Friday, July 31, 2009
Corrupt Leftist Endorses Corrupt Leftist
Smut and Cultural Trash – Your Stimulus Tax Dollars at “Work”
That budget destroying Obama Stimulus passed by the Democrat Congress hasn’t been stimulating the economy much, has it. So just what has it been stimulating?
For a sample, look at how the National Endowment for the Arts has been using stimulus money. (Warning: Content will offend.)
For a sample, look at how the National Endowment for the Arts has been using stimulus money. (Warning: Content will offend.)
Labels: Democrats, National Endowment for the Arts, Obama
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Obamacare: Deadly Doctors and Corrupt Politicians
Do you want to trust your health care to men like these?
Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. . . .
He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years"
. . .
Nor have most people heard about the arm-twisting, Chicago-style tactics being used to force support. In a Nov. 16, 2008, Health Care Watch column, Emanuel explained how business should be done: "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."
Do we want a "reform" that empowers people like this to decide for us?
Good question.
Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. . . .
He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years"
. . .
Nor have most people heard about the arm-twisting, Chicago-style tactics being used to force support. In a Nov. 16, 2008, Health Care Watch column, Emanuel explained how business should be done: "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."
Do we want a "reform" that empowers people like this to decide for us?
Good question.
Labels: Obamacare
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Enough With the Birth Certificate Stuff
I have to confess, there have been times when I have wondered about Obama’s birth certificate and whether he was born in the U. S. But I haven’t researched the matter or given a lot of thought to it.
Thankfully, the National Review has and clears the matter up, at least for me. For better or for worse, the man was born in Hawaii.
And I heartily agree that those of us who are right of center have much, much better things to do than obsess about Obama’s birth certificate. He is a great danger to our freedoms; his agenda must be opposed. That is all the more reason not to divert our energies to this birth certificate stuff. Not to mention that it plays into Obama’s hands for us to act, well, nutty.
It is past time to drop it.
Thankfully, the National Review has and clears the matter up, at least for me. For better or for worse, the man was born in Hawaii.
And I heartily agree that those of us who are right of center have much, much better things to do than obsess about Obama’s birth certificate. He is a great danger to our freedoms; his agenda must be opposed. That is all the more reason not to divert our energies to this birth certificate stuff. Not to mention that it plays into Obama’s hands for us to act, well, nutty.
It is past time to drop it.
Labels: Obama
Monday, July 27, 2009
BREAKING: ++Rowan Williams Comments On TEC General Convention
The Archbishop of Canterbury has finally commented on the Episcopal Church General Convention.
I’m in the process of reading his statement and may comment later.
LATER:
Well, I’ve read the statement and don’t know quite what to make of it. In reading Dr. Williams’ words, one has to take into consideration his actions, which have enabled the apostasy of the Episcopal Church time and time again. Also, with Dr. Williams, when he understates matters, it is hard to know how much of that is British understatement and how much he is really underestimating a matter.
But at first reading, it seems there is much to commend the statement in spite of his side-splitting beginning:
No-one could be in any doubt about the eagerness of the Bishops and Deputies of the Episcopal Church at the General Convention to affirm their concern about the wider Anglican Communion.
I had a very good laugh out of that one. That is what you call receiving a deposit of crap and calling it a loving contribution.
Fortunately, the statement went uphill from there. I was particularly impressed with the following:
9. In other words, the question is not a simple one of human rights or human dignity. It is that a certain choice of lifestyle has certain consequences. So long as the Church Catholic, or even the Communion as a whole does not bless same-sex unions, a person living in such a union cannot without serious incongruity have a representative function in a Church whose public teaching is at odds with their lifestyle. (There is also an unavoidable difficulty over whether someone belonging to a local church in which practice has been changed in respect of same-sex unions is able to represent the Communion's voice and perspective in, for example, international ecumenical encounters.)
10. This is not a matter that can be wholly determined by what society at large considers usual or acceptable or determines to be legal. Prejudice and violence against LGBT people are sinful and disgraceful when society at large is intolerant of such people; if the Church has echoed the harshness of the law and of popular bigotry – as it so often has done – and justified itself by pointing to what society took for granted, it has been wrong to do so. But on the same basis, if society changes its attitudes, that change does not of itself count as a reason for the Church to change its discipline.
That is very well said and cuts through the fog surrounding such issues as well as Dr. Williams can be expected to do. And I am pleasantly surprised that he pretty much states that it is at this time inappropriate for practicing homosexuals to “have a representative function” in the Anglican Communion.
But with ++Rowan, the problem is not so much his words as it is his actions and inactions. If he were to stop enabling The Episcopal Church, then I would be really surprised. Maybe this statement is a beginning in that direction. But I seriously doubt it.
I’m in the process of reading his statement and may comment later.
LATER:
Well, I’ve read the statement and don’t know quite what to make of it. In reading Dr. Williams’ words, one has to take into consideration his actions, which have enabled the apostasy of the Episcopal Church time and time again. Also, with Dr. Williams, when he understates matters, it is hard to know how much of that is British understatement and how much he is really underestimating a matter.
But at first reading, it seems there is much to commend the statement in spite of his side-splitting beginning:
No-one could be in any doubt about the eagerness of the Bishops and Deputies of the Episcopal Church at the General Convention to affirm their concern about the wider Anglican Communion.
I had a very good laugh out of that one. That is what you call receiving a deposit of crap and calling it a loving contribution.
Fortunately, the statement went uphill from there. I was particularly impressed with the following:
9. In other words, the question is not a simple one of human rights or human dignity. It is that a certain choice of lifestyle has certain consequences. So long as the Church Catholic, or even the Communion as a whole does not bless same-sex unions, a person living in such a union cannot without serious incongruity have a representative function in a Church whose public teaching is at odds with their lifestyle. (There is also an unavoidable difficulty over whether someone belonging to a local church in which practice has been changed in respect of same-sex unions is able to represent the Communion's voice and perspective in, for example, international ecumenical encounters.)
10. This is not a matter that can be wholly determined by what society at large considers usual or acceptable or determines to be legal. Prejudice and violence against LGBT people are sinful and disgraceful when society at large is intolerant of such people; if the Church has echoed the harshness of the law and of popular bigotry – as it so often has done – and justified itself by pointing to what society took for granted, it has been wrong to do so. But on the same basis, if society changes its attitudes, that change does not of itself count as a reason for the Church to change its discipline.
That is very well said and cuts through the fog surrounding such issues as well as Dr. Williams can be expected to do. And I am pleasantly surprised that he pretty much states that it is at this time inappropriate for practicing homosexuals to “have a representative function” in the Anglican Communion.
But with ++Rowan, the problem is not so much his words as it is his actions and inactions. If he were to stop enabling The Episcopal Church, then I would be really surprised. Maybe this statement is a beginning in that direction. But I seriously doubt it.
Labels: Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams
Obama the Uniter Update
Obama’s prime time press conference last Wednesday has indeed proved to be a disaster, particularly his “stupid” comments about the Gates arrest. Now, Rasmussen has 40% strongly disapproving of Obama. This is yet another jump in that number since the press conference.
For those on another planet the past few days, here’s a good summary of the Gates arrest situation.
It turns out that Obama’s stupid off-the-cuff comments weren’t so off the cuff. Before the press conference, he was briefed that he might be questioned about the arrest. Yet he still made his offensive comments.
I think Obama’s ill-advised comments illustrate that his instinct is to side with professional race-baiters and that he has a tin ear for the values of average Americans. He can conceal that fault very well when on a teleprompter, but when off, he lets it slip on occasion, and how!
Meanwhile, Gates doesn’t have any shame about the matter and just won’t shut up. Keep playing that race card, buddy.
Between Obama’s friends and his frequent press conferences, I may soon have to retract my past statements that he is no uniter. For he is uniting people . . . against him.
For those on another planet the past few days, here’s a good summary of the Gates arrest situation.
It turns out that Obama’s stupid off-the-cuff comments weren’t so off the cuff. Before the press conference, he was briefed that he might be questioned about the arrest. Yet he still made his offensive comments.
I think Obama’s ill-advised comments illustrate that his instinct is to side with professional race-baiters and that he has a tin ear for the values of average Americans. He can conceal that fault very well when on a teleprompter, but when off, he lets it slip on occasion, and how!
Meanwhile, Gates doesn’t have any shame about the matter and just won’t shut up. Keep playing that race card, buddy.
Between Obama’s friends and his frequent press conferences, I may soon have to retract my past statements that he is no uniter. For he is uniting people . . . against him.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Swine Flu: Archbishops of Canterbury and York Recommend Communion of One Kind
In a measure of how deep the concern (scare?) over Swine Flu is in the UK, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have advised suspending the administration of the chalice..
The Archbishops do recommend accommodating those (like me) who insist on receiving communion of both kinds. Nevertheless, their advisory is remarkable, perhaps unprecedented.
The Archbishops do recommend accommodating those (like me) who insist on receiving communion of both kinds. Nevertheless, their advisory is remarkable, perhaps unprecedented.
Labels: Church of England, swine flu, UK
AP: Obama IS Telling Some Whoppers on Healthcare
Some of my forbearing readers may think I’m a mean sadoconservative for pointing out that Obama is lying on healthcare. But look! Now even the mainstream news media is noticing that he is indeed telling some whoppers. AP has put out a fact check that concludes Obama’s statements are “somewhat at odds with the details in front of him.”
Gosh! You think?
Gosh! You think?
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
I’m Not the Only One Laughing at Obamacare.
I’m not the only one laughing at the carnival huckster claims of Obama and his allies for Obama’s heath care plan. When Democrat Rep. Russ Carnahan told his constituents that Obamacare would cut costs and even create a surplus, they laughed at him.
If you also detected a bit of anger from his constituents, expect the same to increase across the country as people find out more and more about Obamacare, such as it covering illegal aliens.
Already a majority of Americans oppose Obamacare.
But, Obama, you said the American people were “on board.”
If you also detected a bit of anger from his constituents, expect the same to increase across the country as people find out more and more about Obamacare, such as it covering illegal aliens.
Already a majority of Americans oppose Obamacare.
But, Obama, you said the American people were “on board.”
++Duncan to Anglican Communion: “There is a choice to be made.”
Yesterday, the Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America, Robert Duncan, issued an open letter to the Anglican Communion.
There is one courageous aspect of the letter that I think is getting overlooked. ++Duncan is not presenting the current situation as an opportunity for the Anglican Communion to recognize ACNA in addition to The Episcopal Church. Instead, he seems to discourage that route and in clear language exhorts the Communion to make a choice:
The North American poet, Robert Frost, once wrote: “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the road less traveled by. That has made all the difference.” For Anglican Christians, for the Instruments of Unity (Communion), for interdependent Provinces, for ordinary believers, there is a choice to be made. The choice is between two religions, two roads, two cities, two sets of conflicting values and behaviors. In Deuteronomy, chapter 30, Moses sets the choice as between blessing and curse, life and death. For contemporary Anglicanism the present choice is this stark.
He is not saying, “Can I join the club, too? Please? Can I?” He certainly seems to saying the choice for the Anglican Communion is TEC or ACNA, not both.
Of course, as only Bishop Duncan can, he lays out the choice gently and humbly. Nevertheless, he does so clearly and courageously.
Perhaps I’m reading too much into this letter. His intent may be simply to urge the Communion to stick with orthodox catholic Christianity and to reject the apostasies of the Episcopal Church. But I think ++Duncan is not nearly as interested in joining an Anglican Communion with The Episcopal Church as people think.
If so, I concur. There is something very wrong with a communion that would not discipline the likes of The Episcopal Church.
There is one courageous aspect of the letter that I think is getting overlooked. ++Duncan is not presenting the current situation as an opportunity for the Anglican Communion to recognize ACNA in addition to The Episcopal Church. Instead, he seems to discourage that route and in clear language exhorts the Communion to make a choice:
The North American poet, Robert Frost, once wrote: “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the road less traveled by. That has made all the difference.” For Anglican Christians, for the Instruments of Unity (Communion), for interdependent Provinces, for ordinary believers, there is a choice to be made. The choice is between two religions, two roads, two cities, two sets of conflicting values and behaviors. In Deuteronomy, chapter 30, Moses sets the choice as between blessing and curse, life and death. For contemporary Anglicanism the present choice is this stark.
He is not saying, “Can I join the club, too? Please? Can I?” He certainly seems to saying the choice for the Anglican Communion is TEC or ACNA, not both.
Of course, as only Bishop Duncan can, he lays out the choice gently and humbly. Nevertheless, he does so clearly and courageously.
Perhaps I’m reading too much into this letter. His intent may be simply to urge the Communion to stick with orthodox catholic Christianity and to reject the apostasies of the Episcopal Church. But I think ++Duncan is not nearly as interested in joining an Anglican Communion with The Episcopal Church as people think.
If so, I concur. There is something very wrong with a communion that would not discipline the likes of The Episcopal Church.
Labels: Anglican Church in North America, Anglican Communion, Duncan, The Episcopal Church
Monday, July 20, 2009
BREAKING: Rasmussen Poll Has Obama-Romney Tied
I think this is a bombshell. For one thing, I believe it will strengthen the backbones of those politicians deliberating whether or not to stand up to Obama on healthcare, cap-and-trade, taxes, etc.
Obama’s standing with the American people has plummeted, and fast, even beyond my expectations. This may help stop much of Obama’s once inevitable agenda.
Obama’s standing with the American people has plummeted, and fast, even beyond my expectations. This may help stop much of Obama’s once inevitable agenda.
Labels: Mitt Romney, Obama, politics
Expect More Obama Lies on Healthcare
The Washington Post confirms what I had already noticed – that Obama is in front of the cameras every day pushing Obamacare on us. It’s all Obama, all the time with even yet another prime time press conference this Wednesday.
I wonder what fibs he’ll tell this week. He told some whoppers last week:
1. The American people are “on board” Obamacare.
If they are “on board,” it is certainly not willingly as now even the Washington Post’s polling confirms.
2. In various permutations, he has promised that Obamacare would decrease, not increase the cost of healthcare.
Then why is Congress scrambling for means to pay for Obamacare, including an economy destroying 5%+ surtax? Why did the Congressional Budget Office say the current House version of Obamacare would add $239 billion to the deficit?
Let there be no mistake. Obama is seeking socialized health care no matter what the cost. His motivation is not to reduce costs, but to increase government control of our lives.
3. “I don’t believe that government can or should run health care.”
.
.
.
Sorry, I had a laughing fit there. If anyone out there actually believes that, stay far, far away from Nigerian e-mails, because you are one gullible person.
And that is just for starters.
When Obama became president, I honestly did not think we had one who would rival Bill Clinton in his ability to say just about anything with a straight face.
Obama has proven me wrong.
Better oil up your lie detectors. Obama putsch for national socialist medicine will put them in overdrive this week.
I wonder what fibs he’ll tell this week. He told some whoppers last week:
1. The American people are “on board” Obamacare.
If they are “on board,” it is certainly not willingly as now even the Washington Post’s polling confirms.
2. In various permutations, he has promised that Obamacare would decrease, not increase the cost of healthcare.
Then why is Congress scrambling for means to pay for Obamacare, including an economy destroying 5%+ surtax? Why did the Congressional Budget Office say the current House version of Obamacare would add $239 billion to the deficit?
Let there be no mistake. Obama is seeking socialized health care no matter what the cost. His motivation is not to reduce costs, but to increase government control of our lives.
3. “I don’t believe that government can or should run health care.”
.
.
.
Sorry, I had a laughing fit there. If anyone out there actually believes that, stay far, far away from Nigerian e-mails, because you are one gullible person.
And that is just for starters.
When Obama became president, I honestly did not think we had one who would rival Bill Clinton in his ability to say just about anything with a straight face.
Obama has proven me wrong.
Better oil up your lie detectors. Obama putsch for national socialist medicine will put them in overdrive this week.
Chuck Collins of Christ Church San Antonio Reports on General Convention
Chuck+ Collins, the rector of Christ Church San Antonio has reported to his parish on the Episcopal Church General Convention just completed.
Collins is a straight talking and resolutely orthodox rector of a (the?) flagship parish in the Diocese of West Texas. So I make a point to listen closely to him.
It sounds like whether Christ Church will stay in The Episcopal Church, even under orthodox Bishop Lillibridge, is an open question.
Collins is a straight talking and resolutely orthodox rector of a (the?) flagship parish in the Diocese of West Texas. So I make a point to listen closely to him.
It sounds like whether Christ Church will stay in The Episcopal Church, even under orthodox Bishop Lillibridge, is an open question.
Labels: Chuck Collins, Diocese of West Texas, The Episcopal Church
Friday, July 17, 2009
Another Exodus From The Episcopal Church?
Up to now, I did not think the actions of the current TEC General Convention would significantly increase the loss of members from that denomination. I thought so many conservatives have already left that there weren’t that many left to leave. Also, if what has occurred in recent years is not enough to make one depart . . . . Well, you’ve heard the jokes about the parishioner who fulminates that he’ll leave if there is one more abomination.
But this report from a South Dakota parish is making me think again. Good Shepherd, Sioux Falls has already lost a vestry member and three families before General Convention is officially over. This is only one parish, but it certainly makes one wonder what may be happening elsewhere.
Don’t expect much crying from the oh-so-inclusive crowd that now runs The Episcopal Church, however. There inclusivity excludes the orthodox. Their deletion of a conscience clause is just one indication of that. And many of them can barely constrain their glee at getting conservatives out of the way.
The Episcopal Church is certainly doing a good job of that.
But this report from a South Dakota parish is making me think again. Good Shepherd, Sioux Falls has already lost a vestry member and three families before General Convention is officially over. This is only one parish, but it certainly makes one wonder what may be happening elsewhere.
Don’t expect much crying from the oh-so-inclusive crowd that now runs The Episcopal Church, however. There inclusivity excludes the orthodox. Their deletion of a conscience clause is just one indication of that. And many of them can barely constrain their glee at getting conservatives out of the way.
The Episcopal Church is certainly doing a good job of that.
Labels: The Episcopal Church
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Rowan the Enabler
Robert Munday has posted a good summary of how Rowan Williams’ persistent appeasing has enabled the apostasy of the Episcopal Church and led to this day.
I’ll add that whenever Dr. Williams has been forced to make some sort of decision, he has either given The Episcopal Church a pass or has stood with them. And his strategy, if it can be called that, has proven to be an utter failure.
I’ll add that whenever Dr. Williams has been forced to make some sort of decision, he has either given The Episcopal Church a pass or has stood with them. And his strategy, if it can be called that, has proven to be an utter failure.
Labels: Rowan Williams
Be Inclusive . . . Or Else.
The Episcopal Church House of Bishops passed a resolution endorsing the development of liturgy for same-sex unions and “marriages.”
Christopher Johnson has a sharp eye and noticed something missing in the final resolution – the conscience clause which was in earlier versions.
How inclusive.
MORE:
The reaction of Dan Martins, an Episcopalian who is hardly a fire-breather:
This convention (when the Deputies concur with the Bishops tomorrow) has abrogated every positive gesture it has made toward the Anglican Communion since 2003. Everything we did three years ago in response to the Windsor Report is down the drain. . . .
This is a dark day. It is a day that will live in infamy.
Christopher Johnson has a sharp eye and noticed something missing in the final resolution – the conscience clause which was in earlier versions.
How inclusive.
MORE:
The reaction of Dan Martins, an Episcopalian who is hardly a fire-breather:
This convention (when the Deputies concur with the Bishops tomorrow) has abrogated every positive gesture it has made toward the Anglican Communion since 2003. Everything we did three years ago in response to the Windsor Report is down the drain. . . .
This is a dark day. It is a day that will live in infamy.
Labels: The Episcopal Church
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Obama Appoints “Communist” as “Green Jobs” Czar. News Media Quiet.
No, that headline is not an exaggeration. Van Jones, the man tapped to become Obama’s “Green Jobs” Czar, by his own admission is a radical Leftist, having referred to himself in 2005 as a “communist” and a “rowdy black nationalist.”
What I find most outrageous about this matter is that, other than Fox, the news media has been very quiet about Van Jones’ radical background. Now if Bush had appointed a man who had referred to himself as a “Nazi” and a “rowdy white nationalist” and had the background to back it up, do you think the news media would have been quiet about that? Hmmmmm?
The “mainstream” news media double standards continue.
What I find most outrageous about this matter is that, other than Fox, the news media has been very quiet about Van Jones’ radical background. Now if Bush had appointed a man who had referred to himself as a “Nazi” and a “rowdy white nationalist” and had the background to back it up, do you think the news media would have been quiet about that? Hmmmmm?
The “mainstream” news media double standards continue.
Labels: Leftists, news media, Obama
The Episcopal Church Rejects the Uniqueness of Christ
The Episcopal Church’s General Convention has fallen all over themselves to affirm gay bishops. But they can’t bring themselves to affirm the uniqueness of Christ.
And in case you think the resolution they rejected came from those nasty fundamentalists (as if there are any left in The Episcopal Church), a version of the resolution in question passed in the Church of England Synod 283-8 back in February. Yes, that's 283-8 . . . in the Church of England.
Does anyone dare still argue that The Episcopal Church is in the mainstream of Anglicanism?
Meanwhile, even Bishop Wright and the ACI see that The Episcopal Church is “walking apart” with its affirmation of gay bishops.
But efforts to come up with fig leaf rationalizations to keep TEC in the Anglican Communion have already begun, of course.
And in case you think the resolution they rejected came from those nasty fundamentalists (as if there are any left in The Episcopal Church), a version of the resolution in question passed in the Church of England Synod 283-8 back in February. Yes, that's 283-8 . . . in the Church of England.
Does anyone dare still argue that The Episcopal Church is in the mainstream of Anglicanism?
Meanwhile, even Bishop Wright and the ACI see that The Episcopal Church is “walking apart” with its affirmation of gay bishops.
But efforts to come up with fig leaf rationalizations to keep TEC in the Anglican Communion have already begun, of course.
Labels: Church of England, The Episcopal Church
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
The Episcopal Church HOB Clears Way for More Gay Bishops *YAWN*
As most of you now know, in spite of Stand Firm going down, the TEC House of Bishops joined the House of Deputies overnight in shooting the Anglican Communion yet another finger by officially opening the door to more non-celibate gay bishops.
It turns out the worries of Gene Robinson and the like about the House of Bishops were unfounded. They have neither the backbone nor the wisdom to say no to this madness.
As Robert Munday suggests, the news likely did not brighten ++Rowan William’s morning. But don’t expect His Grace to actually do anything about it. When push comes to shove, he sides with keeping The Episcopal Church fully in the Anglican Communion.
And do not expect The Church of England to recognize The Anglican Church in North America either, even after this. Rowan will obey his Episcopal Church minders and oppose that. And there will not be enough support for ACNA in The Church of England to overcome that. I hope I am wrong about that but expect I am not.
So, yes, the aftermath I expect is the same old same old in the Anglican Communion, only more so. Trendy Lefty TEC dioceses will race each other to get the next gay bishop. Divisions in the Anglican Communion will deepen. The Episcopal Church will remain in and ACNA out and the Global South politely stiff-armed. And Rowan will dither.
Apostasy can be so boring.
It turns out the worries of Gene Robinson and the like about the House of Bishops were unfounded. They have neither the backbone nor the wisdom to say no to this madness.
As Robert Munday suggests, the news likely did not brighten ++Rowan William’s morning. But don’t expect His Grace to actually do anything about it. When push comes to shove, he sides with keeping The Episcopal Church fully in the Anglican Communion.
And do not expect The Church of England to recognize The Anglican Church in North America either, even after this. Rowan will obey his Episcopal Church minders and oppose that. And there will not be enough support for ACNA in The Church of England to overcome that. I hope I am wrong about that but expect I am not.
So, yes, the aftermath I expect is the same old same old in the Anglican Communion, only more so. Trendy Lefty TEC dioceses will race each other to get the next gay bishop. Divisions in the Anglican Communion will deepen. The Episcopal Church will remain in and ACNA out and the Global South politely stiff-armed. And Rowan will dither.
Apostasy can be so boring.
Labels: Church of England, Rowan Williams, The Anglican Church in North America, The Episcopal Church
Monday, July 13, 2009
Obamacare Means Taxpayer-funded Abortions
Kudos to Life News and Sen. Orrin Hatch for blowing up the cover on this.
I intend to follow this matter closely. I think nothing shows the hypocrisy of the so-called pro-choice crowd than their opposing taxpayers and doctors having a choice about whether to participate in an abortion. And if you are funding abortion, you are participating in it whether you like or not.
I intend to follow this matter closely. I think nothing shows the hypocrisy of the so-called pro-choice crowd than their opposing taxpayers and doctors having a choice about whether to participate in an abortion. And if you are funding abortion, you are participating in it whether you like or not.
Annoy Schori. Recognize ACNA.
When I first heard news of a motion in the Church of England’s General Synod to seek full communion with The Anglican Church in North America, I thought, “This won’t go far.”
But then it quickly got the hundred signatures necessary, including support from six bishops.
Although the motion will not be considered at the current meeting of Synod, the momentum is such that TEC Presiding “Bishop” Schori has already spoken out against it:
She urged Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to remember the "pain of many Episcopalians in several places of being shut out of their traditional worship spaces, and the broken relationships, the damaged relationships between people who have gone and people who have stayed."
And whose fault is that? Who has pushed a scorched earth policy and stopped amicable settlements? Who has made The Episcopal Church an intolerable place for most orthodox faithful and then “shut out” those orthodox from their parish buildings?
"Recognition of something like ACNA is unfortunately likely only to encourage" further secessions, she said, reminding the Church of England that "schism is not a Christian act."
Heresy, apostasy, and persecuting the faithful are not Christian either. Yet you seem cool with that, Kate. And still, you lecture us about what is Christian. How precious. And ACNA is already recognized by a majority of the Anglican Communion. You at the very least have communion impaired with roughly the same majority. So, tell me again, who is schismatic?
Anyway, if the momentum behind the motion to recognize ACNA is such that Schori is unhappy, that is a good thing. I would not get one’s hopes up too much, however. You can bet there will be very strong opposition.
Ruth Gledhill adds some color including a count update – 121 signatures, about a quarter of the Synod. Encouraging.
And a hat tip to BabyBlue.
But then it quickly got the hundred signatures necessary, including support from six bishops.
Although the motion will not be considered at the current meeting of Synod, the momentum is such that TEC Presiding “Bishop” Schori has already spoken out against it:
She urged Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to remember the "pain of many Episcopalians in several places of being shut out of their traditional worship spaces, and the broken relationships, the damaged relationships between people who have gone and people who have stayed."
And whose fault is that? Who has pushed a scorched earth policy and stopped amicable settlements? Who has made The Episcopal Church an intolerable place for most orthodox faithful and then “shut out” those orthodox from their parish buildings?
"Recognition of something like ACNA is unfortunately likely only to encourage" further secessions, she said, reminding the Church of England that "schism is not a Christian act."
Heresy, apostasy, and persecuting the faithful are not Christian either. Yet you seem cool with that, Kate. And still, you lecture us about what is Christian. How precious. And ACNA is already recognized by a majority of the Anglican Communion. You at the very least have communion impaired with roughly the same majority. So, tell me again, who is schismatic?
Anyway, if the momentum behind the motion to recognize ACNA is such that Schori is unhappy, that is a good thing. I would not get one’s hopes up too much, however. You can bet there will be very strong opposition.
Ruth Gledhill adds some color including a count update – 121 signatures, about a quarter of the Synod. Encouraging.
And a hat tip to BabyBlue.
Labels: Church of England, Schori, The Anglican Church in North America, The Episcopal Church
Friday, July 10, 2009
Annoy Schori. Eat Meat.
From this amusing article, I was particularly amused by the following:
"We are all interconnected," she announced. "How we live... (and) dispose of garbage... affects us all." For example, Schori informed the room that the amount of protein we eat influences climate change and that, "we're in the midst of a crash course in economic interconnectedness."
And don’t miss the (tongue-in-cheek?) account of ++Rowan Williams afterwards dining . . . at Ruth’s Chris Steak House.
Ubuntu!
"We are all interconnected," she announced. "How we live... (and) dispose of garbage... affects us all." For example, Schori informed the room that the amount of protein we eat influences climate change and that, "we're in the midst of a crash course in economic interconnectedness."
And don’t miss the (tongue-in-cheek?) account of ++Rowan Williams afterwards dining . . . at Ruth’s Chris Steak House.
Ubuntu!
Labels: fun, Rowan Williams, Schori
GenCon 09: Will the Bishops Say No?
I haven’t been following The Episcopal Church’s General Convention closely. The doings in Anaheim I’m more interested in are the Texas Rangers beating the Angels in baseball.
But I do find it interesting that the House of Bishops are not as Communist as the House of Deputies and may discourage or obstruct some of the enormities of the HofD.
Don’t get me wrong. The House of Bishops as a group are a bunch of heretics and are not about to lead The Episcopal Church back to orthodoxy. But most of them are not flaming, let-it-all-hang-out heretics, at least not to the extent of the House of Deputies, or of --Schori for that matter, and may actually want some restraint in going all in for the “inclusive” agenda. Gene Robinson, for one, is “not happy” about that.
So it is possible that, even with the real dioceses of Ft. Worth, Pittsburgh, and San Joaquin gone, the bishops may keep this GenCon from giving another giant finger to the rest of the Anglican Communion and instead may nudge to fudge.
If out of some morbid impulse you must follow GenCon, I suspect this will be the main thing to watch. Don’t be distracted too much by the moonbats, as amusing and distracting as they are. Watch the bishops.
But I do find it interesting that the House of Bishops are not as Communist as the House of Deputies and may discourage or obstruct some of the enormities of the HofD.
Don’t get me wrong. The House of Bishops as a group are a bunch of heretics and are not about to lead The Episcopal Church back to orthodoxy. But most of them are not flaming, let-it-all-hang-out heretics, at least not to the extent of the House of Deputies, or of --Schori for that matter, and may actually want some restraint in going all in for the “inclusive” agenda. Gene Robinson, for one, is “not happy” about that.
So it is possible that, even with the real dioceses of Ft. Worth, Pittsburgh, and San Joaquin gone, the bishops may keep this GenCon from giving another giant finger to the rest of the Anglican Communion and instead may nudge to fudge.
If out of some morbid impulse you must follow GenCon, I suspect this will be the main thing to watch. Don’t be distracted too much by the moonbats, as amusing and distracting as they are. Watch the bishops.
Labels: Gene Robinson, The Episcopal Church
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Yet Another Reason to Dump the E-word
At the TEC General Convention Gene Robinson has exhorted The Episcopal Church to be gay and proud:
Bishop Robinson said he knew that “there are a lot of Episcopalians who say they are embarrassed when people say you are the ‘gay’ church.” To this, Episcopalians should say, “You bet we are.”
Robinson is correct that The Episcopal Church is perceived as a gay church. His happy admission of that is revealing. And his exhortation will only strengthen that perception.
And that makes it that much more urgent that the Reformed Episcopal Church dump the E-word and replace it with “Anglican”. I know personally that the E-word is a burden when attempting to attract people to our church. Normal people do not know the Reformed Episcopal Church is not *that* Episcopal Church with the gay bishop. So one has to explain that to them. And it is difficult to be attractive and winsome when one of the first things you say is “We are not *that* church.” It is awkward to say the least.
That’s not to mention the untold numbers of people who pass on by your church and reject it without a second thought because they see the E-word. And, frankly, I don’t blame them.
My parish is probably about to remove the E-word from its name, and I’m glad of it. Now I will say that there may be legal commitments of the REC that I am not aware of that would make changing the name of the whole jurisdiction difficult. And if we stay the Reformed Episcopal Church, we have overcome worse burdens.
But our bishops have already encouraged us to emphasize our “Anglican” identity. Given the heavy and increasing baggage of the E-word, that is wise and godly council indeed.
Bishop Robinson said he knew that “there are a lot of Episcopalians who say they are embarrassed when people say you are the ‘gay’ church.” To this, Episcopalians should say, “You bet we are.”
Robinson is correct that The Episcopal Church is perceived as a gay church. His happy admission of that is revealing. And his exhortation will only strengthen that perception.
And that makes it that much more urgent that the Reformed Episcopal Church dump the E-word and replace it with “Anglican”. I know personally that the E-word is a burden when attempting to attract people to our church. Normal people do not know the Reformed Episcopal Church is not *that* Episcopal Church with the gay bishop. So one has to explain that to them. And it is difficult to be attractive and winsome when one of the first things you say is “We are not *that* church.” It is awkward to say the least.
That’s not to mention the untold numbers of people who pass on by your church and reject it without a second thought because they see the E-word. And, frankly, I don’t blame them.
My parish is probably about to remove the E-word from its name, and I’m glad of it. Now I will say that there may be legal commitments of the REC that I am not aware of that would make changing the name of the whole jurisdiction difficult. And if we stay the Reformed Episcopal Church, we have overcome worse burdens.
But our bishops have already encouraged us to emphasize our “Anglican” identity. Given the heavy and increasing baggage of the E-word, that is wise and godly council indeed.
Labels: Gene Robinson, REC, The Episcopal Church
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Correspondence between Her Majesty the Queen and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans
Correspondence between Her Majesty the Queen and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans has now been published.
I am going to defer comment on this for now as I am not expert on royal protocol. But I covet informed opinion on whether the Queen’s responses are simply pro forma or something more.
Hat tip to Stand Firm.
MORE:
I find Bill in Ottawa’s comment helpful as well as this more detailed comment:
The letter to Her Majesty was a simple three-paragraph affair. I imagine that the letter was intended, primarily, to remind the Queen (in very polite and indirect terms) that all is NOT well in her church and in the Anglican Communion, as a whole.
One assumes that her Prime Minister and/or the Archbishop of Canterbury have already explained some of this to her. But nobody is privy to such conversations as may have taken place regarding these issues, and so we cannot know for sure exactly how well-informed the Queen is on these matters.
This letter from the FCA will act as a fairly gentle reminder that things are NOT getting any better.
The secondary purpose of the letter seems to be to apprise Her Majesty (in very polite and proper terms) that a number of prominent clergy in the Church of England are now prepared to take matters into their own hands, since it is perfectly obvious that the hierarchy of the Church of England are unwilling to address these issues in any meaningful way.
The reference to “loyalty” was NOT (in terms of protocol) necessary—but it is a very nice touch, and it effectively frames the FCA as being an instrument of “loyalty”—and not as some sort of schismatic or dissenting organization. By implication, of course, the letter strongly suggests that the revisionist elements in the C of E are, in fact, “disloyal”—both to Her Majesty (as Supreme Governor of the Church), and to historic and orthodox Anglicanism.
The response that the FCA received from Buckingham Palace may seem a bit awkward and stilted to American ears, But, in fact, it is a fairly straightforward assurance that Her Majesty is well aware of the various issues at play, and that she is not unsympathetic to the FCA.
This was MORE than she needed to indicate.
Personally, I would have anticipated a MUCH MORE lukewarm response. The last sentence of the letter explicitly conveys Her Majesty’s “good wishes.” Which she most assuredly did not need to do, under the circumstances.
In fact, that last sentence will undoubtedly infuriate some of the more radical revisionists currently working hard to transform the C of E into something similar to TEC.
Several key things can be confidently asserted, on the basis of Her Majesty’s reply to the initial letter from the FCA.
1.) She has, in fact, personally read the letter from the FCA. 2.) She is reasonably well-acquainted with the full range of issues that are currently tearing apart both the C of E and the Anglican Communion, as a whole. 3.) She is, to some degree (we cannot know for sure precisely to what degree) in authentic sympathy with the position of the FCA. 4.) She does, in fact, consider the FCA to be “loyal” (orthodox), and that she is, personally, possessed of sufficient Christian faith to welcome the prayers of support from these orthodox Anglicans.
I am going to defer comment on this for now as I am not expert on royal protocol. But I covet informed opinion on whether the Queen’s responses are simply pro forma or something more.
Hat tip to Stand Firm.
MORE:
I find Bill in Ottawa’s comment helpful as well as this more detailed comment:
The letter to Her Majesty was a simple three-paragraph affair. I imagine that the letter was intended, primarily, to remind the Queen (in very polite and indirect terms) that all is NOT well in her church and in the Anglican Communion, as a whole.
One assumes that her Prime Minister and/or the Archbishop of Canterbury have already explained some of this to her. But nobody is privy to such conversations as may have taken place regarding these issues, and so we cannot know for sure exactly how well-informed the Queen is on these matters.
This letter from the FCA will act as a fairly gentle reminder that things are NOT getting any better.
The secondary purpose of the letter seems to be to apprise Her Majesty (in very polite and proper terms) that a number of prominent clergy in the Church of England are now prepared to take matters into their own hands, since it is perfectly obvious that the hierarchy of the Church of England are unwilling to address these issues in any meaningful way.
The reference to “loyalty” was NOT (in terms of protocol) necessary—but it is a very nice touch, and it effectively frames the FCA as being an instrument of “loyalty”—and not as some sort of schismatic or dissenting organization. By implication, of course, the letter strongly suggests that the revisionist elements in the C of E are, in fact, “disloyal”—both to Her Majesty (as Supreme Governor of the Church), and to historic and orthodox Anglicanism.
The response that the FCA received from Buckingham Palace may seem a bit awkward and stilted to American ears, But, in fact, it is a fairly straightforward assurance that Her Majesty is well aware of the various issues at play, and that she is not unsympathetic to the FCA.
This was MORE than she needed to indicate.
Personally, I would have anticipated a MUCH MORE lukewarm response. The last sentence of the letter explicitly conveys Her Majesty’s “good wishes.” Which she most assuredly did not need to do, under the circumstances.
In fact, that last sentence will undoubtedly infuriate some of the more radical revisionists currently working hard to transform the C of E into something similar to TEC.
Several key things can be confidently asserted, on the basis of Her Majesty’s reply to the initial letter from the FCA.
1.) She has, in fact, personally read the letter from the FCA. 2.) She is reasonably well-acquainted with the full range of issues that are currently tearing apart both the C of E and the Anglican Communion, as a whole. 3.) She is, to some degree (we cannot know for sure precisely to what degree) in authentic sympathy with the position of the FCA. 4.) She does, in fact, consider the FCA to be “loyal” (orthodox), and that she is, personally, possessed of sufficient Christian faith to welcome the prayers of support from these orthodox Anglicans.
Labels: Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, The Queen
But I Thought Obama Was a Uniter
Back during the Long March of Obama to the presidency, we heard again and again that The Chosen One was a uniter, not a divider.
Well, the latest Rasmussen Poll shows Obama does indeed excel . . . as a divider. Now, 52% still approve of Obama’s performance. But what is eye-opening (and isn’t getting much attention) is that 37% “strongly disapprove” of his performance (i. e not just “somewhat disapprove” or “somewhat approve”) And that number is rising.
That is a high number six months into a presidency. And it reveals he and his radicalism is far from uniting. Instead he is a polarizing and divisive figure.
Now being polarizing is not necessarily bad. There have been polarizing leaders through the years I greatly respect. Sometimes the simple act of standing up for what is right can be polarizing.
But so can standing for what is wrong. Guess which of the two I think Obama is doing.
But regardless of what I think, to have such high “strongly disapprove” numbers this early in a presidency is remarkable and politically significant. For one thing, those who strongly disapprove of an officeholder are more likely to do something about it and vote. This statistic bears watching.
Well, the latest Rasmussen Poll shows Obama does indeed excel . . . as a divider. Now, 52% still approve of Obama’s performance. But what is eye-opening (and isn’t getting much attention) is that 37% “strongly disapprove” of his performance (i. e not just “somewhat disapprove” or “somewhat approve”) And that number is rising.
That is a high number six months into a presidency. And it reveals he and his radicalism is far from uniting. Instead he is a polarizing and divisive figure.
Now being polarizing is not necessarily bad. There have been polarizing leaders through the years I greatly respect. Sometimes the simple act of standing up for what is right can be polarizing.
But so can standing for what is wrong. Guess which of the two I think Obama is doing.
But regardless of what I think, to have such high “strongly disapprove” numbers this early in a presidency is remarkable and politically significant. For one thing, those who strongly disapprove of an officeholder are more likely to do something about it and vote. This statistic bears watching.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Wall Street Journal Agrees: Franken Stole the Election
For those who think me “extreme and offensive” for insisting that Franken stole the Minnesota U. S. Senate election, then I guess you consider The Wall Street Journal extreme and offensive as well:
The unfortunate lesson is that you don't need to win the vote on Election Day as long as your lawyers are creative enough to have enough new or disqualified ballots counted after the fact.
Mr. Franken trailed Mr. Coleman by 725 votes after the initial count on election night, and 215 after the first canvass. The Democrat's strategy from the start was to manipulate the recount in a way that would discover votes that could add to his total. The Franken legal team swarmed the recount, aggressively demanding that votes that had been disqualified be added to his count, while others be denied for Mr. Coleman.
But the team's real goldmine were absentee ballots, thousands of which the Franken team claimed had been mistakenly rejected. While Mr. Coleman's lawyers demanded a uniform standard for how counties should re-evaluate these rejected ballots, the Franken team ginned up an additional 1,350 absentees from Franken-leaning counties. By the time this treasure hunt ended, Mr. Franken was 312 votes up, and Mr. Coleman was left to file legal briefs.
What Mr. Franken understood was that courts would later be loathe to overrule decisions made by the canvassing board, however arbitrary those decisions were. He was right.
The Journal’s conclusion:
Mr. Franken now goes to the Senate having effectively stolen an election. If the GOP hopes to avoid repeats, it should learn from Minnesota that modern elections don't end when voters cast their ballots. They only end after the lawyers count them.
Now The Wall Street Journal saying something doesn’t necessarily make it so (although this editorial is indeed accurate and on target, and I could add more detail). But they are deservedly well respected and hardly an extremist publication. If they are so convinced Franken stole the election, that should at least get the attention of those who care about democracy.
Hat tip to Bluegrass Pundit.
The unfortunate lesson is that you don't need to win the vote on Election Day as long as your lawyers are creative enough to have enough new or disqualified ballots counted after the fact.
Mr. Franken trailed Mr. Coleman by 725 votes after the initial count on election night, and 215 after the first canvass. The Democrat's strategy from the start was to manipulate the recount in a way that would discover votes that could add to his total. The Franken legal team swarmed the recount, aggressively demanding that votes that had been disqualified be added to his count, while others be denied for Mr. Coleman.
But the team's real goldmine were absentee ballots, thousands of which the Franken team claimed had been mistakenly rejected. While Mr. Coleman's lawyers demanded a uniform standard for how counties should re-evaluate these rejected ballots, the Franken team ginned up an additional 1,350 absentees from Franken-leaning counties. By the time this treasure hunt ended, Mr. Franken was 312 votes up, and Mr. Coleman was left to file legal briefs.
What Mr. Franken understood was that courts would later be loathe to overrule decisions made by the canvassing board, however arbitrary those decisions were. He was right.
The Journal’s conclusion:
Mr. Franken now goes to the Senate having effectively stolen an election. If the GOP hopes to avoid repeats, it should learn from Minnesota that modern elections don't end when voters cast their ballots. They only end after the lawyers count them.
Now The Wall Street Journal saying something doesn’t necessarily make it so (although this editorial is indeed accurate and on target, and I could add more detail). But they are deservedly well respected and hardly an extremist publication. If they are so convinced Franken stole the election, that should at least get the attention of those who care about democracy.
Hat tip to Bluegrass Pundit.
Labels: Franken, vote fraud
Monday, July 06, 2009
Iran: Key Mullahs Turn Against Khamenei Regime
I did not expect this. An important group of religious leaders, the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qum, have called the Iranian presidential election illegitimate. In effect, now even key mullahs have turned against Supreme Leader Khamenei, who sanctioned the rigged vote count.
For clerics to openly oppose the Supreme Leader like this, well, it’s like the Archbishop of Canterbury telling the Queen to pound sand, except more so:
“It’s a clerical mutiny,” said one Iranian analyst. “This is the first time ever you have all these big clerics openly challenging the leader’s decision.” Another, in Tehran, said: “We are seeing the birth of a new political front.”
Professor Ali Ansari, head of Iranian Studies at St Andrews University, said: “It’s highly significant. It shows this is nowhere near resolved.”
It is certainly not getting resolved in the manner Khamenei and his nut-case “president” had hoped.
Keep praying for Iran. (It looks like it’s working!)
For clerics to openly oppose the Supreme Leader like this, well, it’s like the Archbishop of Canterbury telling the Queen to pound sand, except more so:
“It’s a clerical mutiny,” said one Iranian analyst. “This is the first time ever you have all these big clerics openly challenging the leader’s decision.” Another, in Tehran, said: “We are seeing the birth of a new political front.”
Professor Ali Ansari, head of Iranian Studies at St Andrews University, said: “It’s highly significant. It shows this is nowhere near resolved.”
It is certainly not getting resolved in the manner Khamenei and his nut-case “president” had hoped.
Keep praying for Iran. (It looks like it’s working!)
Labels: Iran
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Former President of Iran Accuses Mullahs of “Coup Against the People”
The former President of Iran Mohammad Khatami has accused the current regime of a “coup against the people and democracy.”
This has to be significant. Though a respected reformer, Khatami as president was nevertheless a part of the ruling regime. Now he has turned against it.
I had given up hope for Iran, to be honest. But this surprising development can’t be good for the election-stealing thugs. Those mullahs and their nut case president certainly are standing more and more alone.
Keep praying for Iran.
MORE: Meanwhile, Obama has blown it on Iran.
This has to be significant. Though a respected reformer, Khatami as president was nevertheless a part of the ruling regime. Now he has turned against it.
I had given up hope for Iran, to be honest. But this surprising development can’t be good for the election-stealing thugs. Those mullahs and their nut case president certainly are standing more and more alone.
Keep praying for Iran.
MORE: Meanwhile, Obama has blown it on Iran.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Franken Steals Another Senate Seat for Democrats
As expected, Al Franken has succeeded in stealing another Senate seat for the Democrats. Yes, I am being a bit dogmatic there. There is no question in my mind that Franken took this seat not because he received the most votes but because Democrats aggressively and unethically gamed the vote recount, the will of the voters be damned.
And, no, I will not leave the issue of election fraud alone. With the Senate seats already stolen, with Obama and ACORN gaming the Census, and with God-knows-what the Democrats will try to pull in the next two elections, in addition to blatant disregard of the Constitution, we are in danger of having a government without a shred of legitimacy after the next two elections.
I am not predicting that. I expect voter anger will overcome the Democrats’ electioneering in 2012 if not 2010. But with the Democrats being so successful in stealing elections and so willing to do so and now having the added tool of the Census, it is a danger.
Like I said, I will revisit this issue.
And, no, I will not leave the issue of election fraud alone. With the Senate seats already stolen, with Obama and ACORN gaming the Census, and with God-knows-what the Democrats will try to pull in the next two elections, in addition to blatant disregard of the Constitution, we are in danger of having a government without a shred of legitimacy after the next two elections.
I am not predicting that. I expect voter anger will overcome the Democrats’ electioneering in 2012 if not 2010. But with the Democrats being so successful in stealing elections and so willing to do so and now having the added tool of the Census, it is a danger.
Like I said, I will revisit this issue.
Labels: ACORN, Census, Franken, Obama, vote fraud
