No.
It happened because, after 9-11, the Republican administration started behaving like the Lyndon Johnson administration, growing the size of government and spending money as if there was no tomorrow. Hurricane Katrina showed us an incompetent U.S. President, surrounded by incompetent executive aides. One must admit that one of them was aptly named "Brownie". At this point I must make a serious effort not to make a very crass analogy. But I digress.
The war in Irak—justified or not—was incompetently managed until good Gen. Petraeus was given the command and the tools and personnel to turn the disaster around. Gen. Petraeus did an excellent job, militarily and politically. He certainly deserves our grateful admiration. Why those changes were not implemented 48 months before? I hate to repeat myself but no synonyms of "incompetence" come to mind.
Meanwhile, government kept growing. Apparently, the network of national security and intelligence agencies that worked brilliantly for decades keeping the nefarious Soviets at bay, was not enough to keep a bearded idiot plotting in a cave from harming us. We had to move everything around and create Homeland Security. Again, I have no idea if that was necessary or not, but one thing I know: it was not a cheap move.
Then came the financial debacle cooked in the halls of Fraudie Mac and Phony Mae under the watchful eyes of our beloved House Financial Services Committee and Senate Banking Commission. Oh! If we had appointed them to take care of the World Trade Center Towers, may be they would have guarded them with the same zeal they guarded the jeweled minarets of Fraudie Mac and Phony Mae! Too bad we did not think of that! Here we are left with a $300,000,000,000 i.o.u. That is the down payment to "save our economy." Thank you our dear Harvard and Yale MBA's!
Not surprisingly, the American voters would have elected ANYONE but a Republican to the presidency this year of the Lord 2008. The size of the punishment fits the size of the monumental incompetence of the pseudo-conservatives. Am I glad they were conservatives! Should they have been liberals, we could be sending our firstborn to China to pay for the latest piece of crap made in Tianjin!
And finally, this prickly issue of the "pro-life" vote. Thanks to you, incompetent pseudo-conservatives, we may have handed the helm and power of the United States to the most Malthusian, pro-abortion administration ever. The little progress we had made for the pro-life cause in the last eight years, is sure to be steamrolled by the hordes of Planned Parenthood and the Party of Death. Wear that in your conscience, Brownies.
I have one more thing to do and that is to congratulate Mr. Barack Obama for an efficient and effective campaign. Sen. Obama, with little political experience managed to organize a winning force out of nothing. Quite a contrast with the administration's gang that could not shoot straight: they got a country with a surplus of reserves and left it nearly bankrupt. We voted for McCain eight years too late!
I hope to see a few of you disappear from the Conservative Movement and retire. You have money and can do it without a problem. To the leaders of the Virginia Republican Party, and those Catholic Conservative 'leaders'—especially those who cannot keep it in their pants—to the whole Bush Brigade, including our most loyal General Pro-Choice: my sincere thanks. It will be nice not to see you any more.
To Mr. McCain, my admiration and sincere thanks for fighting the good fight and also for introducing Sarah Palin to the Conservative scene. She is like a breath of fresh air. I have high hopes for her. God bless both of you and your families.
Palin 2012
Thank You Carlos...
God Remains King!
de Brantigny
Monday, November 24, 2008
Liberalism: Sin, Iniquity, Abomination
Liberalism: Sin, Iniquity, Abomination
By Rev. Fr. Horacio Bojorge, S. J.
This essay by Rev. Fr. Horacio Bojorge has been published in Spanish by Ediciones del Alcázar, Buenos Aires, under the title El Liberalismo es la Iniquidad—La Rebelión Contra el Padre (Liberalism is 'the' Iniquity-The Rebellion Against the Father.)
Many authors have exposed the failures and flaws of Liberalism, its historical and philosophical precedents, and consequences. In this exposition we shall analyze the concept of liberalism as sin. This is what liberalism really represents: a systematic rebellion against Divine Paternity. In the classic sense of the word, Liberalism is an abomination.
Liberalism is not simply a sin but 'the' sin. Therefore, when we call it "a sin", we could misunderstand it as just another sin among many. In reality, liberalism is the sin par excellence, root, base and pinnacle of all sin.
By introducing this brief precision I believe I have interpreted correctly the ultimate intention of Fr. Felix Sardá i Salvany, who titled his work Liberalism is Sin [1]
The thesis
When I say that Liberalism is 'the' sin, the quintessential sin; I intent to advance one step closer to the comprehension of the type of sin we are dealing with, and the reason why Liberalism must be defined in that unique way.
My thesis could be summarized as follows: Liberalism is 'the' sin, because Liberalism is intrinsically evil. It is the sin against the Holy Spirit, the rejection of the Son, and the rebellion against the Father.
We need to understand the importance and depth of this affirmation. Liberalism is the direct sin against Christ and the Father. Consequently, it is a sin against the Holy Spirit. We shall see later that this is the sin that is called "the iniquity" in the New Testament, the sin of the Devil. The book of wisdom says that by envy—by ακηδία [1] of the Devil—death entered the world and those who belong to them, experience that death when they rebel against God, [2] and just like the Devil they aspire to place themselves in the place of God. They are also in accordance with the Devil in his negative to serve God. This is the sum of all evil, the supreme iniquity. Its complete manifestation is reserved for the Time of the End. This is what Saint Paul calls "The Mystery of Iniquity" (Mysterium Iniquitatis.) [3]
Liberalism is exposed as a manifestation of the mystery of iniquity, denounced by Saint Paul as a force acting incipiently in a covert manner already in apostolic times.
We will return to this topic and examine it in more detail. However, it is convenient to define in advance the concept of iniquity. According to the New Testament, iniquity consists in rejecting Jesus Christ and the revelation of God the Father, as agents of man's life and salvation. Iniquity is the opposition to the Holy Spirit by an impure spirit. It is therefore a direct sin against the Holy Spirit.
This rejection can be explicit or implicit. Explicit like that of the Jews and others who deny the validity of the Christian revelation in history. Implicit, like that of the practical atheists, or those who are indifferent, or those who do not oppose the truth but simply consider truth implicit, and relegate it to the bin of unnecessary, or inconvenient things that are hard to explain.
A recent example
Let me propose an example to show which types of silence, omission, or forgetfulness I am referring to.
His Holiness Benedict XVI introduced a small modification in the text of the Theme of the Fifth Conference of the Episcopate in Latin America and the Caribbean. The title of the theme that was presented to him was: "Disciples and missionaries of Jesus Christ, so that our peoples may have life".
The Pope added two words: 'in Him', changing it to "Disciples and missionaries of Jesus Christ, so that our peoples may have life 'in Him'".
With this smallest addition of two words ('in Him') the Pope called our attention to something fundamentally essential. If that something would have remained implicit, it could have covered a dire ambiguity in the comprehension of the expression "may have life".
To have life 'in Him' means to have the fullness of life as sons. The life announced by Jesus Christ. The goal of the disciple's mission remains defined explicitly by its objective: "so that they may have life 'in Him'".
This inspired addition, introduced by the Vicar of Christ, prevented the whole theme of the Conference, (and even the Conference itself) from being infected by that kind of Gramscian reductionism, that limits the life of man to a purely material existence. That immanentist reduction that has its roots in Rationalism, Naturalism, and Liberalism, finding its final form in Marxist Materialism.
I would be satisfied if, at the end of my exposition, I had been able to explain the nature of the sin of Liberalism, helping to comprehend better the nature of the danger avoided by the Pope, when he reminded us that the goal of our missionary work is to aid the peoples to have life in Christ through the message of God the Father. That life is the fullness of life that we can only have 'in Him'. Such life consists of entering in communion with the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ, by means of the Holy Spirit.
Notice how, at the bottom of that vague imprecision in the original phrase—at the root of that casual omission—lay something that could have been wrongly construed as an essential part of the Gospel. That ambiguity left just enough room for a surreptitious infection of the message with the Liberal concept that separates human life from its life in God. In that Naturalist vision, the ultimate horizon in the life of man is merely the quality of life.
That silence could have been particularly damaging if its origin would have been a forgetting of the essential. It would have been demonic if its origin would have been a conscious aversion towards the essential.
Félix Sardá i Salvany: Liberalism is sin
Before going any further it is necessary to define, as a fundamental point of reference, the diagnostic given to us by Fr. Félix Sardá i Salvany in his work "Liberalism is Sin". There Fr. Sardá writes:
Liberalism, whether in the doctrinal or practical order, is a sin. In the doctrinal order, it is heresy, and consequently a mortal sin against faith. In the practical order, it is a sin against the commandments of God and of the Church, for it virtually transgresses all commandments. To be more precise: in the doctrinal order, Liberalism strikes at the very foundations of faith; it is heresy radical and universal, because within it all heresies are comprehended. In the practical order it is a radical and universal infraction of the divine law, since it sanctions and authorizes all infractions of that law.
Liberalism is a heresy in the doctrinal order because heresy is the formal and obstinate denial of all Christian dogmas in general. It repudiates dogma altogether and substitutes opinion, whether that opinion be doctrinal or the negation of doctrine. Consequently, it denies every doctrine in particular. If we were to examine in detail all the doctrines or dogmas which, within the range of Liberalism, have been denied, we would find every Christian dogma in one way or another rejected—from the dogma of the Incarnation to that of Infallibility.
Nonetheless Liberalism is in itself dogmatic; and it is in the declaration of its own fundamental dogma, the absolute independence of the individual and the social reason, that it denies all Christian dogmas in general. Catholic dogma is the authoritative declaration of revealed truth—or a truth consequent upon Revelation—by its infallibly constituted exponent [the Pope]. This logically implies the obedient acceptance of the dogma on the part of the individual and of society. Liberalism refuses to acknowledge this rational obedience and denies the authority. It asserts the sovereignty of the individual and social reason and enthrones Rationalism in the seat of authority. It knows no dogma except the dogma of self-assertion. Hence it is heresy, fundamental and radical, the rebellion of the human intellect against God.
It follows, therefore, that Liberalism denies the absolute jurisdiction of Jesus Christ, who is God, over individuals and over society, and by consequence, repudiates the jurisdiction which God has delegated to the visible head of the Church over each and all of the faithful, whatever their condition or rank in life. Moreover, it denies the necessity of divine Revelation and the obligation of everyone to accept that Revelation under pain of eternal perdition. It denies the formal motive of faith, viz., the authority of God revealing, and admits only as much of revealed doctrine as it chooses or comprehends within its own narrow capacity. It denies the infallible magistracy of the Church and of the Pope, and consequently all the doctrines defined and taught by this divine authority. In short, it sets itself up as the measure and rule of faith and thus really shuts out Revelation altogether. It denies everything which it itself does not proclaim. It negates everything which it itself does not affirm. But not being able to affirm any truth beyond its own reach, it denies the possibility of any truth which it does not comprehend. The revelation of truth above human reason it therefore debars at the outset. The divinity of Jesus Christ is beyond its horoscope. The Church is outside its comprehension. The submission of human reason to the Word of Christ or its divinely constituted exponent [the Catholic Church, especially the Pope] is to it intolerable. It is, therefore, the radical and universal denial of all divine truth and Christian dogma, the primal type of all heresy, and the supreme rebellion against the authority of God and His Church. As with Lucifer, its maxim is, "I will not serve." Such is the general negation uttered by Liberalism. From this radical denial of revealed truth in general naturally follows the denial of particular dogmas, in whole or in part (as circumstances present them in opposition to its rationalistic judgment). Thus, for instance, it denies the validity of faith by Baptism, when it admits or supposes the equality of any or all religious cults; it denies the sanctity of marriage when it sanctions so-called civil marriages; it denies the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, when it refuses to accept as laws his official commands and teachings and subjects them to the scrutiny of its own intellect—not to assure itself of their authenticity, as is legitimate, but to sit in defiant judgment upon their contents.
When we come to the practical order, Liberalism is radical immorality. Morality requires a standard and a guide for rational action; it postulates a hierarchy of ends, and therefore of order, within whose series there is a subordination of means to the attainment of an ultimate purpose. It therefore requires a principle or fundamental rule of all action, by which the subject of moral acts, the rational creature, determines his course and guides himself to the attainment of his end. In the moral order, the Eternal Reason alone can be that principle or fundamental rule of action, and this Eternal Reason is God. In the moral order, the created reason, with power to determine its course, must guide itself by the light of the Uncreated Reason, Who is the beginning and end of all things. The law, therefore, imposed by the Eternal Reason upon the creature must be the principle or rule of morality. Hence, obedience and submission in the moral order is an absolute requisite of morality. But Liberalism has proclaimed the absurd principle of the absolute sovereignty of human reason; it denies any reason beyond itself and asserts its independence in the order of knowledge, and hence in the order of action or morality. Here we have morality without law, without order, freedom to do what one pleases, or what comes to the same thing, morality which is not morality, for morality implies the idea not only of direction, but also essentially demands that of restraint and limitation under the control of law. Liberalism in the order of action is license, recognizing no principle or rule beyond itself.
We may then say of Liberalism: in the order of ideas it is absolute error; in the order of facts it is absolute disorder. It is, therefore, in both cases a very grievous and deadly sin, for sin is rebellion against God in thought or in deed, the enthronement of the creature in the place of the Creator. [4]
The road to follow
Fr. Sardá i Salvany tells the truth. There is more, though a lot is implicit in the precise diagnostic of the Spanish apologist. The first consequence we that Liberalism is 'the sin' in a specific sense: it is 'the iniquity' identified in the New Testament as the setting in place of the supreme anti-Christian, anti-God evil. The seed of that iniquity lies hidden in history waiting to sprout a virulent manifestation. This is also an eschatological sign, because it is the cause of the final dissolution of mankind an the preamble to the reign of the Antichrist.
As we shall see, Saint John defines 'that sin' as η ανομία (ē anomía 'the iniquity'). This sin is particular and unique, this η ανομία (indifferent negligence that makes no difference between good and evil) always appears in the New Testament as a characteristic of the Antichrist and the End of Times, the Final Judgment, or the παρουσία (parousia) of Our Lord Jesus Christ. From the beginning of the Church it is applied to the rejection of Jesus Christ and God the Father, whom the Son comes to reveal. Saint John affirms that in his First Letter:
"... many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour [...] This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also." [5]
That denial or rejection was experienced by Jesus Christ Himself during his life. He defined it as a "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit". [6] The same rejection was experienced by all the apostolic ecclesial communities, because it is present and operates within them. Saint John and also Saint Paul interpreted its nature in the light of the words of Jesus. They announced its recrudescence in the End of Times.
One example of evil language
As a sample of the language of the modern iniquity, please read what was said by David Friedrich Strauss, Pastor and Theologian, self-appointed arbiter of what we should consider an acceptable Christ:
As long as Christianity is considered like something given to Mankind from outside itself; Christ as something who came from Heaven; His Church like an institution for the forgiveness of sins by means of His blood; Christianity will be understood in a Jewish way and the Religion of the Spirit will continue to be fleshly. Christianity will only be understood when we recognize in it a Mankind made more aware of itself than it has ever been aware so far: that Jesus is only that Man in Whom that profound conscience was manifested for the first time like a force determinant of His whole life and His whole being; and that sin can be erased only by access to this new conscience. [7]
The rebellion against the Father
The aforementioned words of Saint John, teach us that lastly, 'the sin', the worse evil, is the rejection of God the Father, the rebellion against a God-Father. That rejection and rebellion are manifested in the rejection of the Son (sent by the Father,) and of those disciples sent by the Son. The Son is rejected because the Father is also rejected. The Father is rejected by those seeking to avoid being subject to Him by filial obedience.
We must remember that the rejection of both obedience and subjection to God's government of human affairs has long established biblical roots. Remember the people of Israel who wanted to be freed from the lead of Moses [8]. Later, the Israelites asked Samuel to give them a King, like the kings of the neighboring nations.
God interpreted that request as an intent of secularization of political life, a form of early liberalism: "They have not rejected you, they have rejected Me, so that I don't rule over them." [9] Certainly, the Israelite monarchy would come to be the history of the infidelities of the chosen people to their Covenant with God, with the kings they have asked for, acting as leaders of the apostasy.
In the New Testament we find the Parable of the Murderous Vineyard Workers. They kill the son to take possession of their master's vineyard for themselves.
Let us recall the words of Jesus: "He who receives you, receives me, and he who receives me, receives the One who sent me." [10] Also, inversely: "He who rejects you, rejects me; and he who rejects me, rejects the Father who sent me." [11]
The rejection of God found in the Old Testament continues manifesting itself, as reported in the New Testament, in the form of a rejection of God the Father.
Heresies of Liberal origin
Within the Christian world—including the Catholic world—there were produced certain forms of religious liberalism. This religious Liberalism, criticized by John Henry Cardinal Newman, produced deviations and heretic theologies containing the rejection of God the Father that we observe and suffer even today.
One of them was the so-called Deism. Deism accepts God as a Creator, a Supreme Architect. But, once the house has been constructed, God leaves it in the hands of its inhabitants. He does not keep any relation with them, leaving them without the possibility of communion or closeness. Deism was a Naturalist, Rationalist rejection of the Christian revelation. It believed in a Creator God with whom there is no possible communion or communication.
Cardinal Pie cleverly diagnosed that, rejecting the communion with a God that invites us to commune, "it is nothing but the fear of vertigo produced by the wondrous heights that God calls us to climb." [12] That fear to the sublime union, will later invade all dimensions of human life, giving origin to Liberal individualism, the master-slave dialectic substituting Christian brotherhood, class warfare, and finally, the dictatorship of the envious that will impose the hatred of the best [13] and the tyranny of Equalitarianism in the name of Democracy.
From Jesus 'without Father' to Jesus 'against the Father'
A further consequence of religious Liberalism has been the Reductionist vision of Christ, in the style of the one proposed by David Friedrich Strauss we read earlier. This Jesuanism presents a historical Jesus separated from the Christ of the faith, with no reference ever being made to the Father as the final goal of the Gospel's message.
In the theological-pastoral discourse emerging from that proposition, the Father is relegated to a silent, implicit role. The Father is only explained when someone demands an explanation.
The Dominican Father Le Guillou has said about that contemporary Jesuanism:
"This places [...] Christ, not with the Father, but in lieu of the Father. In that way we see the vague design of a kind of Christicism, or Jesuanism (generally leaving the name of the Father silent) that tries to pass for real Christianity." [14]
Saint Paul teaches us: "But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?" [15] That which is not preached is not believed. That is the horrific consequence of leaving the Father in an implicit role, falling outside the conscience of both preacher and faithful.
This fact has been pointed out by Monsignor Josef Cordes in his work: The Eclipse of the Father, in these words:
"When one asks the great contemporary theologians of both confessions (Protestant and Catholic) about the Father of Jesus Christ, one acquires a surprising perspective: the researchers think more frequently and more markedly about 'God' that in the "Eternal Father'. If one calculates the statistical average of how many times the word 'Father' is used in the Father-Son relationship, the word is sadly relegated." [16]
This is the result of the liberal contagion that has affected the common sense of culture and overflows to the faithful, affecting them and the preachers as well. Once could say, extending the words of Saint Paul: How will they preach if they don't believe?
The Jesuanism, or pastoral criticism, is frequently proposed by the Protestant sects and ecclesial communities. Protestants preachers heard in tents and radio programs come to mind. Their message is the announcement of Christ as the personal savior, without a reference to the Father, nor the entering in communion with Him as the point of completion of the salvation they announce.
That same illness has been extended among, and penetrates into the common sense of Catholics, priests and theologians included. I refer you to your own experience in hearing the preachers in our own temples.
Something caught my attention in the final message of the Conference of Aparecida—please note that I am not referring to the magnificent Final Document of the Conference, but to the Final Message, a sort of draft of the Final Document written by the Ad Hoc Commission—In this Final Message, different from the later, final document, the Father ends up relegated to an implicit role in the whole opening part, the doctrinal-kerygmatic speaking of Jesus (10 times,) or Lord Jesus (1 time,) or Jesus Christ (4 times.) In the message the Father is mentioned three times. He is never mentioned in the first part, where Jesus Christ is presented, but later after passing over the doctrinal-kerygmatic moment, in the parenthetical context of the fourth and fifth sections. In this manner Jesus Christ is presented predominantly as Jesus, without an explicit reference to His Father.
The contrast with the original discourse of Benedict XVI is remarkable. There, Benedict XVI reiterates explicitly, that the Father is the goal of the evangelizing process to which the Conference of Aparecida is calling. [17] That is reflected in the Final Document.
This phenomenon I have been describing so far—the growing detachment of Jesus from the Father in pastoral preaching—is emphasized until it reaches a form of paroxysm in the diffusion of Freudian psychoanalysis.
Father Ignatius Anderggen has written:
Freudian psychoanalysis, as a method and technique, is intrinsically in solidarity with its fundamental intent of reaching a full awareness of the rebellion of man against God the Father, the rebellion rooted in the unconscious structure of those vices and passions of man that have not been restored by grace. This intention of Freud, and also of Nietzsche, consists in their conscious opposition against God and their pretension of taking God's place." [18]
Will continue soon...
References
[1] ακηδία, pron. ah-ceh-dee-ah; meaning negligence, indifference, for the wicked are indifferent, make no distinction between good and evil. Latin acidĭa, derived from the same Greek word.
[2] Wisdom 2, 24.
[3] 2 Thessalonians 2,7.
[4] Félix Sardá i Salvany, El liberalismo es pecado, (Liberalism is Sin), Ediciones Cruz y Fierro, Buenos Aires, 1977. Colección Clásicos Contrarrevolucionarios 2. Cited from the Spanish edition in c. III pp. 32-34.
[5] 1 John 2, 18-23.
[6] Mark 3, 29.
[7] David Friedrich Strauss, Das Leben Jesu, für das deutsche Volk bearbeitet (The Life of Jesus for German Working People), Leipzig 1864, p. 18.
[8] Exodus 32, 1: When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered themselves together to Aaron, and said to him, "Up, make us gods, who shall go before us; as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him."
[9] 1 Samuel 8, 7; Cfr. Luke 19, 14 `We do not want this man to reign over us.'
[10] Matthew 10, 40.
[11] Luke 10, 16.
[12] Alfredo Sáenz, El Cardenal Pie. Lucidez y Coraje al Servicio de la Verdad. (Cardenal Pie. Lucidity and Courage in the Service of Truth). Editorial Gladius, Buenos Aires. 2nd. Ed. 2007, p. 276.
[13] See the study by Helmut Schoeck, La Envidia. Una Teoría de la Sociedad (Envy. A Theory of Society). Ed. Club de Lectores, Buenos Aires 1969.
[14] M. J. Le Guillou, O.P. El Misterio del Padre. Fe de los Apóstoles (The Mystery of the Father. Faith of the Apostles). Gnosis Actuales. Editorial Encuentro, Madrid 1998, p. 196.
[15] Romans 10, 14.
[16] Mons. Paul Josef Cordes, El Eclipse del Padre (The Eclipse of the Father), Editorial Palabra, Madrid 2003, 1967, cited in p. 167.
[17] In the discourse of Benedict XVI the reference of Jesus Christ to the Father is very clear. Jesus has come to reveal the Father. The discourse expresses clearly this relation of Jesus to the Father in three main passages.
1-By pointing at what must be done by the Conference of Aparecida with the situation faced by the Latin American Continent at this point. "A new situation is being analyzed here in Aparecida. Facing these crossroads, the, the faithful expect of this new Conference, a renewal and revitalization of their faith in Christ, our only Teacher and Savior, who has revealed to us the unique experience of the Father's infinite love for mankind."
2-By pointing at Jesus as the one who reveals God: "For the Christian the nucleus of the response is simple" Only God knows God, only His Son, Who is God, is from God, true God can know Him. "He who is 'in the bossom of the Father', has revealed Him."
3-By pointing at the charism and the mission of those religious and consecrated people: "remind your brothers and sisters that the Kingdom of God has arrived already; that justice and truth are possible if we are open to the loving presence of God our Father, of Christ our Brother and Lord, and the Holy Spirit our Consoler."
[18] Fr. Ignatius Andereggen: Santo Tomás de Aquino- Psicólogo (St. Thomas Aquinas-Psychologist). Sapientia, 205 (1999) 59-68. R. Fr. Andereggen refers these affirmations by Sigmund Freud to: Totem y Tabú (Totem and Taboo), Buenos Aires 1993, 155-156.
[19] Mons. Paul Josef Cordes, El Eclipse del Padre (The Eclipse of the Father), Editorial Palabra, Madrid 2003, 1967, p. 179.
Thank you Carlos. However, I have to remind you that if liberialism is a sin, then an elected government is sinful. It places the state in the supreme authority over the lives of the people (subjects). Is it not as if the children give the parents authority to raise them? http://lefleurdelystoo.blogspot.com/2008/09/democracy.html
A tip of the beret to you...
Jhesu+Marie,
de Brantigny
By Rev. Fr. Horacio Bojorge, S. J.
This essay by Rev. Fr. Horacio Bojorge has been published in Spanish by Ediciones del Alcázar, Buenos Aires, under the title El Liberalismo es la Iniquidad—La Rebelión Contra el Padre (Liberalism is 'the' Iniquity-The Rebellion Against the Father.)
Many authors have exposed the failures and flaws of Liberalism, its historical and philosophical precedents, and consequences. In this exposition we shall analyze the concept of liberalism as sin. This is what liberalism really represents: a systematic rebellion against Divine Paternity. In the classic sense of the word, Liberalism is an abomination.
Liberalism is not simply a sin but 'the' sin. Therefore, when we call it "a sin", we could misunderstand it as just another sin among many. In reality, liberalism is the sin par excellence, root, base and pinnacle of all sin.
By introducing this brief precision I believe I have interpreted correctly the ultimate intention of Fr. Felix Sardá i Salvany, who titled his work Liberalism is Sin [1]
The thesis
When I say that Liberalism is 'the' sin, the quintessential sin; I intent to advance one step closer to the comprehension of the type of sin we are dealing with, and the reason why Liberalism must be defined in that unique way.
My thesis could be summarized as follows: Liberalism is 'the' sin, because Liberalism is intrinsically evil. It is the sin against the Holy Spirit, the rejection of the Son, and the rebellion against the Father.
We need to understand the importance and depth of this affirmation. Liberalism is the direct sin against Christ and the Father. Consequently, it is a sin against the Holy Spirit. We shall see later that this is the sin that is called "the iniquity" in the New Testament, the sin of the Devil. The book of wisdom says that by envy—by ακηδία [1] of the Devil—death entered the world and those who belong to them, experience that death when they rebel against God, [2] and just like the Devil they aspire to place themselves in the place of God. They are also in accordance with the Devil in his negative to serve God. This is the sum of all evil, the supreme iniquity. Its complete manifestation is reserved for the Time of the End. This is what Saint Paul calls "The Mystery of Iniquity" (Mysterium Iniquitatis.) [3]
Liberalism is exposed as a manifestation of the mystery of iniquity, denounced by Saint Paul as a force acting incipiently in a covert manner already in apostolic times.
We will return to this topic and examine it in more detail. However, it is convenient to define in advance the concept of iniquity. According to the New Testament, iniquity consists in rejecting Jesus Christ and the revelation of God the Father, as agents of man's life and salvation. Iniquity is the opposition to the Holy Spirit by an impure spirit. It is therefore a direct sin against the Holy Spirit.
This rejection can be explicit or implicit. Explicit like that of the Jews and others who deny the validity of the Christian revelation in history. Implicit, like that of the practical atheists, or those who are indifferent, or those who do not oppose the truth but simply consider truth implicit, and relegate it to the bin of unnecessary, or inconvenient things that are hard to explain.
A recent example
Let me propose an example to show which types of silence, omission, or forgetfulness I am referring to.
His Holiness Benedict XVI introduced a small modification in the text of the Theme of the Fifth Conference of the Episcopate in Latin America and the Caribbean. The title of the theme that was presented to him was: "Disciples and missionaries of Jesus Christ, so that our peoples may have life".
The Pope added two words: 'in Him', changing it to "Disciples and missionaries of Jesus Christ, so that our peoples may have life 'in Him'".
With this smallest addition of two words ('in Him') the Pope called our attention to something fundamentally essential. If that something would have remained implicit, it could have covered a dire ambiguity in the comprehension of the expression "may have life".
To have life 'in Him' means to have the fullness of life as sons. The life announced by Jesus Christ. The goal of the disciple's mission remains defined explicitly by its objective: "so that they may have life 'in Him'".
This inspired addition, introduced by the Vicar of Christ, prevented the whole theme of the Conference, (and even the Conference itself) from being infected by that kind of Gramscian reductionism, that limits the life of man to a purely material existence. That immanentist reduction that has its roots in Rationalism, Naturalism, and Liberalism, finding its final form in Marxist Materialism.
I would be satisfied if, at the end of my exposition, I had been able to explain the nature of the sin of Liberalism, helping to comprehend better the nature of the danger avoided by the Pope, when he reminded us that the goal of our missionary work is to aid the peoples to have life in Christ through the message of God the Father. That life is the fullness of life that we can only have 'in Him'. Such life consists of entering in communion with the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ, by means of the Holy Spirit.
Notice how, at the bottom of that vague imprecision in the original phrase—at the root of that casual omission—lay something that could have been wrongly construed as an essential part of the Gospel. That ambiguity left just enough room for a surreptitious infection of the message with the Liberal concept that separates human life from its life in God. In that Naturalist vision, the ultimate horizon in the life of man is merely the quality of life.
That silence could have been particularly damaging if its origin would have been a forgetting of the essential. It would have been demonic if its origin would have been a conscious aversion towards the essential.
Félix Sardá i Salvany: Liberalism is sin
Before going any further it is necessary to define, as a fundamental point of reference, the diagnostic given to us by Fr. Félix Sardá i Salvany in his work "Liberalism is Sin". There Fr. Sardá writes:
Liberalism, whether in the doctrinal or practical order, is a sin. In the doctrinal order, it is heresy, and consequently a mortal sin against faith. In the practical order, it is a sin against the commandments of God and of the Church, for it virtually transgresses all commandments. To be more precise: in the doctrinal order, Liberalism strikes at the very foundations of faith; it is heresy radical and universal, because within it all heresies are comprehended. In the practical order it is a radical and universal infraction of the divine law, since it sanctions and authorizes all infractions of that law.
Liberalism is a heresy in the doctrinal order because heresy is the formal and obstinate denial of all Christian dogmas in general. It repudiates dogma altogether and substitutes opinion, whether that opinion be doctrinal or the negation of doctrine. Consequently, it denies every doctrine in particular. If we were to examine in detail all the doctrines or dogmas which, within the range of Liberalism, have been denied, we would find every Christian dogma in one way or another rejected—from the dogma of the Incarnation to that of Infallibility.
Nonetheless Liberalism is in itself dogmatic; and it is in the declaration of its own fundamental dogma, the absolute independence of the individual and the social reason, that it denies all Christian dogmas in general. Catholic dogma is the authoritative declaration of revealed truth—or a truth consequent upon Revelation—by its infallibly constituted exponent [the Pope]. This logically implies the obedient acceptance of the dogma on the part of the individual and of society. Liberalism refuses to acknowledge this rational obedience and denies the authority. It asserts the sovereignty of the individual and social reason and enthrones Rationalism in the seat of authority. It knows no dogma except the dogma of self-assertion. Hence it is heresy, fundamental and radical, the rebellion of the human intellect against God.
It follows, therefore, that Liberalism denies the absolute jurisdiction of Jesus Christ, who is God, over individuals and over society, and by consequence, repudiates the jurisdiction which God has delegated to the visible head of the Church over each and all of the faithful, whatever their condition or rank in life. Moreover, it denies the necessity of divine Revelation and the obligation of everyone to accept that Revelation under pain of eternal perdition. It denies the formal motive of faith, viz., the authority of God revealing, and admits only as much of revealed doctrine as it chooses or comprehends within its own narrow capacity. It denies the infallible magistracy of the Church and of the Pope, and consequently all the doctrines defined and taught by this divine authority. In short, it sets itself up as the measure and rule of faith and thus really shuts out Revelation altogether. It denies everything which it itself does not proclaim. It negates everything which it itself does not affirm. But not being able to affirm any truth beyond its own reach, it denies the possibility of any truth which it does not comprehend. The revelation of truth above human reason it therefore debars at the outset. The divinity of Jesus Christ is beyond its horoscope. The Church is outside its comprehension. The submission of human reason to the Word of Christ or its divinely constituted exponent [the Catholic Church, especially the Pope] is to it intolerable. It is, therefore, the radical and universal denial of all divine truth and Christian dogma, the primal type of all heresy, and the supreme rebellion against the authority of God and His Church. As with Lucifer, its maxim is, "I will not serve." Such is the general negation uttered by Liberalism. From this radical denial of revealed truth in general naturally follows the denial of particular dogmas, in whole or in part (as circumstances present them in opposition to its rationalistic judgment). Thus, for instance, it denies the validity of faith by Baptism, when it admits or supposes the equality of any or all religious cults; it denies the sanctity of marriage when it sanctions so-called civil marriages; it denies the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, when it refuses to accept as laws his official commands and teachings and subjects them to the scrutiny of its own intellect—not to assure itself of their authenticity, as is legitimate, but to sit in defiant judgment upon their contents.
When we come to the practical order, Liberalism is radical immorality. Morality requires a standard and a guide for rational action; it postulates a hierarchy of ends, and therefore of order, within whose series there is a subordination of means to the attainment of an ultimate purpose. It therefore requires a principle or fundamental rule of all action, by which the subject of moral acts, the rational creature, determines his course and guides himself to the attainment of his end. In the moral order, the Eternal Reason alone can be that principle or fundamental rule of action, and this Eternal Reason is God. In the moral order, the created reason, with power to determine its course, must guide itself by the light of the Uncreated Reason, Who is the beginning and end of all things. The law, therefore, imposed by the Eternal Reason upon the creature must be the principle or rule of morality. Hence, obedience and submission in the moral order is an absolute requisite of morality. But Liberalism has proclaimed the absurd principle of the absolute sovereignty of human reason; it denies any reason beyond itself and asserts its independence in the order of knowledge, and hence in the order of action or morality. Here we have morality without law, without order, freedom to do what one pleases, or what comes to the same thing, morality which is not morality, for morality implies the idea not only of direction, but also essentially demands that of restraint and limitation under the control of law. Liberalism in the order of action is license, recognizing no principle or rule beyond itself.
We may then say of Liberalism: in the order of ideas it is absolute error; in the order of facts it is absolute disorder. It is, therefore, in both cases a very grievous and deadly sin, for sin is rebellion against God in thought or in deed, the enthronement of the creature in the place of the Creator. [4]
The road to follow
Fr. Sardá i Salvany tells the truth. There is more, though a lot is implicit in the precise diagnostic of the Spanish apologist. The first consequence we that Liberalism is 'the sin' in a specific sense: it is 'the iniquity' identified in the New Testament as the setting in place of the supreme anti-Christian, anti-God evil. The seed of that iniquity lies hidden in history waiting to sprout a virulent manifestation. This is also an eschatological sign, because it is the cause of the final dissolution of mankind an the preamble to the reign of the Antichrist.
As we shall see, Saint John defines 'that sin' as η ανομία (ē anomía 'the iniquity'). This sin is particular and unique, this η ανομία (indifferent negligence that makes no difference between good and evil) always appears in the New Testament as a characteristic of the Antichrist and the End of Times, the Final Judgment, or the παρουσία (parousia) of Our Lord Jesus Christ. From the beginning of the Church it is applied to the rejection of Jesus Christ and God the Father, whom the Son comes to reveal. Saint John affirms that in his First Letter:
"... many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour [...] This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also." [5]
That denial or rejection was experienced by Jesus Christ Himself during his life. He defined it as a "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit". [6] The same rejection was experienced by all the apostolic ecclesial communities, because it is present and operates within them. Saint John and also Saint Paul interpreted its nature in the light of the words of Jesus. They announced its recrudescence in the End of Times.
One example of evil language
As a sample of the language of the modern iniquity, please read what was said by David Friedrich Strauss, Pastor and Theologian, self-appointed arbiter of what we should consider an acceptable Christ:
As long as Christianity is considered like something given to Mankind from outside itself; Christ as something who came from Heaven; His Church like an institution for the forgiveness of sins by means of His blood; Christianity will be understood in a Jewish way and the Religion of the Spirit will continue to be fleshly. Christianity will only be understood when we recognize in it a Mankind made more aware of itself than it has ever been aware so far: that Jesus is only that Man in Whom that profound conscience was manifested for the first time like a force determinant of His whole life and His whole being; and that sin can be erased only by access to this new conscience. [7]
The rebellion against the Father
The aforementioned words of Saint John, teach us that lastly, 'the sin', the worse evil, is the rejection of God the Father, the rebellion against a God-Father. That rejection and rebellion are manifested in the rejection of the Son (sent by the Father,) and of those disciples sent by the Son. The Son is rejected because the Father is also rejected. The Father is rejected by those seeking to avoid being subject to Him by filial obedience.
We must remember that the rejection of both obedience and subjection to God's government of human affairs has long established biblical roots. Remember the people of Israel who wanted to be freed from the lead of Moses [8]. Later, the Israelites asked Samuel to give them a King, like the kings of the neighboring nations.
God interpreted that request as an intent of secularization of political life, a form of early liberalism: "They have not rejected you, they have rejected Me, so that I don't rule over them." [9] Certainly, the Israelite monarchy would come to be the history of the infidelities of the chosen people to their Covenant with God, with the kings they have asked for, acting as leaders of the apostasy.
In the New Testament we find the Parable of the Murderous Vineyard Workers. They kill the son to take possession of their master's vineyard for themselves.
Let us recall the words of Jesus: "He who receives you, receives me, and he who receives me, receives the One who sent me." [10] Also, inversely: "He who rejects you, rejects me; and he who rejects me, rejects the Father who sent me." [11]
The rejection of God found in the Old Testament continues manifesting itself, as reported in the New Testament, in the form of a rejection of God the Father.
Heresies of Liberal origin
Within the Christian world—including the Catholic world—there were produced certain forms of religious liberalism. This religious Liberalism, criticized by John Henry Cardinal Newman, produced deviations and heretic theologies containing the rejection of God the Father that we observe and suffer even today.
One of them was the so-called Deism. Deism accepts God as a Creator, a Supreme Architect. But, once the house has been constructed, God leaves it in the hands of its inhabitants. He does not keep any relation with them, leaving them without the possibility of communion or closeness. Deism was a Naturalist, Rationalist rejection of the Christian revelation. It believed in a Creator God with whom there is no possible communion or communication.
Cardinal Pie cleverly diagnosed that, rejecting the communion with a God that invites us to commune, "it is nothing but the fear of vertigo produced by the wondrous heights that God calls us to climb." [12] That fear to the sublime union, will later invade all dimensions of human life, giving origin to Liberal individualism, the master-slave dialectic substituting Christian brotherhood, class warfare, and finally, the dictatorship of the envious that will impose the hatred of the best [13] and the tyranny of Equalitarianism in the name of Democracy.
From Jesus 'without Father' to Jesus 'against the Father'
A further consequence of religious Liberalism has been the Reductionist vision of Christ, in the style of the one proposed by David Friedrich Strauss we read earlier. This Jesuanism presents a historical Jesus separated from the Christ of the faith, with no reference ever being made to the Father as the final goal of the Gospel's message.
In the theological-pastoral discourse emerging from that proposition, the Father is relegated to a silent, implicit role. The Father is only explained when someone demands an explanation.
The Dominican Father Le Guillou has said about that contemporary Jesuanism:
"This places [...] Christ, not with the Father, but in lieu of the Father. In that way we see the vague design of a kind of Christicism, or Jesuanism (generally leaving the name of the Father silent) that tries to pass for real Christianity." [14]
Saint Paul teaches us: "But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?" [15] That which is not preached is not believed. That is the horrific consequence of leaving the Father in an implicit role, falling outside the conscience of both preacher and faithful.
This fact has been pointed out by Monsignor Josef Cordes in his work: The Eclipse of the Father, in these words:
"When one asks the great contemporary theologians of both confessions (Protestant and Catholic) about the Father of Jesus Christ, one acquires a surprising perspective: the researchers think more frequently and more markedly about 'God' that in the "Eternal Father'. If one calculates the statistical average of how many times the word 'Father' is used in the Father-Son relationship, the word is sadly relegated." [16]
This is the result of the liberal contagion that has affected the common sense of culture and overflows to the faithful, affecting them and the preachers as well. Once could say, extending the words of Saint Paul: How will they preach if they don't believe?
The Jesuanism, or pastoral criticism, is frequently proposed by the Protestant sects and ecclesial communities. Protestants preachers heard in tents and radio programs come to mind. Their message is the announcement of Christ as the personal savior, without a reference to the Father, nor the entering in communion with Him as the point of completion of the salvation they announce.
That same illness has been extended among, and penetrates into the common sense of Catholics, priests and theologians included. I refer you to your own experience in hearing the preachers in our own temples.
Something caught my attention in the final message of the Conference of Aparecida—please note that I am not referring to the magnificent Final Document of the Conference, but to the Final Message, a sort of draft of the Final Document written by the Ad Hoc Commission—In this Final Message, different from the later, final document, the Father ends up relegated to an implicit role in the whole opening part, the doctrinal-kerygmatic speaking of Jesus (10 times,) or Lord Jesus (1 time,) or Jesus Christ (4 times.) In the message the Father is mentioned three times. He is never mentioned in the first part, where Jesus Christ is presented, but later after passing over the doctrinal-kerygmatic moment, in the parenthetical context of the fourth and fifth sections. In this manner Jesus Christ is presented predominantly as Jesus, without an explicit reference to His Father.
The contrast with the original discourse of Benedict XVI is remarkable. There, Benedict XVI reiterates explicitly, that the Father is the goal of the evangelizing process to which the Conference of Aparecida is calling. [17] That is reflected in the Final Document.
This phenomenon I have been describing so far—the growing detachment of Jesus from the Father in pastoral preaching—is emphasized until it reaches a form of paroxysm in the diffusion of Freudian psychoanalysis.
Father Ignatius Anderggen has written:
Freudian psychoanalysis, as a method and technique, is intrinsically in solidarity with its fundamental intent of reaching a full awareness of the rebellion of man against God the Father, the rebellion rooted in the unconscious structure of those vices and passions of man that have not been restored by grace. This intention of Freud, and also of Nietzsche, consists in their conscious opposition against God and their pretension of taking God's place." [18]
Will continue soon...
References
[1] ακηδία, pron. ah-ceh-dee-ah; meaning negligence, indifference, for the wicked are indifferent, make no distinction between good and evil. Latin acidĭa, derived from the same Greek word.
[2] Wisdom 2, 24.
[3] 2 Thessalonians 2,7.
[4] Félix Sardá i Salvany, El liberalismo es pecado, (Liberalism is Sin), Ediciones Cruz y Fierro, Buenos Aires, 1977. Colección Clásicos Contrarrevolucionarios 2. Cited from the Spanish edition in c. III pp. 32-34.
[5] 1 John 2, 18-23.
[6] Mark 3, 29.
[7] David Friedrich Strauss, Das Leben Jesu, für das deutsche Volk bearbeitet (The Life of Jesus for German Working People), Leipzig 1864, p. 18.
[8] Exodus 32, 1: When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered themselves together to Aaron, and said to him, "Up, make us gods, who shall go before us; as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him."
[9] 1 Samuel 8, 7; Cfr. Luke 19, 14 `We do not want this man to reign over us.'
[10] Matthew 10, 40.
[11] Luke 10, 16.
[12] Alfredo Sáenz, El Cardenal Pie. Lucidez y Coraje al Servicio de la Verdad. (Cardenal Pie. Lucidity and Courage in the Service of Truth). Editorial Gladius, Buenos Aires. 2nd. Ed. 2007, p. 276.
[13] See the study by Helmut Schoeck, La Envidia. Una Teoría de la Sociedad (Envy. A Theory of Society). Ed. Club de Lectores, Buenos Aires 1969.
[14] M. J. Le Guillou, O.P. El Misterio del Padre. Fe de los Apóstoles (The Mystery of the Father. Faith of the Apostles). Gnosis Actuales. Editorial Encuentro, Madrid 1998, p. 196.
[15] Romans 10, 14.
[16] Mons. Paul Josef Cordes, El Eclipse del Padre (The Eclipse of the Father), Editorial Palabra, Madrid 2003, 1967, cited in p. 167.
[17] In the discourse of Benedict XVI the reference of Jesus Christ to the Father is very clear. Jesus has come to reveal the Father. The discourse expresses clearly this relation of Jesus to the Father in three main passages.
1-By pointing at what must be done by the Conference of Aparecida with the situation faced by the Latin American Continent at this point. "A new situation is being analyzed here in Aparecida. Facing these crossroads, the, the faithful expect of this new Conference, a renewal and revitalization of their faith in Christ, our only Teacher and Savior, who has revealed to us the unique experience of the Father's infinite love for mankind."
2-By pointing at Jesus as the one who reveals God: "For the Christian the nucleus of the response is simple" Only God knows God, only His Son, Who is God, is from God, true God can know Him. "He who is 'in the bossom of the Father', has revealed Him."
3-By pointing at the charism and the mission of those religious and consecrated people: "remind your brothers and sisters that the Kingdom of God has arrived already; that justice and truth are possible if we are open to the loving presence of God our Father, of Christ our Brother and Lord, and the Holy Spirit our Consoler."
[18] Fr. Ignatius Andereggen: Santo Tomás de Aquino- Psicólogo (St. Thomas Aquinas-Psychologist). Sapientia, 205 (1999) 59-68. R. Fr. Andereggen refers these affirmations by Sigmund Freud to: Totem y Tabú (Totem and Taboo), Buenos Aires 1993, 155-156.
[19] Mons. Paul Josef Cordes, El Eclipse del Padre (The Eclipse of the Father), Editorial Palabra, Madrid 2003, 1967, p. 179.
Thank you Carlos. However, I have to remind you that if liberialism is a sin, then an elected government is sinful. It places the state in the supreme authority over the lives of the people (subjects). Is it not as if the children give the parents authority to raise them? http://lefleurdelystoo.blogspot.com/2008/09/democracy.html
A tip of the beret to you...
Jhesu+Marie,
de Brantigny
Friday, November 21, 2008
From Russia With Scorn: Bond Girl Denounced by Communists
...or another example of how feebleminded the Russian Communists have gotten.
by Jonathan Crow
November 10, 2008
New Bond Girl Olga Kurylenko has been getting all sorts of attention recently from Hollywood producers, magazine editors and legions of drooling fan boys. The Ukrainian actress, who plays a Bolivian secret agent opposite Daniel Craig's 007 in "Quantum Of Solace", has also gained ire of the Communist Party of St. Petersburg, which in an open letter on its website condemned her for aiding "the killer of hundreds of Soviet people and their allies." The group's statement describes 007 as "a man who worked for decades under the orders of Thatcher and Reagan to destroy the USSR."
The Communist Party of St Petersburg, a splinter group of the second largest political party in the Russian Duma, has made headlines earlier in the year when it denounced "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" as crude anti-Soviet propaganda and called actors Harrison Ford and Cate Blanchett "capitalist puppets."
The group appealed to Kurylenko, who was born in the former USSR: "The Soviet Union educated you, cared for you and brought you up for free but no one suspected that you would commit this act of intellectual and moral betrayal." Sergei Malenkovich, head of the party's regional organization, further elaborated to the Associated Press, arguing the movie wanted "to show that a Ukrainian girl sleeps with an American. It's a part of information and psychological war." Never mind that Kurylenko's character does not sleep with 007 in the film or that James Bond is, in fact, not American but British.
Her supposed betrayals will be forgiven, the group promised in its statement, if the actress delivers her co-star Craig to the Russian secret service. "Let him tell what other plans are being written in the Pentagon and Hollywood to discredit Russia and drive a wedge between the Russian and Ukrainian peoples."
If the group decides to take more direct measures against the Kurylenko, they might get more than they can handle. The Bond Girl endured some serious training for the movie including some of the finer points of weaponry. She told Maxim Magazine, "I learned about shooting guns, like how to aim and what position to hold it. I also learned how to strip a gun and put it back together. I'm proud to say I can now take a gun apart in eight seconds."
Uhm, They do know this is a movie right? and Bond is a fictional character.
de Brantigny
by Jonathan Crow
November 10, 2008
New Bond Girl Olga Kurylenko has been getting all sorts of attention recently from Hollywood producers, magazine editors and legions of drooling fan boys. The Ukrainian actress, who plays a Bolivian secret agent opposite Daniel Craig's 007 in "Quantum Of Solace", has also gained ire of the Communist Party of St. Petersburg, which in an open letter on its website condemned her for aiding "the killer of hundreds of Soviet people and their allies." The group's statement describes 007 as "a man who worked for decades under the orders of Thatcher and Reagan to destroy the USSR."
The Communist Party of St Petersburg, a splinter group of the second largest political party in the Russian Duma, has made headlines earlier in the year when it denounced "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" as crude anti-Soviet propaganda and called actors Harrison Ford and Cate Blanchett "capitalist puppets."
The group appealed to Kurylenko, who was born in the former USSR: "The Soviet Union educated you, cared for you and brought you up for free but no one suspected that you would commit this act of intellectual and moral betrayal." Sergei Malenkovich, head of the party's regional organization, further elaborated to the Associated Press, arguing the movie wanted "to show that a Ukrainian girl sleeps with an American. It's a part of information and psychological war." Never mind that Kurylenko's character does not sleep with 007 in the film or that James Bond is, in fact, not American but British.
Her supposed betrayals will be forgiven, the group promised in its statement, if the actress delivers her co-star Craig to the Russian secret service. "Let him tell what other plans are being written in the Pentagon and Hollywood to discredit Russia and drive a wedge between the Russian and Ukrainian peoples."
If the group decides to take more direct measures against the Kurylenko, they might get more than they can handle. The Bond Girl endured some serious training for the movie including some of the finer points of weaponry. She told Maxim Magazine, "I learned about shooting guns, like how to aim and what position to hold it. I also learned how to strip a gun and put it back together. I'm proud to say I can now take a gun apart in eight seconds."
Uhm, They do know this is a movie right? and Bond is a fictional character.
de Brantigny
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Challenging votes in Minnesota
In 2000 we found out what a hanging chad was, 8 years later we are presented with the squiggly line. I guess it's true then that Minnesota is the old indian word for Florida.
One challenge headed to the state so far in Plymouth
Posted on November 19th, 2008 – 1:47 PM
By James Shiffer
The bubble beside Norm Coleman’s name appeared to have both an X and a squiggle in it, but the Al Franken campaign wants the state Canvassing Board to rule on whether it should count. That’s the only challenge in the special envelope in Plymouth so far, according to Sandy Engdahl, the city clerk and the official running the city recount.
The Canada geese milling on the grounds and parking lot of Plymouth City Hall were oblivious to the gaggle of election officials and observers inside. The drone of “Franken” and “Coleman” was accompanied by the swishing of paper in Medicine Lake Room A. Early on, Engdahl had to admonish some candidate representatives from trying to tell her counters how to count. Clearly, she said, the recount watchers are “very passionate,” but she has to remind them of everyone’s roles in this civic drama.
Eight of the 24 precincts had been counted by 1:45 p.m., and the only challenged ballot, in Engdahl’s view, was clearly a vote for Coleman. Nevertheless, the Franken campaign was allowed to seek a second opinion.
de Brantigny
One challenge headed to the state so far in Plymouth
Posted on November 19th, 2008 – 1:47 PM
By James Shiffer
The bubble beside Norm Coleman’s name appeared to have both an X and a squiggle in it, but the Al Franken campaign wants the state Canvassing Board to rule on whether it should count. That’s the only challenge in the special envelope in Plymouth so far, according to Sandy Engdahl, the city clerk and the official running the city recount.The Canada geese milling on the grounds and parking lot of Plymouth City Hall were oblivious to the gaggle of election officials and observers inside. The drone of “Franken” and “Coleman” was accompanied by the swishing of paper in Medicine Lake Room A. Early on, Engdahl had to admonish some candidate representatives from trying to tell her counters how to count. Clearly, she said, the recount watchers are “very passionate,” but she has to remind them of everyone’s roles in this civic drama.
Eight of the 24 precincts had been counted by 1:45 p.m., and the only challenged ballot, in Engdahl’s view, was clearly a vote for Coleman. Nevertheless, the Franken campaign was allowed to seek a second opinion.
de Brantigny
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
An another story from India
In a related story from the previous article is this one...
New Delhi (AsiaNews)
50,000 Hindu fundamentalists demonstrate in favor of religious intolerance by Nirmala Carvalho. The government of Orissa permits a march calling for "an end to the conversions." Meanwhile, in Bangalore, three Christians are arrested under the false accusation of inducing conversion. The AICC provides updated figures on anti-Christian violence.
The government of Orissa has permitted today's demonstration by Swami Laxmananda Saraswati Sradhanjali Samiti in Bhubaneshwar, despite New Delhi's concern that it could unleash further inter-religious violence. Meanwhile, anti-Christian violence continues in Orissa, with churches demolished and Christians arrested under the false accusation of "instigating conversions."
The extremist Hindu group called for the march in protest against the failure to arrest the killers of Laxmananda Saraswati, leader of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), murdered on August 23. Although the police maintain that Maoist groups are responsible, the Hindus have used it as a pretext for anti-Christian pogroms.
At least 1,500 policemen will keep watch to prevent incidents. But in Kandhamal, there is great fear that the march is a pretext for a resumption of the attacks, which have never really ceased. At least 50,000 participants are expected, and the organizers have posted flyers everywhere calling for the arrest of the assassins, but also "to stop the conversions and the killing of cows" and to "defend Hinduism and tribal culture."
In this atmosphere, on the night of November 12 three Christians were arrested under the accusation of "inducing" to conversion some of the inhabitants of a suburb of Bangalore. The leaders of the Christian associations have organized a campaign for their release.
The All India Christian Council (AICC) reports the information provided by Christian leaders in Karnataka: a man, Chandrashekhar, and two women, Kamlamma and Sandhya, were invited to the house of the man's sister, in the neighborhood of Jeevanahalli in Bangalore, to pray for the health of her son.
When they left their home at the end of the prayer meeting, the three were met by a group of about 15 militants of the Bajrang Dal, the youth branch of the VHP. The fanatics beat the man, then called the police accusing the three of inducing a group of inhabitants to conversion. A business owner confirmed the false accusation for the police of Fraser Town.
Chandrashekhar's sister says that she called him to pray for the health of her sick son, and rejects the accusations as "unfounded." Sam Paul, secretary for the public affairs of the AICC, says that "this is one of many examples of Christians who are falsely accused of forcible conversion by Hindutva forces. They are, of course, innocent. The sad reality is that, in India today, legal harassment of innocent Christians is common."
Meanwhile, on the night of November 11, the Catholic church in the village of Tiangia was razed to the ground. The church, which had escaped the earlier violence because it was still being built, was supposed to be inaugurated soon.
According to the AICC, since August 24 in Orissa, violence has been seen in 14 of the 30 districts in the state, with damage in 315 villages. 4,640 homes have been burned, 53,000 people have been displaced, and 60 people have been killed, including two pastors and a Catholic priest. Two women have been raped, 151 churches have been destroyed, and the attacks still continue today. In Bihar, a church has been damaged. In the state of Chhattisgarh, four sisters were attacked. In Jharkhand, Hindu fundamentalists attacked a church and tried to "reconvert" the Christian faithful. Four churches have been damaged in Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Madhya Pradesh. In New Delhi, two churches have been damaged, and another four attacked. In Punjab, three Christians have been detained by the police under false accusations. In Uttar Pradesh, three pastors have been beaten, together with the wife of one of them. In Uttarakhand, two Christians have been killed, a priest and his employee.
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
Jhesu+Marie
de Brantigny
New Delhi (AsiaNews)
50,000 Hindu fundamentalists demonstrate in favor of religious intolerance by Nirmala Carvalho. The government of Orissa permits a march calling for "an end to the conversions." Meanwhile, in Bangalore, three Christians are arrested under the false accusation of inducing conversion. The AICC provides updated figures on anti-Christian violence.
The government of Orissa has permitted today's demonstration by Swami Laxmananda Saraswati Sradhanjali Samiti in Bhubaneshwar, despite New Delhi's concern that it could unleash further inter-religious violence. Meanwhile, anti-Christian violence continues in Orissa, with churches demolished and Christians arrested under the false accusation of "instigating conversions."
The extremist Hindu group called for the march in protest against the failure to arrest the killers of Laxmananda Saraswati, leader of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), murdered on August 23. Although the police maintain that Maoist groups are responsible, the Hindus have used it as a pretext for anti-Christian pogroms.
At least 1,500 policemen will keep watch to prevent incidents. But in Kandhamal, there is great fear that the march is a pretext for a resumption of the attacks, which have never really ceased. At least 50,000 participants are expected, and the organizers have posted flyers everywhere calling for the arrest of the assassins, but also "to stop the conversions and the killing of cows" and to "defend Hinduism and tribal culture."
In this atmosphere, on the night of November 12 three Christians were arrested under the accusation of "inducing" to conversion some of the inhabitants of a suburb of Bangalore. The leaders of the Christian associations have organized a campaign for their release.
The All India Christian Council (AICC) reports the information provided by Christian leaders in Karnataka: a man, Chandrashekhar, and two women, Kamlamma and Sandhya, were invited to the house of the man's sister, in the neighborhood of Jeevanahalli in Bangalore, to pray for the health of her son.
When they left their home at the end of the prayer meeting, the three were met by a group of about 15 militants of the Bajrang Dal, the youth branch of the VHP. The fanatics beat the man, then called the police accusing the three of inducing a group of inhabitants to conversion. A business owner confirmed the false accusation for the police of Fraser Town.
Chandrashekhar's sister says that she called him to pray for the health of her sick son, and rejects the accusations as "unfounded." Sam Paul, secretary for the public affairs of the AICC, says that "this is one of many examples of Christians who are falsely accused of forcible conversion by Hindutva forces. They are, of course, innocent. The sad reality is that, in India today, legal harassment of innocent Christians is common."
Meanwhile, on the night of November 11, the Catholic church in the village of Tiangia was razed to the ground. The church, which had escaped the earlier violence because it was still being built, was supposed to be inaugurated soon.
According to the AICC, since August 24 in Orissa, violence has been seen in 14 of the 30 districts in the state, with damage in 315 villages. 4,640 homes have been burned, 53,000 people have been displaced, and 60 people have been killed, including two pastors and a Catholic priest. Two women have been raped, 151 churches have been destroyed, and the attacks still continue today. In Bihar, a church has been damaged. In the state of Chhattisgarh, four sisters were attacked. In Jharkhand, Hindu fundamentalists attacked a church and tried to "reconvert" the Christian faithful. Four churches have been damaged in Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Madhya Pradesh. In New Delhi, two churches have been damaged, and another four attacked. In Punjab, three Christians have been detained by the police under false accusations. In Uttar Pradesh, three pastors have been beaten, together with the wife of one of them. In Uttarakhand, two Christians have been killed, a priest and his employee.
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
Jhesu+Marie
de Brantigny
Orissa bishops warn of ‘master plan’ to wipe out Christianity
While we have a subtle persecution of Catholics in this country by the likes of Maria Shriver (below) and John F. Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, et al. a more violent form of persecution is underway in India. You won't hear about this on NBC, ABC, MSNBC or even Fox. Who cares about Christians anyway? The only "Christians" that the US media worries about are people like the Reverend Phleger of Jeremiah Wright. From the Catholic News agency Orissa, Nov 13, 2008 / 04:54 am (CNA).-
Archbishop Raphael Cheenath
Denouncing what they called a “master plan” to wipe out Christianity, the bishops of India’s troubled Orissa region have written a letter to state’s Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik concerning the persecution of Christians at the hands of Hindu extremists.
Conveying their “sincere thanks and appreciation” for his appointment with them, the bishops’ November 10 letter brings several concerns to his attention.
First, the bishops addressed the “exodus of Christians” from Kandhamal District. Noting the “considerable reduction” of refugees in relief camps, the bishops denied that those who leave the camps are returning to their homes.
“Most of them have migrated to relief camps in Bhubaneswar, Cuttack, Jhanla, Berhampur and also settled down in rented houses and in the homes of relations, friends, acquaintances etc. It is estimated that 10,000 to 15,000 Christians of Kandhamal district are living outside the district,” the bishops wrote.
People in the relief camps want to return to their villages, but fear being attacked on their return trip or in the villages themselves. The refugees also fear being forced to become Hindus “under pain of death or loss of properties,” said the bishops, who reported that returnees are being told to convert or leave the village, the district, or even the country.
The bishops’ letter reported the details of such forced conversions, saying Christians are compelled to “accept Hindu Samskaras under oath and under pain of divine punishment.” Christians are also being prevented from harvesting their fields unless they become Hindus, and one man was denied burial in his village because he was not a Hindu.
Further, many of the criminals involved in the anti-Christian attacks are still at large.
Naming several injustices against Christians, the bishops noted that Christians are still being chased away from their homes and villages, and the state government has not fulfilled its promises to allot land and money to those made homeless.
According to the bishops, criminals are still looting and burning Christian homes, churches, and institutions.
The bishops challenged characterizations of the anti-Christian attacks as an ethnic conflict:
“Hindu Fundamentalist groups have been trying to name the communal violence as an Ethnic Conflict between the Tribals and the Pano Christians. A cursory look at facts reveals that this conflict is a calculated and pre-planned master plan to wipe out Christianity from Kandhamal district, Orissa, in order to realize the hidden agenda of Sangh Parivar of establishing a Hindu Nation.”
This agenda has allegedly been furthered by concealing the fact that the attack victims were Christians.
The bishops expressed happiness that the Orissa government has decided to establish a Fast Track Court at Kandhamal to expedite the trials of cases related to the violence. In addition, the bishops requested that the judge of the court should be from a religion other than Hindu or Christian.
Continuing their requests, the bishops asked that the presence of national police in Kandhamal be extended until the parliamentary and assembly elections in Orissa are concluded, citing the State Police’s low numbers and inability to defend themselves.
Finally, the bishops asked that churches be built or repaired by the first week of December, 2008, to allow Christmas preparations to begin and spiritual traditions to be observed.
“This will also help confidence building among the congregations and bury the past quietly as they approach Christmas 2008,” their letter concluded.
The letter was signed by Raphael Cheenath, Archbishop of Cuttack-Bhubaneswar; Bishop of Balasore Thomas Thiruthalil; and Bishop of Berhampur Sarat Nayak.
Thanks to Maria-Elena at Tea at Trianon.
God save us.
de Brantigny
Archbishop Raphael Cheenath
Denouncing what they called a “master plan” to wipe out Christianity, the bishops of India’s troubled Orissa region have written a letter to state’s Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik concerning the persecution of Christians at the hands of Hindu extremists.
Conveying their “sincere thanks and appreciation” for his appointment with them, the bishops’ November 10 letter brings several concerns to his attention.
First, the bishops addressed the “exodus of Christians” from Kandhamal District. Noting the “considerable reduction” of refugees in relief camps, the bishops denied that those who leave the camps are returning to their homes.
“Most of them have migrated to relief camps in Bhubaneswar, Cuttack, Jhanla, Berhampur and also settled down in rented houses and in the homes of relations, friends, acquaintances etc. It is estimated that 10,000 to 15,000 Christians of Kandhamal district are living outside the district,” the bishops wrote.
People in the relief camps want to return to their villages, but fear being attacked on their return trip or in the villages themselves. The refugees also fear being forced to become Hindus “under pain of death or loss of properties,” said the bishops, who reported that returnees are being told to convert or leave the village, the district, or even the country.
The bishops’ letter reported the details of such forced conversions, saying Christians are compelled to “accept Hindu Samskaras under oath and under pain of divine punishment.” Christians are also being prevented from harvesting their fields unless they become Hindus, and one man was denied burial in his village because he was not a Hindu.
Further, many of the criminals involved in the anti-Christian attacks are still at large.
Naming several injustices against Christians, the bishops noted that Christians are still being chased away from their homes and villages, and the state government has not fulfilled its promises to allot land and money to those made homeless.
According to the bishops, criminals are still looting and burning Christian homes, churches, and institutions.
The bishops challenged characterizations of the anti-Christian attacks as an ethnic conflict:
“Hindu Fundamentalist groups have been trying to name the communal violence as an Ethnic Conflict between the Tribals and the Pano Christians. A cursory look at facts reveals that this conflict is a calculated and pre-planned master plan to wipe out Christianity from Kandhamal district, Orissa, in order to realize the hidden agenda of Sangh Parivar of establishing a Hindu Nation.”
This agenda has allegedly been furthered by concealing the fact that the attack victims were Christians.
The bishops expressed happiness that the Orissa government has decided to establish a Fast Track Court at Kandhamal to expedite the trials of cases related to the violence. In addition, the bishops requested that the judge of the court should be from a religion other than Hindu or Christian.
Continuing their requests, the bishops asked that the presence of national police in Kandhamal be extended until the parliamentary and assembly elections in Orissa are concluded, citing the State Police’s low numbers and inability to defend themselves.
Finally, the bishops asked that churches be built or repaired by the first week of December, 2008, to allow Christmas preparations to begin and spiritual traditions to be observed.
“This will also help confidence building among the congregations and bury the past quietly as they approach Christmas 2008,” their letter concluded.
The letter was signed by Raphael Cheenath, Archbishop of Cuttack-Bhubaneswar; Bishop of Balasore Thomas Thiruthalil; and Bishop of Berhampur Sarat Nayak.
Thanks to Maria-Elena at Tea at Trianon.
God save us.
de Brantigny
Monday, November 17, 2008
Maria Shriver, Cafeteria Catholic...
First let me say that while Maria Shriver may have a fine Catholic education (some would say prized education), has a great deal of money, is related to a rich and powerful family, is married to the governor of California, it will avail her naught at the judgement, nor will her "disagreement" with the teachings of the Church. The Kennedy clan have an unsurpassed hubris.
Maria! I beg you repent before it is too late! See this article
The real name for a Cafeteria Catholic is heretic...
GOD help us...
De Brantigny
Maria! I beg you repent before it is too late! See this article
The real name for a Cafeteria Catholic is heretic...
GOD help us...
De Brantigny
Friday, November 14, 2008
Obama Truths
1.Every now and then, Obama opens his eyes and the world springs into existence.
2.When a tree falls in the forest, Obama hears it.
3.Obama can clap with one hand.
4.Prometheus was punished for plagiarizing Obama.
5.Obama can make a journey of a thousand miles without a single step.
6.Socks worn by Obama are used for climbing walls in Spiderman movies.
7.Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race when she learned Obama's true name.
8."Obama" is the very first word in the English language to be a verb, adjective, noun, pronoun, adverb, interjection, superlative and pronad. (Pronad is a new category made specifically for the word "Obama" so its power can be fully realized).
9.When Obama squints dreamily into the distance, he can see next week's lottery winning numbers. But he never plays because that would mean poverty of ambition.
10.Obama can calculate your guilt just by looking at the numbers in your checkbook.
more...
de Brantigny
2.When a tree falls in the forest, Obama hears it.
3.Obama can clap with one hand.
4.Prometheus was punished for plagiarizing Obama.
5.Obama can make a journey of a thousand miles without a single step.
6.Socks worn by Obama are used for climbing walls in Spiderman movies.
7.Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race when she learned Obama's true name.
8."Obama" is the very first word in the English language to be a verb, adjective, noun, pronoun, adverb, interjection, superlative and pronad. (Pronad is a new category made specifically for the word "Obama" so its power can be fully realized).
9.When Obama squints dreamily into the distance, he can see next week's lottery winning numbers. But he never plays because that would mean poverty of ambition.
10.Obama can calculate your guilt just by looking at the numbers in your checkbook.
more...
de Brantigny
Hank Paulson, Naked Emperor
The man doesn’t know what the hell he’s doing.
By Michelle Malkin
Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson finally confirmed what lonely bailout opponents tried to tell the American public all along: The man doesn’t know what the hell he’s doing.
Paulson held a bazooka to taxpayers’ heads. He groveled on his knees in front of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He lured leaders from both political parties into linking arms in a panicked Chicken Little line dance for the beleaguered mortgage industry. Paulson demanded an unprecedented $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program for the good of the country. For the health of the housing market. For the survival of the economy. No time for deliberation. No time to review the failures of such interventionist approaches around the world. Now, now, now! more...
Jhesu+Marie
de Brantigny
By Michelle Malkin
Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson finally confirmed what lonely bailout opponents tried to tell the American public all along: The man doesn’t know what the hell he’s doing.
Paulson held a bazooka to taxpayers’ heads. He groveled on his knees in front of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He lured leaders from both political parties into linking arms in a panicked Chicken Little line dance for the beleaguered mortgage industry. Paulson demanded an unprecedented $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program for the good of the country. For the health of the housing market. For the survival of the economy. No time for deliberation. No time to review the failures of such interventionist approaches around the world. Now, now, now! more...
Jhesu+Marie
de Brantigny
Just my two cents
Business Maxims,
1.The Government is not a business, it has no jobs.
2.If the government becomes a business, it is also Socialistic.
3.Business do not exist to provide jobs, they exist to provide profit for the owners and/or share holders.
4.If a profit may be made by using cheaper labor it will use cheaper labor.
5.No one is owed a job.
6.No one is forced to buy the goods of a business, and they will always go for the cheapest price.
The big Three Automakers have been asking the Federal Government for an additional bailout, otherwise they will have to go bankrupt.
Does any one have a problem with this? Why should the Federal Government subsidise a failing businesses? What is the difference with the big three and the little three?
One thing is unions? At one time Unions were a good thing. Today unions demand so many concessions that 4000.00 of every new auto price goes to unions. The next thing is the cost of oil. The national messiah is not a supporter of new oil drilling, or the use of coal therefore gasoline prices, (down for now will rise again) the more the cost of oil the higher the price, the higher the price the more society will look for a cheaper product. Unions must go.
I think we should let the Big three go broke. Businesses have gone bankrupt before and survived.
Jhesu+Marie
de Brantigny
1.The Government is not a business, it has no jobs.
2.If the government becomes a business, it is also Socialistic.
3.Business do not exist to provide jobs, they exist to provide profit for the owners and/or share holders.
4.If a profit may be made by using cheaper labor it will use cheaper labor.
5.No one is owed a job.
6.No one is forced to buy the goods of a business, and they will always go for the cheapest price.
The big Three Automakers have been asking the Federal Government for an additional bailout, otherwise they will have to go bankrupt.
Does any one have a problem with this? Why should the Federal Government subsidise a failing businesses? What is the difference with the big three and the little three?
One thing is unions? At one time Unions were a good thing. Today unions demand so many concessions that 4000.00 of every new auto price goes to unions. The next thing is the cost of oil. The national messiah is not a supporter of new oil drilling, or the use of coal therefore gasoline prices, (down for now will rise again) the more the cost of oil the higher the price, the higher the price the more society will look for a cheaper product. Unions must go.
I think we should let the Big three go broke. Businesses have gone bankrupt before and survived.
Jhesu+Marie
de Brantigny
Reason to Homeschool?
Indoctrination? Do I hear a teacher of the year award here?
This story had to be broke in Sweden!
Blogged here...
God save us.
de Brantigny
This story had to be broke in Sweden!
Blogged here...
God save us.
de Brantigny
Thursday, November 13, 2008
"Faithful Citizenship"?
Moral Courage? The pamphlet and homilies on "Faithful Citizenship" by the Bishops of the United States was largely disregarded. With the exception of a few, the mostly wishy-washy USCCB persuasion argument fell on deaf ears last week.... A finer piece of double talk has never been published.
...the U. S. Catholic Bishops will revisit the topic of "Faithful Citizenship" --their nuanced statement on how believers should guide their vote by a Catholic teachings on a broad spectrum of social issues including, but not exclusively, opposition to abortion -- tomorrow at their annual fall meeting, just a week after their efforts proved largely unpersuasive with the voting flock.
Scores of Catholic bishops counseled -- even threatened -- that a vote for Obama/Biden, who both support access to legal abortion, could endanger a Catholic's salvation by cooperating with evil. In an address titled "Little Murders," Archbishop of Denver Charles Chaput, said he was only speaking for himself but, "To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year's 'real' prolife candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse..." more...
Francis Cardinal George in a rather candid opening address at the 2008 Fall General Assembly of the USCCB said, ...We can also be truly grateful that our country’s social conscience has advanced to the point that Barack Obama was not asked to renounce his racial heritage in order to be president, as, effectively, John Kennedy was asked to promise that his Catholic faith would not influence his perspective and decisions as president a generation ago. Echoes of that debate remain in the words of those who reject universal moral propositions that have been espoused by the human race throughout history, with the excuse that they are part of Catholic moral teaching. We are, perhaps, at a moment when, with the grace of God, all races are safely within the American consensus. We are not at the point, however, when Catholics, especially in public life, can be considered full partners in the American experience unless they are willing to put aside some fundamental Catholic teachings on a just moral and political order. The hubris that has isolated our country politically and now economically is heard, but not usually recognized, in moral arguments based simply and solely on individual moral autonomy. This personal and social dilemma is not, of course, a matter of ultimate importance, for America is not the Kingdom of God; but it makes America herself far less than she claims to be in this world.
Catholics went largely for Obama. Perhaps, as New York Times columnist Peter Steinfels observed this weekend:
Many Catholics may understandably feel that the bishops are talking out of both sides of their mouths: Catholics are not supposed to be single-issue voters, but, by the way, abortion is the only issue that counts. The bishops do not intend to tell Catholics how to vote; but, by the way, a vote for Senator Obama puts your salvation at risk. Catholics are to form their consciences and make prudential judgments about complex matters of good and evil -- just so long as they come to the same conclusions as the bishops.
...but how can they if the Bishops arguments are so nuanced as to be indecipherable? When will the USCCB rise as in one voice and say "NO!" this is not Catholic teaching, your soul is in jeopardy if you persist the support of abortion. Perhaps I am asking too much... Of the 9 priority initiatives through 2011 life is down at #7.
Dieu Le Roy!
de Brantigny
...the U. S. Catholic Bishops will revisit the topic of "Faithful Citizenship" --their nuanced statement on how believers should guide their vote by a Catholic teachings on a broad spectrum of social issues including, but not exclusively, opposition to abortion -- tomorrow at their annual fall meeting, just a week after their efforts proved largely unpersuasive with the voting flock.
Scores of Catholic bishops counseled -- even threatened -- that a vote for Obama/Biden, who both support access to legal abortion, could endanger a Catholic's salvation by cooperating with evil. In an address titled "Little Murders," Archbishop of Denver Charles Chaput, said he was only speaking for himself but, "To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year's 'real' prolife candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse..." more...
Francis Cardinal George in a rather candid opening address at the 2008 Fall General Assembly of the USCCB said, ...We can also be truly grateful that our country’s social conscience has advanced to the point that Barack Obama was not asked to renounce his racial heritage in order to be president, as, effectively, John Kennedy was asked to promise that his Catholic faith would not influence his perspective and decisions as president a generation ago. Echoes of that debate remain in the words of those who reject universal moral propositions that have been espoused by the human race throughout history, with the excuse that they are part of Catholic moral teaching. We are, perhaps, at a moment when, with the grace of God, all races are safely within the American consensus. We are not at the point, however, when Catholics, especially in public life, can be considered full partners in the American experience unless they are willing to put aside some fundamental Catholic teachings on a just moral and political order. The hubris that has isolated our country politically and now economically is heard, but not usually recognized, in moral arguments based simply and solely on individual moral autonomy. This personal and social dilemma is not, of course, a matter of ultimate importance, for America is not the Kingdom of God; but it makes America herself far less than she claims to be in this world.
Catholics went largely for Obama. Perhaps, as New York Times columnist Peter Steinfels observed this weekend:
Many Catholics may understandably feel that the bishops are talking out of both sides of their mouths: Catholics are not supposed to be single-issue voters, but, by the way, abortion is the only issue that counts. The bishops do not intend to tell Catholics how to vote; but, by the way, a vote for Senator Obama puts your salvation at risk. Catholics are to form their consciences and make prudential judgments about complex matters of good and evil -- just so long as they come to the same conclusions as the bishops.
...but how can they if the Bishops arguments are so nuanced as to be indecipherable? When will the USCCB rise as in one voice and say "NO!" this is not Catholic teaching, your soul is in jeopardy if you persist the support of abortion. Perhaps I am asking too much... Of the 9 priority initiatives through 2011 life is down at #7.
Dieu Le Roy!
de Brantigny
A new blog
This is my new blog, I will endevour to present the actions of the modern Jacobin faction called the Demorcrat Party and the modern Whig Party who call themselves Republicans. Both are on one side of the same coin.
God Help Us.
de Brantigny
God Help Us.
de Brantigny
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)