Did Obama’s Town Hall the other day seem a bit fake to you? That’s because it was.
…while the online question portion of the White House town hall was open to any member of the public with an Internet connection, the five fully identified questioners called on randomly [LOL!! – ed.] by the president in the East Room were anything but a diverse lot. They included: a member of the pro-Obama Service Employees International Union, a member of the Democratic National Committee who campaigned for Obama among Hispanics during the primary; a former Democratic candidate for Virginia state delegate who endorsed Obama last fall in an op-ed in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star; and a Virginia businessman who was a donor to Obama's campaign in 2008.
At the risk of appearing to have Obama Derangement Syndrome, this is the stuff totalitarianism is made of. This is the sort of blatant fakery the old Soviet Union and the like would be proud of. “Dear Leader! Tell me of your glorious plans for health care!”
It is both funny . . . and scary.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Bill Maher Reminds Me Why I Cancelled HBO.
Years ago, I realized I was watching HBO less and less. They just didn’t play the movies I wanted to see and their own programming was stale as well. Then back in 1996, they produced If These Walls Could Talk, a pro-abortion propaganda movie starring . . . Cher. Wonderful.
I cancelled my HBO and let them know why in no uncertain terms -- they were slacking on quality programming but were spending the bucks on pro-abortion agitprop.
The years since then have made me glad of my choice. HBO’svomit programming has gotten more and more putrid through the years.
Speaking of which, Bill Maher saluted our troops the other night:
By the way, do you still take HBO? If so . . ., why?
I cancelled my HBO and let them know why in no uncertain terms -- they were slacking on quality programming but were spending the bucks on pro-abortion agitprop.
The years since then have made me glad of my choice. HBO’s
Speaking of which, Bill Maher saluted our troops the other night:
By the way, do you still take HBO? If so . . ., why?
Monday, March 30, 2009
I Feel Like Such a Crowd Follower.
I am trying out Twitter. I might use it as a supplement to this blog. Maybe.
Not A Good Weekend for Orthodox Brits
This past weekend was a difficult one for orthodox British of both Anglican and Roman Catholic stripes. My prayers go out for both.
On the Anglican side, the Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali announced that he is leaving his bishopric early. He was a rarity in the Church of England, an orthodox bishop with a backbone, and the most prominent one. One can hope the Church of England’s loss will be a GAFCon province’s gain. But this can’t be good news for the Church of England.
Here are Ruth Gledhill’s and Damian Thompson’s takes on this.
For UK Roman Catholics, the bad news is the increasing likelihood that Arthur Roche will be the next Archbishop of Westminster. He is an appropriately named enemy of traditionalists. I pray reports are mistaken and that a much, much better man is appointed. Perhaps the outcry rising up will scuttle his momentum.
If you wish to know the sort of pastoral care traditionalists can expect from Roche, ask the parishioners of St. John the Evangelist, Allerton Bywater.
The only good I can see out of Arthur Roche becoming Archbishop of Westminster is it would make Anglo-Catholics think yet again before swimming the Tiber.
And that is a sad commentary on both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England.
On the Anglican side, the Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali announced that he is leaving his bishopric early. He was a rarity in the Church of England, an orthodox bishop with a backbone, and the most prominent one. One can hope the Church of England’s loss will be a GAFCon province’s gain. But this can’t be good news for the Church of England.
Here are Ruth Gledhill’s and Damian Thompson’s takes on this.
For UK Roman Catholics, the bad news is the increasing likelihood that Arthur Roche will be the next Archbishop of Westminster. He is an appropriately named enemy of traditionalists. I pray reports are mistaken and that a much, much better man is appointed. Perhaps the outcry rising up will scuttle his momentum.
If you wish to know the sort of pastoral care traditionalists can expect from Roche, ask the parishioners of St. John the Evangelist, Allerton Bywater.
The only good I can see out of Arthur Roche becoming Archbishop of Westminster is it would make Anglo-Catholics think yet again before swimming the Tiber.
And that is a sad commentary on both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England.
Friday, March 27, 2009
A Partial Retraction
I’m not 100% certain of this. But it now appears that the most offending section of the GIVE Act I quoted this past week was removed before final passage in the House.
I’m far from the only blog fooled by this, but I am nevertheless quite embarrassed and apologize to my readers.
(The GIVE Act and its companion bill in the Senate, the SERVE Act, still stink of totalitarianism, however.)
I’m far from the only blog fooled by this, but I am nevertheless quite embarrassed and apologize to my readers.
(The GIVE Act and its companion bill in the Senate, the SERVE Act, still stink of totalitarianism, however.)
Consent for Buddhist Bishop Not a Done Deal?
Christopher Johnson has sniffed out that getting the needed consents for the Buddhist Bishop of Northern Michigan is not a done deal after all. The Bishop of Olympia – yes, of the Left Coast – has already said no for one thing. A bit of a surprise there. Nor were the needed consents gathered at the recent House of Bishops meeting.
Mr. Johnson saw early that getting consents might not be so easy, by the way. Sharp guy.
Mr. Johnson saw early that getting consents might not be so easy, by the way. Sharp guy.
Step 1: Dig pit. Step 2: Fall in.
A frequent theme of scripture, particularly the Psalms, is that the evil, the “pits”, that evil men prepare to harm the innocent often backfires. See Psalms 7:15, 9:15, 57:6, Proverbs 26:27, 28:10 for a sampler.
For a sample of this principle in action, see here.
God is great.
For a sample of this principle in action, see here.
God is great.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
RC Bishop D’Arcy Boycotting Notre Dame Obama Commencement
Many of you are aware that President Obama will give the Commencement at Notre Dame. I am gratified to report that the RC Bishop of South Bend will boycott the event.
Kudos to him. Would all bishops have that kind of backbone.
By the way, over 150,000 have signed the petition against Notre Dame’s decision to invite Obama. Impressive!
Kudos to him. Would all bishops have that kind of backbone.
By the way, over 150,000 have signed the petition against Notre Dame’s decision to invite Obama. Impressive!
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
House Passes Obama Youth Bill (PARTIALLY RETRACTED)
I hit the ceiling when I read this yesterday. Be thankful I decided to wait overnight before posting. But even after sleeping on it, I am still *Anglican Understatement Alert* unhappy that the House passed the “Generations Invigorating Volunteering and Education (GIVE) Act.” (No, that name is not a joke. I did not make it up.)
Under section 6104 of the bill, entitled “Duties,” in subsection B6, the legislation states that a commission will be set up to investigate, “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”
That’s “mandatory service” to the feds, people.
*RETRACTION: As awful as the bill is, it appears the above offending section was removed before final passage. Though I’m not the only blog to stumble on this, I apologize to my readers.*
This is nothing less than the beginnings of the formation of an
If I were a teenager or a parent of the same, I would tell the feds where to get off when they came for me or my child. I’d rather be arrested than be in involuntary servitude to Obama. In fact, that raises a good question:
What do you think the state should do with parents who tell the government that they can pry their kids from their cold dead hands?
What do you think the state should do with non-conforming kids who refuse to have any % their individuality served over to the state?
What will be the penalty for non-performance to the state? Anyone that supports this measure without answering this question is morally and intellectually bankrupt.
I’m appalled that my congressman voted for this. And I intend to let all my friends know about it. By the way, here is the roll call vote. Look and see how your congressman voted.
More on this (and the cool logo) from Michelle Malkin. As she points out, us taxpayers would have to GIVE as well.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Sen. Leahy Trying to Rubberstamp Obama’s “Moderate” Judge
Sen. Leahy of Vermont is trying to pull an April Fools stunt – rush April 1st hearings on Obama’s just nominated “moderate" judge, David Hamilton.
Funny, Leahy has a long record of taking . . . his . . . time with judicial nominees by Republican presidents, all while being insufferably self-righteous about it. From Ed Whelan at The National Review:
To put this rush in context: During the Bush 43 administration, the average time from nomination to hearing for federal appellate nominees was 138 days overall, and 197 days while Leahy was chairman. No federal appellate nominee other than Clinton renominee Helene White (the beneficiary of a special deal) received a hearing in less than 30 days. And of President Bush’s first batch of nominees, the first to receive a hearing waited 62 days.
No double standards here. Nope. Let’s rush those “moderate” Obama judges through.
Funny, Leahy has a long record of taking . . . his . . . time with judicial nominees by Republican presidents, all while being insufferably self-righteous about it. From Ed Whelan at The National Review:
To put this rush in context: During the Bush 43 administration, the average time from nomination to hearing for federal appellate nominees was 138 days overall, and 197 days while Leahy was chairman. No federal appellate nominee other than Clinton renominee Helene White (the beneficiary of a special deal) received a hearing in less than 30 days. And of President Bush’s first batch of nominees, the first to receive a hearing waited 62 days.
No double standards here. Nope. Let’s rush those “moderate” Obama judges through.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Obama Nominates “Moderate” Judge
President Obama has made his first major judicial nomination, David Hamilton for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and, mirabile dictu, he’s a “moderate”! Yes, he’s a “moderate” past ACLU board member, a “moderate” past ACORN operative. He’s also been very “moderate” in attacking freedom of religion, parental rights and the right to life from the bench, so much so that less “moderate” judges have publically taken him to task for doing so.
But I am very reassured, by both the Obama Administration and the mainstream news media, that Obama is being very “moderate” in appointing judges who will be so “moderate” intearing up upholding our Constitutional rights.
No wonder defense attorneys think so highly of him.
I, too, can rest easier. I guess my concern that Obama and his judicial appointees would undermine our Constitution and the rule of law was just paranoia.
But I am very reassured, by both the Obama Administration and the mainstream news media, that Obama is being very “moderate” in appointing judges who will be so “moderate” in
No wonder defense attorneys think so highly of him.
I, too, can rest easier. I guess my concern that Obama and his judicial appointees would undermine our Constitution and the rule of law was just paranoia.
Friday, March 20, 2009
A Modest Proposal: STEAL
In the spirit of retroactive 90% taxation of AIG bonuses, I propose legislation to deal with all such evil income in the future.
Under my proposed Social Taxation of Evil Avaricious Lucre Act (STEAL) all such income will be taxed at a 70% under $250,000, 90% between $250,000 and $1,000,000 and 110% above $1,000,000.
I can hear the evil rich Republican naysayers now. “110%? That’s confiscation!” To which I say . . . damn right, it is. People so evil as make over $1,000,000 in a manner not approved by Congress should be thankful we are so merciful as not to take all their past income.
Oh, speaking of past income, I forgot. The STEAL Act taxes all evil income since George Bush became president . . . that’s the elder George Bush, by the way.
Of course, there is the issue of what income is evil and what is not. That will be determined by an administration yet to be named (Hint, hint.). But evil income will most certainly include income from oil, coal, pharmaceuticals, tobacco, guns, meat, (That includes restaurants so evil as to serve meat.), any business that uses animal testing, non-unionized businesses, Republican activities, polluting industries and businesses, banks, hedge funds, Anglican churches and organizations not affiliated with The Episcopal Church, investments in unapproved industries, un-organic agriculture, fast or other unhealthy food, investment advice that subverts Obama’s policies (That means you, Jim Cramer.), FOX News or any other unapproved media, any income used to contribute to unapproved so-called charities, and whatever we determine at a later date.
We don’t want this getting too complicated, however. So, in the spirit of tax simplification, all income over $250,000 is evil (unless you buy a loophole with some really fat contributions to key Democrats, of course).
Further, I propose we dispense withshow trials committee hearings and pass the STEAL Act post haste because our avarice anger is so self-righteous and because nobody has the political backbone to stop us.
Does anyone dare to disagree with me and be vilified? Any comments?
Under my proposed Social Taxation of Evil Avaricious Lucre Act (STEAL) all such income will be taxed at a 70% under $250,000, 90% between $250,000 and $1,000,000 and 110% above $1,000,000.
I can hear the evil rich Republican naysayers now. “110%? That’s confiscation!” To which I say . . . damn right, it is. People so evil as make over $1,000,000 in a manner not approved by Congress should be thankful we are so merciful as not to take all their past income.
Oh, speaking of past income, I forgot. The STEAL Act taxes all evil income since George Bush became president . . . that’s the elder George Bush, by the way.
Of course, there is the issue of what income is evil and what is not. That will be determined by an administration yet to be named (Hint, hint.). But evil income will most certainly include income from oil, coal, pharmaceuticals, tobacco, guns, meat, (That includes restaurants so evil as to serve meat.), any business that uses animal testing, non-unionized businesses, Republican activities, polluting industries and businesses, banks, hedge funds, Anglican churches and organizations not affiliated with The Episcopal Church, investments in unapproved industries, un-organic agriculture, fast or other unhealthy food, investment advice that subverts Obama’s policies (That means you, Jim Cramer.), FOX News or any other unapproved media, any income used to contribute to unapproved so-called charities, and whatever we determine at a later date.
We don’t want this getting too complicated, however. So, in the spirit of tax simplification, all income over $250,000 is evil (unless you buy a loophole with some really fat contributions to key Democrats, of course).
Further, I propose we dispense with
About Those DVDs Obama Gave Gordon Brown . . .
Remember the cheap parting gift of DVDs Obama gave UK PM Gordon Brown? It turns out they were the wrong format for the UK.
I am not kidding. And, yes, this is too funny.
I am not kidding. And, yes, this is too funny.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
On St. Joseph’s Day
With tomorrow being St. Joseph’s Day, I wish to commend to you this excellent essay on the man and the day from Touchstone.
The article emphasizes Joseph’s love and faithfulness in a family situation not of his choosing or of his doing, in being a father to a Boy who was really Someone else’s Son.
I was moved by the article in part because my persistent singleness and current family situation was certainly not something I would have chosen years ago. And I was a foster son myself. So St. Joseph’s good example touches me.
As the essay mentions, we tend to forget St. Joseph and his day. Don’t do that. Read The Good Father and pray:
O GOD, who didst call blessed Joseph to be the faithful guardian of thine only-begotten Son, and the spouse of his virgin Mother: Give us grace to follow his example in constant worship of thee and obedience to thy commands, that our homes may be sanctified by thy presence, and our children nurtured in thy fear and love; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
The article emphasizes Joseph’s love and faithfulness in a family situation not of his choosing or of his doing, in being a father to a Boy who was really Someone else’s Son.
I was moved by the article in part because my persistent singleness and current family situation was certainly not something I would have chosen years ago. And I was a foster son myself. So St. Joseph’s good example touches me.
As the essay mentions, we tend to forget St. Joseph and his day. Don’t do that. Read The Good Father and pray:
O GOD, who didst call blessed Joseph to be the faithful guardian of thine only-begotten Son, and the spouse of his virgin Mother: Give us grace to follow his example in constant worship of thee and obedience to thy commands, that our homes may be sanctified by thy presence, and our children nurtured in thy fear and love; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
AIG Bonuses Reveal Democrats’ Tax Slavery Mentality UPDATED
No, I’m not going to opine on whether the now infamous AIG bonuses are right or wrong. Nor am I going to explore whether politicians knew about these bonuses all along and are simply covering their rears and scoring points by demagoguing the issue. I’ll leave that for others.
What I find much more interesting is how this episode is revealing the liberal Democrat mentality about taxes. Several Democrats are proposing getting back the bonuses by retroactively taxing them at rates of up to 90%.
Now it’s easy to cheer on getting those eeeevil AIG fat cats. But let’s think this through. What we have here are Democrats thinking out in public that they have the right to tax, really confiscate, income they don’t approve of. And they think they have the right to do so retroactively, after the fact.
The question is, where does this stop? What if your granny in Texas gets a royalty check from dirty obscene oil income? Put a “windfall profits” tax on it like Jimmy Carter did. God help you if you make money in a manner not approved by liberal Democrats. What if they want to raise taxes on your income already earned? Think the Democrats won’t tax retroactively? Bill Clinton did.
What if you make “too much” money? Hell, let’s tax that at 70%, even 90% rates. Don’t laugh. FDR taxed income at up to 91%. LBJ? 77%.
And please don’t be so naïve as to think the mentality behind those taxes is a thing of the past. It isn’t. And the current faux outrage over the AIG bonuses is letting that mentality slip out into the open once again.
Really, it is not going too far to say the Democrat Party is the party of tax slavery. The liberals who dominate it have long had the attitude that government has the right to tax your income at whatever rates they want for whatever reasons they choose. Heck, it’s really their money, and they let you keep some of it. So if you get to keep half, be grateful. They may take more.
They have in the past . . . and will try to do so again.
UPDATE:
From President Obama’s comments just now on the AIG bonuses:
. . . We believe in people getting rich, but we believe in people getting rich based on performance and what they add in terms of value and the products and services they create.
In other words, if the wisdom of Obama doesn’t consider your economic contributions to be “of value,” then he doesn’t believe in your right to gain and keep the income to get “rich.”
I rest my case.
What I find much more interesting is how this episode is revealing the liberal Democrat mentality about taxes. Several Democrats are proposing getting back the bonuses by retroactively taxing them at rates of up to 90%.
Now it’s easy to cheer on getting those eeeevil AIG fat cats. But let’s think this through. What we have here are Democrats thinking out in public that they have the right to tax, really confiscate, income they don’t approve of. And they think they have the right to do so retroactively, after the fact.
The question is, where does this stop? What if your granny in Texas gets a royalty check from dirty obscene oil income? Put a “windfall profits” tax on it like Jimmy Carter did. God help you if you make money in a manner not approved by liberal Democrats. What if they want to raise taxes on your income already earned? Think the Democrats won’t tax retroactively? Bill Clinton did.
What if you make “too much” money? Hell, let’s tax that at 70%, even 90% rates. Don’t laugh. FDR taxed income at up to 91%. LBJ? 77%.
And please don’t be so naïve as to think the mentality behind those taxes is a thing of the past. It isn’t. And the current faux outrage over the AIG bonuses is letting that mentality slip out into the open once again.
Really, it is not going too far to say the Democrat Party is the party of tax slavery. The liberals who dominate it have long had the attitude that government has the right to tax your income at whatever rates they want for whatever reasons they choose. Heck, it’s really their money, and they let you keep some of it. So if you get to keep half, be grateful. They may take more.
They have in the past . . . and will try to do so again.
UPDATE:
From President Obama’s comments just now on the AIG bonuses:
. . . We believe in people getting rich, but we believe in people getting rich based on performance and what they add in terms of value and the products and services they create.
In other words, if the wisdom of Obama doesn’t consider your economic contributions to be “of value,” then he doesn’t believe in your right to gain and keep the income to get “rich.”
I rest my case.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Prediction: California Bail-out
I’ve got a prediction for you today. The State of California will ask for a bail-out from the feds (and really from you) within 18 months. Yes, even beyond the funds they will get from the Stimulus Porkage.
Left Coast types control the state government there, and they have the policies to prove it: big spending, big taxes that have residents ready to go Galt by moving out, and budget issues to go with the same. The tech and housing booms helped them get away with such, but now that we are in hard times . . . .
When California asks for a bail-out, I intend to yell, “HELL, NO!” It’s their own @#$% fault that they have gotten themselves in their situation through lefty crackpot misgovernance. That state deserves to go bankrupt and doesn’t deserve one dime from me or any other taxpayer outside the state.
Heck, I’ll go one better. California should split into two states like the farmers there want. But that’s not all. Then the new Left Coast state – call it Kalifornia – should be ejected from the United States to go stew in their own juice. They have misgoverned themselves and have greatly contributed to misgoverning the U. S. by electing the likes of Pelosi and Boxer and Waxman.
Let them have their own People’s Republic instead of letting them turn the U. S. into one. We’ll see how long they last then.
Left Coast types control the state government there, and they have the policies to prove it: big spending, big taxes that have residents ready to go Galt by moving out, and budget issues to go with the same. The tech and housing booms helped them get away with such, but now that we are in hard times . . . .
When California asks for a bail-out, I intend to yell, “HELL, NO!” It’s their own @#$% fault that they have gotten themselves in their situation through lefty crackpot misgovernance. That state deserves to go bankrupt and doesn’t deserve one dime from me or any other taxpayer outside the state.
Heck, I’ll go one better. California should split into two states like the farmers there want. But that’s not all. Then the new Left Coast state – call it Kalifornia – should be ejected from the United States to go stew in their own juice. They have misgoverned themselves and have greatly contributed to misgoverning the U. S. by electing the likes of Pelosi and Boxer and Waxman.
Let them have their own People’s Republic instead of letting them turn the U. S. into one. We’ll see how long they last then.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Rose!
I’m not quite sure why – perhaps because I’m such a liturgy freak – but this report, with photos, of the reception and blessing of rose vestments warms my heart.
Of course, rose is the liturgical color of only two Sundays a year, Laetare Sunday in Lent (this coming Sunday), and Gaudete Sunday in Advent.
And it is rose, not pink, thank you.
(Yes. I have learned.)
Of course, rose is the liturgical color of only two Sundays a year, Laetare Sunday in Lent (this coming Sunday), and Gaudete Sunday in Advent.
And it is rose, not pink, thank you.
(Yes. I have learned.)
No Decision on ++Westminster
The Congregation of Bishops has announced that they have failed to reach a decision on selecting the next Archbishop of Westminster. So this English/Roman soap opera continues, complete with infighting, false leads, and unending suspense.
Should we give this soap opera a name? “Cartholicks of Our Lives”? “As Westminster Turns”? Suggestions?
Should we give this soap opera a name? “Cartholicks of Our Lives”? “As Westminster Turns”? Suggestions?
Friday, March 13, 2009
Obama’s Lies and Leftism Aren’t Going Over So Well Now.
Last month, I mentioned that I found listening to Obama interesting whereas I muted Bill Clinton for years because of his predictable, smarmy lying.
Well, now I find Obama becoming Clintonesque. Iendured listened to his appearance before the Business Roundtable yesterday. (I felt I needed to because of my Capitalist profession.) The President was long-winded like Big Bill. He just wouldn’t shut up! And he once again demonstrated that he is capable of saying anything. This line stood out (Please swallow all liquids, and be sure hysterical laughter will not get you in trouble before reading the following.):
I don’t like the idea of spending more government money, nor am I interested in expanding government’s role.
Like I said, the man will say anything. Moreover, I think we are seeing the Big Lie technique in action.
But I am glad to note that Obama’s lies and Leftism are so over the top, that some in Congress, even some Democrats, are pushing back and are in more of a mood to say “No” to Obama’s excesses. For one thing, I think reducing the charitable tax deduction is dead. Thanks be to God.
By the way, I think the push back is one (of several) factors behind the market rally this week.
And polls indicate people are catching on to Obama’s excesses. I expect that trend to continue. And, for the sake of our nation’s future, it needs to.
Well, now I find Obama becoming Clintonesque. I
I don’t like the idea of spending more government money, nor am I interested in expanding government’s role.
Like I said, the man will say anything. Moreover, I think we are seeing the Big Lie technique in action.
But I am glad to note that Obama’s lies and Leftism are so over the top, that some in Congress, even some Democrats, are pushing back and are in more of a mood to say “No” to Obama’s excesses. For one thing, I think reducing the charitable tax deduction is dead. Thanks be to God.
By the way, I think the push back is one (of several) factors behind the market rally this week.
And polls indicate people are catching on to Obama’s excesses. I expect that trend to continue. And, for the sake of our nation’s future, it needs to.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Cardinal Pell Nails “Secularist Intolerance for Christianity.”
Some time back, I mentioned I was considering a trip to Oxford in part to hear Cardinal Pell give the first Thomas More Lecture on Religion in the Public Square. I decided against it, but it is clear I missed an excellent address this past Friday, a summary of which, with a link to the complete address, may be found here.
It is refreshing to see a prelate speak with such clarity against attacks on basic freedoms of religion and conscience under the cloak of “diversity and tolerance.” And, yes, he calls out specific villains, including the anti-Prop 8 thugs and the Human Rights Commissions of Canada.
I urge your attention to Cardinal Pell’s lecture.
It is refreshing to see a prelate speak with such clarity against attacks on basic freedoms of religion and conscience under the cloak of “diversity and tolerance.” And, yes, he calls out specific villains, including the anti-Prop 8 thugs and the Human Rights Commissions of Canada.
I urge your attention to Cardinal Pell’s lecture.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Priorities: White House Quarterbacked Attacks on Rush
The New York Times has confirmed, if in a back-handed manner, that the White House has systematically coordinated attacks on Rush Limbaugh.
Leaving aside the significant question of whether it’s appropriate for the White House so to go after a private citizen, I can’t help but ask if Obama and his boys have better things to do.
In fact I can ask that about any number of Obama’s initiatives. He’s focusing on stem cells, on socializing medicine, on punishing polluters and the economy with cap and trade, on curing cancer for Obama’s sake, etc. etc. Meanwhile, we have an economic crisis and a banking system under attack. Yet about the best bank plan Obama and his wimpy Treasury Secretary has presented is be patient.
Even some who support Obama’s overall agenda, such as Jim Cramer (who doesn’t march in lock-step well enough anymore and so is also under attack from the Obamatrons), suggest there is a lack of priorities here.
Gosh, you think?
Next thing you know, the Obamatrons will come after me. Because total submission to the New Messiah is so much more important than trivial matters like the evil capitalist banking system.
Leaving aside the significant question of whether it’s appropriate for the White House so to go after a private citizen, I can’t help but ask if Obama and his boys have better things to do.
In fact I can ask that about any number of Obama’s initiatives. He’s focusing on stem cells, on socializing medicine, on punishing polluters and the economy with cap and trade, on curing cancer for Obama’s sake, etc. etc. Meanwhile, we have an economic crisis and a banking system under attack. Yet about the best bank plan Obama and his wimpy Treasury Secretary has presented is be patient.
Even some who support Obama’s overall agenda, such as Jim Cramer (who doesn’t march in lock-step well enough anymore and so is also under attack from the Obamatrons), suggest there is a lack of priorities here.
Gosh, you think?
Next thing you know, the Obamatrons will come after me. Because total submission to the New Messiah is so much more important than trivial matters like the evil capitalist banking system.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Victoria An Anglican Hotbed
I haven’t noticed before, but the news of St. Matthias Anglican of Victoria, B. C. joining the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC) brings to my attention that Victoria is something of a hotbed of orthodox Anglicanism.
In addition to three ANiC parishes, Vancouver Island (not be confused with Vancouver the city which is on the mainland. Victoria is the chief city on the island.) also has a prominent REC parish, the Church of Our Lord, which hosted the REC General Counsel last year in Victoria.
And from attending that meeting, I know first hand that Victoria is a nice place to visit as well.
In addition to three ANiC parishes, Vancouver Island (not be confused with Vancouver the city which is on the mainland. Victoria is the chief city on the island.) also has a prominent REC parish, the Church of Our Lord, which hosted the REC General Counsel last year in Victoria.
And from attending that meeting, I know first hand that Victoria is a nice place to visit as well.
Friday, March 06, 2009
What is Behind Obama’s Bizarre Snub of PM Brown and the UK?
I haven’t posted on it yet, but I’ve been watching Obama’s bizarre snubbing of U. K. PM Gordon Brown in wonderment. He even gave the PM a cheap DVD set as a gift. I’m no fan of Gordon Brown, of course, but in the world of diplomacy the U. S. president just doesn’t treat the U. K. Prime Minister the way Obama has.
I haven’t mentioned his shabby treatment of a bust of Winston Churchill.
I’m honestly aghast. Obama’s conduct as president keeps diving below even my low expectations. A President of the United States just does not act this way.
There is much speculation about concerning what is behind Obama’s bizarre anti-diplomacy toward our long-time ally. There is even a brouhaha about a column in the Telegraph suggesting Ms. Obama is behind it all.
I don’t presume to know what is behind Obama’s brazen and bizarre snubbing of the U. K. I can only look on in open-mouthed wonder.
I haven’t mentioned his shabby treatment of a bust of Winston Churchill.
I’m honestly aghast. Obama’s conduct as president keeps diving below even my low expectations. A President of the United States just does not act this way.
There is much speculation about concerning what is behind Obama’s bizarre anti-diplomacy toward our long-time ally. There is even a brouhaha about a column in the Telegraph suggesting Ms. Obama is behind it all.
I don’t presume to know what is behind Obama’s brazen and bizarre snubbing of the U. K. I can only look on in open-mouthed wonder.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
“Going Galt”
I’ve mentioned that Obama’s tax policies will discourage people from taking the business risks and making the investments necessary to our economy. And I’ve personally thought about ways to legally reduce my taxes, even if that means I contribute less to society.
Yes, I know that sounds awful. But if Obama, the Democrats, and those who put them in power try to loot me, should I act as if they aren’t? Or should I simply say, “Be my guest”? Perhaps my attitude is one to repent of, but I’m that angry and that convinced the looting should be opposed and stopped.
But I haven’t heard until this morning that what I’m considering has a term attached to it – “going Galt”. Going Galt refers to the Atlas Shrugged character John Galt and his allies who cease productive economic activities in order to avoid taxes and to strike against government looters.
And many are already deciding to go Galt in this age of Obama and his impending looting. Michelle Malkin is following this phenomenon closely. Check out here and here for starters.
I may have more to say about this. For now I will conclude with a question: is going Galt an ethical alternative for Christians?
-----
MORE: Here is an excellent post on the looting (with a graph of the same) and going Galt from a Christian perspective.
Yes, I know that sounds awful. But if Obama, the Democrats, and those who put them in power try to loot me, should I act as if they aren’t? Or should I simply say, “Be my guest”? Perhaps my attitude is one to repent of, but I’m that angry and that convinced the looting should be opposed and stopped.
But I haven’t heard until this morning that what I’m considering has a term attached to it – “going Galt”. Going Galt refers to the Atlas Shrugged character John Galt and his allies who cease productive economic activities in order to avoid taxes and to strike against government looters.
And many are already deciding to go Galt in this age of Obama and his impending looting. Michelle Malkin is following this phenomenon closely. Check out here and here for starters.
I may have more to say about this. For now I will conclude with a question: is going Galt an ethical alternative for Christians?
-----
MORE: Here is an excellent post on the looting (with a graph of the same) and going Galt from a Christian perspective.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
ANIC Provincial Assembly Details Announced
Yes, I am soooo there. From here:
TO ALL COMMON CAUSE PARTNERS:
Beloved in the Lord,
The purpose of this letter is to give formal notice of the Provincial Assembly to be gathered from noon, Monday, June 22nd, to noon, Thursday, June 25th, 2009. This meeting is being convened under the Provisional Constitution of the Anglican Church in North America. The place of gathering is St. Vincent’s Cathedral, Bedford, Texas.
The agenda of the Provincial Assembly will include:
1) Worship;
2) Presentations in support of the mission of the Province;
3) Scripture teaching;
4) Addresses by international leaders;
5) Consideration for ratification of the (Provisional) Constitution;
6) Consideration for ratification of a Code of Canons;
7) Reports from committees and task forces.
Each diocese, cluster or network will have representation as provided for in the provisional constitution and initial canons set out by the Common Cause Leadership Council (acting as Provincial Council) on December 3rd, 2008. The actual apportionment cannot be accomplished until the April meeting of the Council, so this notice is being distributed widely for initial planning purposes. The actual selection and certification of voting members of the Assembly are to be done diocese by diocese. Most will be represented by their bishop(s), two clergy and two lay persons. Representation is, however, proportional; linked to each additional thousand Average Sunday Attendance.
The hope for the Provincial Assembly is that it be “more like AMiA’s Winter Conference than TEC’s General Convention.” Consideration of matters to be voted will, of course, be limited to the certified representatives. But the gathering as a whole will be open to all.
The expectation is that many more will be present in Bedford than are actually members of the Provincial Assembly. We welcome this and several hundred hotel rooms have been blocked for observer-participants. The Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) airport is a short distance from the meeting site. A list of area hotels accompanies this announcement.
I covet your prayers for this Inaugural Provincial Assembly, and for all that surrounds its preparation. These are momentous days.
Faithfully in Christ,
Bob Pittsburgh
Moderator
TO ALL COMMON CAUSE PARTNERS:
Beloved in the Lord,
The purpose of this letter is to give formal notice of the Provincial Assembly to be gathered from noon, Monday, June 22nd, to noon, Thursday, June 25th, 2009. This meeting is being convened under the Provisional Constitution of the Anglican Church in North America. The place of gathering is St. Vincent’s Cathedral, Bedford, Texas.
The agenda of the Provincial Assembly will include:
1) Worship;
2) Presentations in support of the mission of the Province;
3) Scripture teaching;
4) Addresses by international leaders;
5) Consideration for ratification of the (Provisional) Constitution;
6) Consideration for ratification of a Code of Canons;
7) Reports from committees and task forces.
Each diocese, cluster or network will have representation as provided for in the provisional constitution and initial canons set out by the Common Cause Leadership Council (acting as Provincial Council) on December 3rd, 2008. The actual apportionment cannot be accomplished until the April meeting of the Council, so this notice is being distributed widely for initial planning purposes. The actual selection and certification of voting members of the Assembly are to be done diocese by diocese. Most will be represented by their bishop(s), two clergy and two lay persons. Representation is, however, proportional; linked to each additional thousand Average Sunday Attendance.
The hope for the Provincial Assembly is that it be “more like AMiA’s Winter Conference than TEC’s General Convention.” Consideration of matters to be voted will, of course, be limited to the certified representatives. But the gathering as a whole will be open to all.
The expectation is that many more will be present in Bedford than are actually members of the Provincial Assembly. We welcome this and several hundred hotel rooms have been blocked for observer-participants. The Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) airport is a short distance from the meeting site. A list of area hotels accompanies this announcement.
I covet your prayers for this Inaugural Provincial Assembly, and for all that surrounds its preparation. These are momentous days.
Faithfully in Christ,
Bob Pittsburgh
Moderator
++Rowan, Blame Yourself for the “Tempest of Extremism”
Our Lord of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, has warned of a “tempest of extremism” and blames economic difficulties for the same.
There is little question that bad economies can foster extremism. But I suggest Dr. Williams also look in the mirror for causes of increased UK extremism.
When Canterbury suggests more Sharia law for the UK, that just might provoke some to an extreme response. When the party long in power, which I suspect Dr. Williams has voted for more than once, the Labour Party, opens the door wide open for Muslim immigrants hostile to British culture, appeases the same, reduces freedom of religion, freedom of speech, economic freedom, heck, just freedom, period, that just might provoke some to extremism.
Labour has been a “disaster” for freedom, for Christians, for the UK and its glorious culture. Increased extremism is a rather predictable result.
Whom did you vote for, Dr. Williams?
The Conservatives are not exempt from blame, either. They aren’t Maggie Thatcher’s party anymore. During the long Labour regime, the Conservatives have shown little backbone in opposition. Moreover, instead of “no more” they have too often said, “Me, too.” Wimps.
Is it any wonder there is now more support for the BNP? Yes, the BNP is noxious, but Labour’s evil and the Tories’ complicity drive people to the BNP. (Not to mention the comical Liberal Democrats who try to split the meager difference between the two.) That’s what happens when mainstream parties don’t have the conscience and the courage to stand up for God and country.
And a feckless Archbishop of Canterbury does not help matters.
There is little question that bad economies can foster extremism. But I suggest Dr. Williams also look in the mirror for causes of increased UK extremism.
When Canterbury suggests more Sharia law for the UK, that just might provoke some to an extreme response. When the party long in power, which I suspect Dr. Williams has voted for more than once, the Labour Party, opens the door wide open for Muslim immigrants hostile to British culture, appeases the same, reduces freedom of religion, freedom of speech, economic freedom, heck, just freedom, period, that just might provoke some to extremism.
Labour has been a “disaster” for freedom, for Christians, for the UK and its glorious culture. Increased extremism is a rather predictable result.
Whom did you vote for, Dr. Williams?
The Conservatives are not exempt from blame, either. They aren’t Maggie Thatcher’s party anymore. During the long Labour regime, the Conservatives have shown little backbone in opposition. Moreover, instead of “no more” they have too often said, “Me, too.” Wimps.
Is it any wonder there is now more support for the BNP? Yes, the BNP is noxious, but Labour’s evil and the Tories’ complicity drive people to the BNP. (Not to mention the comical Liberal Democrats who try to split the meager difference between the two.) That’s what happens when mainstream parties don’t have the conscience and the courage to stand up for God and country.
And a feckless Archbishop of Canterbury does not help matters.
An Addendum to my “Voter’s Remorse” Rant
Now that I’ve had a good night’s sleep and calmed down somewhat, I think I should add an important caveat to my “Voter’s Remorse” rant yesterday.
I realize many (most?) are so preoccupied with family, work, and other aspects of living that they hardly have the time and energy to dig into the details of politics. If you are among these, I apologize if you feel targeted by my rant yesterday.
And I’m not the only one who owes you an apology. The news media has a vital role to play in informing people about the background of political candidates, particularly presidential candidates.
But the mainstream news media were either so busy cheerleading for Obama and/or were just lazy that they gave Obama’s radical background a pass. If McCain had the most right of center record in the Senate and had past ties to extremist right-wing groups, do you think the news media would have given that a pass? But that is exactly what they did on the flip side with their hero Obama.
The news media, particularly the so-called “mainstream” news media failed those of you who don’t have the time and energy to spare for much politics. And if you cast a mistaken vote because of that and are suffering voter’s remorse, you have my understanding and sympathy, not censure.
But as for those who had ample time and wherewithal to inform themselves and should have known better, my rant yesterday still very much applies to them.
By the way, don’t be expecting that apology from the “mainstream” news media. They don’t have the conscience or the decency.
I realize many (most?) are so preoccupied with family, work, and other aspects of living that they hardly have the time and energy to dig into the details of politics. If you are among these, I apologize if you feel targeted by my rant yesterday.
And I’m not the only one who owes you an apology. The news media has a vital role to play in informing people about the background of political candidates, particularly presidential candidates.
But the mainstream news media were either so busy cheerleading for Obama and/or were just lazy that they gave Obama’s radical background a pass. If McCain had the most right of center record in the Senate and had past ties to extremist right-wing groups, do you think the news media would have given that a pass? But that is exactly what they did on the flip side with their hero Obama.
The news media, particularly the so-called “mainstream” news media failed those of you who don’t have the time and energy to spare for much politics. And if you cast a mistaken vote because of that and are suffering voter’s remorse, you have my understanding and sympathy, not censure.
But as for those who had ample time and wherewithal to inform themselves and should have known better, my rant yesterday still very much applies to them.
By the way, don’t be expecting that apology from the “mainstream” news media. They don’t have the conscience or the decency.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Voter’s Remorse
In case some of my readers think I oppose Obama’s policies simply because I’m an evil right-winger, may I suggest they listen to some of those who once welcomed the Obama presidency.
For example, there’s Jim Cramer, you know the crazy guy on CNBC’s Mad Money. He once eagerly looked forward to the Obama Administration. But now he says Obama’s “radical agenda” is “the greatest wealth destruction I’ve seen by a president.”
Then there’s David Brooks, who also eagerly awaited the Age of Obama. Now, this oh-so-moderate is, well, rather damning:
. . . the Obama budget is more than just the sum of its parts. There is, entailed in it, a promiscuous unwillingness to set priorities and accept trade-offs. There is evidence of a party swept up in its own revolutionary fervor . . . .
So programs are piled on top of each other and we wind up with a gargantuan $3.6 trillion budget. We end up with deficits that, when considered realistically, are $1 trillion a year and stretch as far as the eye can see. We end up with an agenda that is unexceptional in its parts but that, when taken as a whole, represents a social-engineering experiment that is entirely new.
The U.S. has never been a society riven by class resentment. Yet the Obama budget is predicated on a class divide. . . .
The U.S. has always had vibrant neighborhood associations. But in its very first budget, the Obama administration raises the cost of charitable giving. It punishes civic activism and expands state intervention.
And there’s more. But, I have to admit, I find this from Mr. Brooks a little whiney: “Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was.”
Well, isn’t that special. “I’m a moderate-conservative, I really am, but Obama fooled me.” Boo! Hoo!
I got something to say to Mr. Brooks and others who are suffering and will suffer voter’s remorse. . .
I (and others) TOLD YOU SO, AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN that Obama is an effing Leftist and a liar to boot! But YOU WOULDN’T LISTEN. Instead many of you Obama voters were so foolish to think someone with such a radical background and with the most left-wing voting record in the Senate would, upon his Sacred Inauguration, become this great non-partisan, non-ideological, even moderate, uniter who would solve all our problems.
Face it. You were fools, and now we are all paying for your foolishness.
(Of course, Obama is turning out to be worse than I expected, too. But I won’t let that get in the way of a good rant.)
By the way, I predicted voter’s remorse, too.
Well, now is Lent and a good time to repent.
I will take confessions in the comments.
UPDATE: Please read this addendum to my rant.
For example, there’s Jim Cramer, you know the crazy guy on CNBC’s Mad Money. He once eagerly looked forward to the Obama Administration. But now he says Obama’s “radical agenda” is “the greatest wealth destruction I’ve seen by a president.”
Then there’s David Brooks, who also eagerly awaited the Age of Obama. Now, this oh-so-moderate is, well, rather damning:
. . . the Obama budget is more than just the sum of its parts. There is, entailed in it, a promiscuous unwillingness to set priorities and accept trade-offs. There is evidence of a party swept up in its own revolutionary fervor . . . .
So programs are piled on top of each other and we wind up with a gargantuan $3.6 trillion budget. We end up with deficits that, when considered realistically, are $1 trillion a year and stretch as far as the eye can see. We end up with an agenda that is unexceptional in its parts but that, when taken as a whole, represents a social-engineering experiment that is entirely new.
The U.S. has never been a society riven by class resentment. Yet the Obama budget is predicated on a class divide. . . .
The U.S. has always had vibrant neighborhood associations. But in its very first budget, the Obama administration raises the cost of charitable giving. It punishes civic activism and expands state intervention.
And there’s more. But, I have to admit, I find this from Mr. Brooks a little whiney: “Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was.”
Well, isn’t that special. “I’m a moderate-conservative, I really am, but Obama fooled me.” Boo! Hoo!
I got something to say to Mr. Brooks and others who are suffering and will suffer voter’s remorse. . .
I (and others) TOLD YOU SO, AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN that Obama is an effing Leftist and a liar to boot! But YOU WOULDN’T LISTEN. Instead many of you Obama voters were so foolish to think someone with such a radical background and with the most left-wing voting record in the Senate would, upon his Sacred Inauguration, become this great non-partisan, non-ideological, even moderate, uniter who would solve all our problems.
Face it. You were fools, and now we are all paying for your foolishness.
(Of course, Obama is turning out to be worse than I expected, too. But I won’t let that get in the way of a good rant.)
By the way, I predicted voter’s remorse, too.
Well, now is Lent and a good time to repent.
I will take confessions in the comments.
UPDATE: Please read this addendum to my rant.
“Obama Lied; the Economy Died.”
I commend to my readers this sharp and at times witty op-ed by Tony Blankley.
I’m heartened to see him do what so few have done – take Obama to task for telling this whopper to Congress:
As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President's Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government - I don't.
I didn’t hear much of his speech after that because I was laughing so hard.
In light of Obama’s budget, tax, and spending proposals, that is about as big as Big Lies get.
So I heartily agree with Mr. Blankley’s conclusion:
If President Obama were to try to misrepresent his positions for the next four years, there would be nothing he could say that would approach the inaccuracy of his claim last week that he is not for big government. It is the essence of the man and his presidency. He doesn't like America the way it has been since its founding - and it will take an abusively big government to realize his dreams of converting America into something quite different. If you don't know that, you don't yet know Barack Obama.
I’m heartened to see him do what so few have done – take Obama to task for telling this whopper to Congress:
As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President's Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government - I don't.
I didn’t hear much of his speech after that because I was laughing so hard.
In light of Obama’s budget, tax, and spending proposals, that is about as big as Big Lies get.
So I heartily agree with Mr. Blankley’s conclusion:
If President Obama were to try to misrepresent his positions for the next four years, there would be nothing he could say that would approach the inaccuracy of his claim last week that he is not for big government. It is the essence of the man and his presidency. He doesn't like America the way it has been since its founding - and it will take an abusively big government to realize his dreams of converting America into something quite different. If you don't know that, you don't yet know Barack Obama.
About the Current Direction of This Blog
My forbearing readers have surely noticed a shift of focus in this humble blog. I’ve been focusing more on the predations of the new president and his allies and less on the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion.
One reason is I consider the direction of the Episcopal Church and of the Anglican Communion in appeasing TEC a done deal with little hope of stopping. And it is just not that interesting anymore. Even the most over the top outrages such as the Buddhist bishop simply illustrate that things really are as bad as orthodox bloggers such as myself have been saying. As for appointing pointless pastoral visitors or haggling over a Covenant with no teeth, yaaawn.
On the other hand, Obama’s policies are a disaster in progress, and one that I did not fully expect (as negative as I’ve been on Obama from the start) and one that can at least partly be stopped and reversed in due time. But for that to happen, bloggers need to be among those shining some light on what is going on.
You know the mainstream media won’t. Hear anything from ABC, NBC, ABC, or CNN about Kathleen Sebelius’ ties to late-term abortion George Tiller, for example? Did you hear from them that you would have to tax 100% of the income from those making over $75,000 to pay for Obama’s spending? Etc., etc.
And I am convinced the danger to our nation and freedoms is such that love of country and of those who visit my blog demands that I shine the light on the dangerous direction we are going, particularly since my political knowledge and experience is above average. I see a bridge out ahead, and I’m doing what I can to warn people.
And, yes, frankly, I do find the current American political situation intensely interesting even as it is distressing.
However, I wonder if some of my past readers do not find it so interesting. Visits to this blog are down, by about a third. I don’t know if it’s because my ranting repels people, or because many, like me, are weary of the same old same old in the Anglican Communion and just don’t frequent Anglican blogs as much. (I know my visits to Anglican blogs are down a bit.) If readers and other bloggers have insight on this, feel free to chime in.
But lower visits will not compel me to go easy on Obama and his allies. If they succeed in destroying this country, in transforming the U. S. into something that is hardly American and scarcely free, it won’t be because I wasn’t sounding the alarm.
Never fear, I will continue to blog on Anglican matters as well, particularly on the formation of the Anglican Church in North America, of which I am a glad member. But the current direction of this blog will continue for a while I expect.
I do not apologize for that. But I understand those who may not like the shift. I do hope you will still visit from time to time.
One reason is I consider the direction of the Episcopal Church and of the Anglican Communion in appeasing TEC a done deal with little hope of stopping. And it is just not that interesting anymore. Even the most over the top outrages such as the Buddhist bishop simply illustrate that things really are as bad as orthodox bloggers such as myself have been saying. As for appointing pointless pastoral visitors or haggling over a Covenant with no teeth, yaaawn.
On the other hand, Obama’s policies are a disaster in progress, and one that I did not fully expect (as negative as I’ve been on Obama from the start) and one that can at least partly be stopped and reversed in due time. But for that to happen, bloggers need to be among those shining some light on what is going on.
You know the mainstream media won’t. Hear anything from ABC, NBC, ABC, or CNN about Kathleen Sebelius’ ties to late-term abortion George Tiller, for example? Did you hear from them that you would have to tax 100% of the income from those making over $75,000 to pay for Obama’s spending? Etc., etc.
And I am convinced the danger to our nation and freedoms is such that love of country and of those who visit my blog demands that I shine the light on the dangerous direction we are going, particularly since my political knowledge and experience is above average. I see a bridge out ahead, and I’m doing what I can to warn people.
And, yes, frankly, I do find the current American political situation intensely interesting even as it is distressing.
However, I wonder if some of my past readers do not find it so interesting. Visits to this blog are down, by about a third. I don’t know if it’s because my ranting repels people, or because many, like me, are weary of the same old same old in the Anglican Communion and just don’t frequent Anglican blogs as much. (I know my visits to Anglican blogs are down a bit.) If readers and other bloggers have insight on this, feel free to chime in.
But lower visits will not compel me to go easy on Obama and his allies. If they succeed in destroying this country, in transforming the U. S. into something that is hardly American and scarcely free, it won’t be because I wasn’t sounding the alarm.
Never fear, I will continue to blog on Anglican matters as well, particularly on the formation of the Anglican Church in North America, of which I am a glad member. But the current direction of this blog will continue for a while I expect.
I do not apologize for that. But I understand those who may not like the shift. I do hope you will still visit from time to time.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Obama Picks Late Term Abortion Supporter Sebelius to Lead HHS
President Obama has indeed selected Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius to become Secretary of Health and Human Services.
As noted here before, her support of abortion extends even to late term abortionists, such as George Tiller.
Shame.
As noted here before, her support of abortion extends even to late term abortionists, such as George Tiller.
Shame.
A Former Buddhist on the Zen Buddhist Bishop
Others have noted this first. But it is so prescient, I have to note it as well.
“Bill,” a former Buddhist cuts straight to the heart of the matter of the Episcopal Church’s Buddhist bishop in two respects.
First, trying to be both Buddhist and Christian doesn’t fly:
Having been a Buddhist, I also tried the whole, "I can be a Buddhist and a Christian at the same time." Eventually, I realized, no, you really can't ... unless you do some pretty serious intellectual violence to both religions.
Second, there is more than a little “bad faith” in non-Christians hijacking churches:
It's bad faith to attend a church where you don't believe its tenets. It's bad faith to attempt (and succeed) in taking over an existing church (or diocese) knowing you've re-interpreted the people's beliefs so that you don't really believe what they believe. If you believe something different — a universal church, or some kind of synthesis — have the guts to start your own church.
I couldn’t have said it better myself. And this succinctly summarizes the history of the mainline denominations. I’ve long been provoked by non-Christians hijacking what were Christian churches. And, like Bill, my problem isn’t that people have different beliefs than me, it’s that people who have completely different beliefs than the catholic church through the centuries try to hijack large portions of it (with much success I’m sad to say).
I have more respect for the Church of Satan than for such bad faith. At least the Church of Satan is somewhat honest about what they are up to. Instead, the pseudo-Christians, to paraphrase 2 Peter 2:1, secretly brought in their heresies into the mainline denominations, waiting until they were fully in control to reveal them. Even now, they still cloak them in churchy language and in liturgies they don’t believe.
It is dishonest. It is bad faith. And it should be called out as Bill has done. Kudos to him!
“Bill,” a former Buddhist cuts straight to the heart of the matter of the Episcopal Church’s Buddhist bishop in two respects.
First, trying to be both Buddhist and Christian doesn’t fly:
Having been a Buddhist, I also tried the whole, "I can be a Buddhist and a Christian at the same time." Eventually, I realized, no, you really can't ... unless you do some pretty serious intellectual violence to both religions.
Second, there is more than a little “bad faith” in non-Christians hijacking churches:
It's bad faith to attend a church where you don't believe its tenets. It's bad faith to attempt (and succeed) in taking over an existing church (or diocese) knowing you've re-interpreted the people's beliefs so that you don't really believe what they believe. If you believe something different — a universal church, or some kind of synthesis — have the guts to start your own church.
I couldn’t have said it better myself. And this succinctly summarizes the history of the mainline denominations. I’ve long been provoked by non-Christians hijacking what were Christian churches. And, like Bill, my problem isn’t that people have different beliefs than me, it’s that people who have completely different beliefs than the catholic church through the centuries try to hijack large portions of it (with much success I’m sad to say).
I have more respect for the Church of Satan than for such bad faith. At least the Church of Satan is somewhat honest about what they are up to. Instead, the pseudo-Christians, to paraphrase 2 Peter 2:1, secretly brought in their heresies into the mainline denominations, waiting until they were fully in control to reveal them. Even now, they still cloak them in churchy language and in liturgies they don’t believe.
It is dishonest. It is bad faith. And it should be called out as Bill has done. Kudos to him!
Obama’s Hidden Agenda?: Less for Charities of Your Choice, More for Charities of His Choice
At the start, please note the question mark in the title. I don’t claim the ability to read the mind of Our Dear Leader. His thoughts are too high for me to comprehend.
However, there is little question of the effect of his proposal to reduce the tax deduction for charitable contributions. There would be less incentive for voluntary charitable giving – it would, in effect be taxed – with a predictable hit on the same.
(Now whether that hit would be offset by other factors is beyond my ability to foresee. People obviously look at much more than tax deductions in determining their giving. I will say that I am one person who takes tax deductions into account in deciding at least the timing of his giving.)
But, not to worry, the government will help make up the difference with a fund to support non-profits (Scroll down to “Obama Charity Central”).
But what if a charity or non-profit opposesthe wisdom of Our Dear Leader government policy? What if a non-profit, say, opposes abortion or does not think “gay is O. K.” and conducts itself accordingly? Will they be favored by this government fund?
I think most of you get the picture already. As one blogger puts it, Obama is effectively taking money that people would give to charities of their choice and giving it to charities of his choice. Whether or not this is Obama’s intent, it most certainly would be the effect of his proposals.
If you think this won’t harm conservative charities and favor Leftish ones, please think again. It’s been well documented that conservatives give more in voluntary contributions. So taxing such giving will likely harm conservative non-profits. As for what non-profits Obama’s fund would favor . . . again, I think you get the picture.
And, yes, this would affect churches as well, although I do hope Christians are more stubborn about giving to their churches as I am (i. e. If I’m compelled to reduce giving, I’ll cut other places instead of my church.).
Fortunately, there is opposition to Obama’s attempt to tax voluntary charitable contributions from both parties. Let us pray that opposition prevails.
However, there is little question of the effect of his proposal to reduce the tax deduction for charitable contributions. There would be less incentive for voluntary charitable giving – it would, in effect be taxed – with a predictable hit on the same.
(Now whether that hit would be offset by other factors is beyond my ability to foresee. People obviously look at much more than tax deductions in determining their giving. I will say that I am one person who takes tax deductions into account in deciding at least the timing of his giving.)
But, not to worry, the government will help make up the difference with a fund to support non-profits (Scroll down to “Obama Charity Central”).
But what if a charity or non-profit opposes
I think most of you get the picture already. As one blogger puts it, Obama is effectively taking money that people would give to charities of their choice and giving it to charities of his choice. Whether or not this is Obama’s intent, it most certainly would be the effect of his proposals.
If you think this won’t harm conservative charities and favor Leftish ones, please think again. It’s been well documented that conservatives give more in voluntary contributions. So taxing such giving will likely harm conservative non-profits. As for what non-profits Obama’s fund would favor . . . again, I think you get the picture.
And, yes, this would affect churches as well, although I do hope Christians are more stubborn about giving to their churches as I am (i. e. If I’m compelled to reduce giving, I’ll cut other places instead of my church.).
Fortunately, there is opposition to Obama’s attempt to tax voluntary charitable contributions from both parties. Let us pray that opposition prevails.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)