Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts

Monday, June 29, 2015

Strangers in a Strange Land

Rod Dreher recommends what he calls“the Benedict Option.” “build resilient communities within our condition of internal exile”

Fine as far as it goes. Let’s call it necessary but not sufficient. Dreher writes, “Benedict of Nursia, a pious young Christian who left the chaos of Rome to go to the woods to pray, as an example for us.” 

The local communities of lay faithful who had to battle to keep their families together and faithful while continuing their occupations in the World continued outside of the monasteries. They suffered but survived.

  It seems, after the last week or two, that the speed or momentum of the Left’s assault on American culture has accelerated. As I thought about this, I remembered a couple of things: the term Iron Fist and the fact that as a grip closes, it gets stronger. We have been surrounded and are being crushed from all sides. History, morality, economy, the very concepts of identity all are collapsing in on themselves and on those Americans who merely wish to live their lives according to their Faith and to the principles that first made this country exceptional.

Dreher continues, “LGBT activists and their fellow travelers really will be coming after social conservatives. The Supreme Court has now, in constitutional doctrine, said that homosexuality is equivalent to race. The next goal of activists will be a long-term campaign to remove tax-exempt status from dissenting religious institutions. The more immediate goal will be the shunning and persecution of dissenters within civil society. After today, all religious conservatives are Brendan Eich, the former CEO of Mozilla who was chased out of that company for supporting California’s Proposition 8.”

I’m sure the briefs are already being delivered to the court houses to enforce the new regime on the recalcitrant. Bakers, florists and photographers have no leg to stand on now. KofC reception halls are an obvious target. The preliminary work to remove tax exempt status has also begun. It will probably follow the same route as SSM has: localities like San Fran, Berkeley etc will take action at the local level. A publicity campaign will proceed with the MSM and opinion shaping information gateways shaping news and information to push popular opinion in the preferred direction. Court cases will be initiated in friendly districts. Bills will be introduced in Congress with little immediate hope of passing, but in order to get people used to the idea, get the ‘correct’ arguments out at the national level and to position opponents as defenders of bigotry. The IRS may start investigating some more fringe-looking independent churches. Cardinal Dolan will be presented as equivalent to Westboro Baptist Church. I don’t know how long it will take them to get everything in position, but sooner or later, either an Obama-esque executive decision or a Supreme Court decision will remove the tax exempt status for religious organizations. If going directly against churches seems like too big a jump, they will start with schools and charities. In each case, the squishier ones have already gone over. If there are any Methodist or Episcopalian schools and hospitals left, I’m sure their policies are already in line with the current fad. Progressive Catholic institutions will fall easily. Large organizations will also fold because to lose tax exemption would be fatal and they are too big to fail. Georgetown, Notre Dame etc. will make headlines and remove any vestige of cover for smaller orthodox schools and organizations. Catholic Charities will fold like a card table. Catholic schools will fold or close. The parishes will probably be the last to go, but they will not be allowed to remain outside the control of the State’s new orthodoxy. But whatever havoc that causes to non-state, religiously motivated organizations and churches won’t satisfy their urge for total surrender. Any organizations or churches that manage to survive without tax exemption will then be hit with discrimination suits and violation of civil rights laws. They won’t be satisfied until the Archbishop of New York is a married homosexual or the Catholic Church is totally suppressed.

Actually, they won’t be satisfied even then because that is the nature of the Progressive beast.

Think I'm paranoid? I wish!

That didn’t take long…


But, First Amendment! Religious Freedom!




Not for you, you filthy Christian!


“When,” Mr. Shaw, not “if.”


Of course, we really have no real choice. Recognition of reality, our duty to our Creator and to our fellow souls demand that, “We are obliged to RESIST! “Clear and emphatic opposition is a duty””

The CDF, has a much much more coherent argument than the USCC majority. Just sayin’.

Oh, and as the dissenting justices and every other sane human being saw coming for the last 10 years, 
SSM isn’t the end, it is just the beginning:


Incest will follow like clockwork.


Abnormal is the new normal. Making normal seem very strange.

Decline is a choice. This country has chosen.

Utopias, literally, “No Place” are promised in the Brave New World envisioned by the totalitarian Progressives. Distopias are all too real. Gird your loins, folks.

Did I mention publicizing self-identified Catholics exhorting all of us to be tolerant, loving and go along to get along? How could I forget that old saw-horse?

I just kind of have a feeling that the game plan for all of this was laid down about 20 seconds after this had taken place:

And lest we forget that this is more than merely a catastrophe for our culture, our public morality and the freedom of citizens to peacefully live out their faith, it is also a catastrophe for our Constitutional republic and the rule of law. Bonus!

Nothing good, I don’t think. At least not if you aren’t enthusiastically with the program. Oh, yeah. That’s another aspect of Progressivism (shared with Communism and Fascism): it isn’t enough for them that you refrain from dissent. You have to be enthusiastic. You have to be “for” what they are “for” and against what they are against with emotion.

As compared to Justice Kennedy’s gobbled goop (use Scalia’s phrase).

A bit of good news by way of intermission amidst acts 1 and 2 of doom and gloom:

Sure, it’s a publicity stunt and sure it’s Japan, but nothing this side of the chick who married a bridge and a building (was it the same woman?) indicates better the dissolution of the very concept of Marriage as a particular thing.

Kennedy says something about defining our own realities, Well, Bruce/Caityn Jenner has exercised his/her right to do that – and radical feminists object. Donezal has her racial identity and Blacks protest. The DoD has tried to follow the old RadFem line that gender is a construct and yet Ranger School among other inevitable experiences continue to flout the attempt.

It's not nice to fool Mother Nature, and there is no fooling your Creator.

Sunday, January 19, 2014

Death by a Thousand Cuts by Hanlon's Razor

This is the most confounding administration I have ever seen. Every indication leads to the conclusion that it's intentionally committed to the destruction of the remnants of Constitutional order that still flutter like tattered shreds from the bent and corroded flag pole of our body politic.

It would hardly be an exaggeration to say that nothing this administration has done has been to the benefit of the country, while nearly everything it has done has been to its detriment. Granted, some interest group, grievance mob or financial concern has benefited greatly from this or that particular policy. But it is clear that the General Welfare has suffered and continues to do so.

Such a perfect record of perfidy cannot be unintentional, can it?

But can we be sure that the administration is guilty of  deceitfulness; untrustworthiness.
synonyms:treachery, duplicity, deceit, deceitfulness, disloyalty, infidelity,faithlessness, unfaithfulness, betrayal, treason, double-dealing,untrustworthiness, breach of trust;

I feel like we can.

But, is it possible that this is The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight on a gargantuan, whole-of-government level?

Before we leap on the crazy train of conspiracy theory, we should at least try to eliminate any more likely possibilities.

My first inclination is to assign the mal-government of the current regime to a gargantuan case of Groupthink among the Progressive/Liberal/Leftist "elite" operating in this country.

According to the Oregon State University web site on the subject, it appears so:

Groupthink occurs when a homogenous highly cohesive group is so concerned with maintaining unanimity that they fail to evaluate all their alternatives and options. Groupthink members see themselves as part of an in-group working against an outgroup opposed to their goals.

The symptoms are familiar to anyone following the antics of the current administration and its fellow travelers: 

To make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms indicative of groupthink.

Type I: Overestimations of the group — its power and morality

  • Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
  • Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

Type II: Closed-mindedness

  • Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
  • Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.

Type III: Pressures toward uniformity

  • Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
  • Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
  • Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty"
  • Mind guards— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.


And the outcomes also seem to fit Professor Irving Janis' observations:

Groupthink, resulting from the symptoms listed above, results in defective decision-making. That is, consensus-driven decisions are the result of the following practices of groupthinking

  • Incomplete survey of alternatives
  • Incomplete survey of objectives
  • Failure to examine risks of preferred choice
  • Failure to reevaluate previously rejected alternatives
  • Poor information search
  • Selection bias in collecting information
  • Failure to work out contingency plans.

That's my working hypothesis. But there is another possibility: Stupidity.

Hanlon's Razor posits: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.


Are we experiencing massive stupidity at a cost of $1.1T per year in direct costs and who knows how much in indirect costs? But isn't the Administration filled with Distinguished Harvard graduates and high ranking government officials?

Yeah, so what? Not like a Harvard education equips them to identify the capital of Canada, or anything like that. The list of Harvard graduates also includes, Enron crook Jeffrey Skilling, a geneticist and child molester named W. French Anderson, and Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), who was raided by the FBI in August and found to have $90,000 hidden in his freezer and the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, Class of 1962.

No, I'm afraid we have to seriously consider near universal stupidity within the Obama administration and among Progressive/Liberal/Leftists in general before we can leap to any conspiracy theories.

After all, "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Sunday, December 16, 2012

The Well and the Shallows II

On my last birthda, my lovely bride gave me the collection of G.K. Chesterton essays published under the title, "The Well and the Shallows." It was published in 1935.

I pulled it from the shelf this morning to provide something to occupy my mind while my mouth and stomach were occupied with a delicious sausage and cheese omlette.

Hiis critique of the Socialists of his era in England rings just as true today, confironted as we still are with all manner of Socialists, Communists, Prohibitionists, and other sentimental tyrants:

"the respectable sort of Socialist who will not call himself a Communist. The study of 'parasitic' Parliamentary Labour is masterly, and my own sympathies would be all with a man like Mr. Maxton as compared with a man like Mr. Thomas. But the sequel is still puzzling; for in the last short note there is no practical programme except a Minimum Wage for all, which is said to obviate the need of expropriation of land and property. I suppose this means that employers would be taxed till they were too poor to employ; and then the State would employ. But what State--and, my God, what statesmen! Why, presumably (if nothing is needed but a new wage raised by a new tax) just the jolly statesmen the world produces at present, the parasitic Parliamentarians turned into omnipotent bureaucrats. I should refuse it, of course; first, because it preserves the wage-system; second because the worst wage-system is one with only one employer, who may be an omnipresent enemy; and third because, in the purely practical statement, there is no provision for any change in the type of tyrant."

Indeed: "Tax employers till they are too poor to employ." Lst the state be the sole employer/provider. Sound familiar?

But, "what State -- and my God, what statesmen!"

What statesmen indeed?

Our country is about evenly divided.. Nearly exactly 1/2 of the country believes the previous president was a war criminal who favored plutocrats and brought the country to economic ruin and that everyone with conservative political beliefs is evil, callous, stupid, crazy etc. (truth be told, there is a measurable percentage of those evik, callous, stupid, crazy conservatives who also think the previous president wrecklessly got the country involved in a foolish war, favored certain plutocrats and participated in the economic ruin of the country).

The other half of the country is convinced on the evidence that the current president is unintelligent, uncurious and meant it when he said he wanted to 'fundamentally transform' our nation. They are certain that he does not hold traditional American values. They concieve that he does not respect or feel bound by the Constitution and that he intends to continue to transform the country into a Socialist one in which everyone is subservient and beholden to the central government. He believes that experts in Washington know better than free people in their communities and that planners can make everyones' life better through their benevolent wisdom, if they are given enough power.

Meanwhile, no more than 20% of the country approves of the work being done by Congress.

So, if everyone has despised at least one of the last 2 presidents, no one trusts Congress and federal bureaucrats rate lower than used car salesmen on the scale of positive regard, WHY DO WE LET THEM SPEND ALL OF OUR MONEY AND DICTATE EVERY MINUTIA OF OUR LIVES?

I'd really like to know. We see the ill done by parasitic parliamentarians turned to omnipotent bureaucrats who are fast becoming an omnipresent enemy.

Chesterton's critique of Socialist schemes rings truer today than it did 77 years ago.

Friday, September 28, 2012

Free expression fil ana, la fil thou

Feds Arrest Producer Of Controversial Anti-Islam Film On Probation Violation Charge

Yes, no argument that he violated his probation, as far as the publicly available facts indicate. But is there any question that he would not be in jail without parole today if his YouTube video had been about kittens chasing ceiling fans?

Oh, and his pastor is described as a "radical Coptic cleric".   So, do "America's Values" and First Amendment Freedoms demand that 'radical' Coptic Christians are imprisioned in America for making a YouTube video while radical Muslims are released from Guantanamo for killing Americans?   During his speech at the UN, the president said, "I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that."   Shall we parse this for a moment?  "this particular understanding" is codified in the First Amendment to the Constitution. But the 1st Amendment isn't a reflection of a 'particular understanding' which others may or may not share. It is a recognition of an inalienable right that exists outside of, precedes and supercedes 'particular understandings.' It is part and parcel of those inalienable rights which are endowed upon all Men by their Creator whether radical Islamists; Communist, Socialist or Fascist dictators; or witlings posing as intellectual elites 'share this particular understanding' or not. So, what we recognize, which appears to be somewhat different from what the president prefers to recognize is that those countries that do not have a proper understanding of the Natual Law and who do not recognize their citizen's right to freedom of speech or religion are wrong and very likely illegitimate. They certainly hold no moral equivalency with a nation that does recognize the natural rights of its citizens. Their MIS-understanding of the particular right to free speech is not simply another particular understanding but a grave error of understanding.   Obama does not recognize that. He has always seemed to have trouble with objective reality, objective truth, transcendant Natural Law and other things that really and truly are "above his pay grade."

Friday, September 18, 2009

Sen Warner's unanswered questions

I took the opportunity to attend Sen Warner's town hall in Fredericksburg the other night. We were not picked to ask questions, so I emailed the questions I would have liked to ask to his office.

I received a canned email response a little over a week later. Here are the questions left unanswered by his reply:

1. Your web site and Pres Obama promise that the Democrat plans to nationalize medical services will
- insure more people
- provide better service
- reduce costs

I know of only one Person Who ever distributed more than He had collected and ended up with a surplus - when Christ fed 5000 with 5 loaves and 2 fishes.

Neither you nor Barack Obama are Him. So, how do you really intend to finance this? Either you are being disengenous about the cost, in which case higher taxes AND higher deficits are likely; or about the services, in which case shortages, degraded care and government decisions regarding who gets what care are inevitable.

I anticipate all of the above.

2. The federal government is already involved in providing somewhere around 60% of medical services in this country via MediCare, Medicaid, Military and Veterans health care and government employees health insurance. Your statistics indicate that the current system is unsustainable. So, if the current, mostly government, system is unsustainable, why don't you think that MORE government will result in LESS sustainability? Why won't the Democrats even consider consumer-based solutions?

3. You said, "We need to control compensation." Given that you are a US Senator, I assume that by "we" you mean the US Government. Control of a producer's compensation is effectively control of his production. Do you really favor government control of the production of medical goods and services?

4. You rightly point out that our current medical insurance system is unsustainable.
Our automobile insurance system is fine.
Our Life insurance system is fine.
Our property insurance system is fine.
Our federally managed flood insurance system is broken.

Why do you prefer to reinforce proven failure by favoring federally [sic] management rather than emulating the successes of those insurance markets that do work?

5. A school teacher asked you to cite the article and section of the US Constitution that empowers you to do this. You admitted, "there is no place in the Constitution that specifically says health care.” While I admire your honesty, I do question how you can so brazenly proceed to act beyond your constitutional authority.