Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. 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, April 26, 2015

When Hell is Heaven, Heaven seems like Hell

And for readers of Salon.com, Hell looks a lot like what normal people consider normal.

Keep that in mind, the next time you find yourself liking a politician or commenter who is viewed favorably by Salonniks.

Our coming theocratic hell: Look out, the right’s “religious freedom” push is just the beginning

Draw the line from Hobby Lobby to Indiana: Religion has dangerously infected our legal system. It's getting worse


Here is just a taste of what passes for urbane commentary and convincing argument in Salon:

"Yet religion is far too dangerous to our liberties to be laughed off or mischaracterized as harmless.  In its Abrahamic strain, it is a triad of antiquated, largely pernicious ideologies of control and exclusion suffusing various “holy” books that detail a phony cosmogony, a fairy-tale version of humankind’s origins, and a plethora of strictures meant to regulate and restrict our behavior.  This “sacred” canon glorifies the (frequently) vile misdeeds and plodding pontifications of a wide range of characters, among whom occur prophets and patriarchs (some of whom are felonious, even murderous, miscreants) and their hapless victims (mostly women, girls, infants, foreigners, and “unbelievers”).  A fictitious celestial tyrant superintends the almost ceaseless slaughter playing out in the Bronze-Age phantasmagoria of his alleged creation.  He periodically issues injunctions to his wayward subjects, and punishes them cruelly when they fail to obey (or just for the heck of it, as one righteous resident of the Land of Uz discovers).  Though these ideologies purport to embrace humanity as a whole, the phantasmagoria’s action takes place in a dusty, too-hot corner of the Mediterranean, parts of which once had the honor of hosting the Greeks and their Hellenic culture, the Romans with their laws and roads, and of course the haunting civilization of ancient Egypt."


Please don't tell  that Moses is front and center on the US Supreme Court building. He might not be able to handle that.
 

Saturday, April 25, 2015

The Case Against Same-Sex “Marriage”

The Case Against Same-Sex “Marriage”



Yeah, This is a good explanation. It also is the case against divorce, various unnatural fertility techniques, and other common modern social maladies related to the family.

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

What the AP thinks you should think

AP sources: Administration mulls pared health law

An entire article of *no news* is news only because its main purpose seems to be guiding readers what to think when finally there is news on the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare.

"Even if the requirement that nearly every U.S. resident have health insurance is declared unconstitutional, the remaining parts of the law would have far-reaching impact, putting coverage within reach of millions of uninsured people, laying new obligations on insurers and employers, and improving Medicare benefits even as payments to many service providers get scaled back."

How terrible it would be for the Supreme Court think Health is unconstitutional! But our guardian would go ahead and put coverage within reach of millions, make nasty corporations fulfill their obligations to us the 99% and it would simutaneously improve Medicare benefits and scale back payments to 'service providers' (aka the doctors, nurses and hospitals that actually provide us with medical care and services - but who are inordinately among the *not 99%)*.

"Because the law's main coverage expansion does not begin until 2014, there would be time to try to fix serious problems that losing the individual coverage requirement may cause for the health insurance industry."

In case you forgot, it is the nasty Republicans and their partisan allies on the court that threaten to cause 'serious problems' to the insurance industry - NOT the Obama administration, Democrat lawmakers or their allies who will profit from the law - so who ya' gonna vote for?

"Surviving parts of the law would "absolutely" move ahead, said the congressional official. A Congress mired in partisan trench warfare would be unable to repeal or amend what's left of the law, allowing the administration to advance. Much of the money for covering the uninsured was already provided in the law itself.




"Legislatively we can't do a thing, and we are going to move full speed ahead (with implementation)," the official said."

Why do I hear a "Bwwaaaa-Haaaa-haaa-HAAA" in that statement?

"Skeptical questioning by the court's conservative justices during oral arguments this spring has fueled speculation that the court may invalidate the so-called individual mandate."

Umm. Sonia Sotomayor is not usually counted among the 'court's conservative justices.' And yet, she appeared skeptical too.
But the AP does give both sides of the issue - sorta.

"Opponents say the requirement that individuals have coverage is unconstitutional, that the federal government can't tell people to obtain particular goods or services."

vice:

"Supporters say the mandate is a necessary component of a broader scheme to regulate health insurance, which is well within the powers of Congress. By requiring people to carry health insurance or pay a fine, the law seeks to broaden the pool of people with coverage, helping to keep premiums affordable.


If the mandate is struck down, that would still leave in place a major expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state safety net program for low-income people.

The Medicaid expansion was originally estimated to account for about half the more than 30 million people slated to get coverage under the law. Without a mandate, the number would be smaller but still significant.

Federal tax credits to help middle-class people buy private health coverage would also survive, as would new state-based insurance markets.

Such subsidies have never previously been available, and millions are expected to take advantage of them, whether or not insurance is required by law. Still, it could be tricky to salvage the law's full blueprint for helping middle-class uninsured people.

Overturning the mandate would have harmful consequences for the private insurance market. Under the law, insurers would still have to accept all applicants regardless of health problems, and they would be limited in what they can charge older, sicker customers.

As a result, premiums for people who directly buy their own coverage would jump by 15 percent to 20 percent, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. Older, sicker people would flock to get health insurance but younger, healthier ones would hold back.

To forestall such a problem, the administration asked the court - if it declares the mandate unconstitutional - to also strike down certain consumer protections, including the requirement on insurers to cover people with pre-existing health problems. That would mitigate a damaging spike in premiums.

Whether or not the court goes along with that request, more work would be needed to find alternatives to a federal mandate. That could provide an opening for state officials, as well as major insurance companies, to join in finding workable substitutes for the mandate. Congressional approval would likely be needed.

Without the individual requirement, some 14 million people would still get coverage, budget office estimates suggest. Supporters of the law point out that's still a lot of people."

Yeah. That's balance.