Tuesday, October 30, 2012

A Battle for Catholics in Ohio

Julie Kopmeyer alerts to an interesting disagreement in Ohio.  The Roman Catholic Diocese of Cleveland ran “Faithful Citizenship” programs in the parishes to assist Catholics in forming their consciences in preparations for the elections.

Well, it turned out that the programs were hijacked by Obama supporters, such as Karen Leith, and downplayed “non-negotiables” such as abortion and pushed “social justice” and the like.

Liberals hijacking churches for their political ends – where have I seen that before?

Anyway, the Bishop of Cleveland, Richard Lennon, is putting his foot down about this.  In every bulletin this Sunday (assuming the libs don’t hijack those as well) will be a letter from him making it clear that the non-negotiables are non-negotiable and are far more important than issues such as immigration reform.  In his words, such issues “only matter if human life itself is a value of fundamental priority and is always protected. If human life is expendable, these other issues lose much of their significance.”

Exactly.  Kudos to the bishop for clearing up the fog.

Friday, October 26, 2012

Benghazi Summarized UPDATED

I have been hesitant to post further on what can now be called the Benghazi scandal.  For the Obama Administration and their enablers in the news media have thrown up enough mirrors and fog to make it difficult to get one’s arms around this.  (Not-so-by-the-way, imagine media reporting of this if a Republican administration had acted as the current White House has.)

But I’ve come across an excellent succinct summary of Benghazi.  Please read it for yourself.  But if I may further condense the most important points:

1. Obama and his people knew what transpired in Benghazi on 9-11.

2. He, and they, lied about it again and again.

3. Most despicably, they made a youtube video maker the scapegoat and “for all intents and purposes a political prisoner being held because he exercised his First Amendment rights.”

4. Obama has showed himself to not only be utterly negligent but also completely untrustworthy.

Some are speculating that Benghazi and the subsequent lying are dragging Obama down.  

I sure hope so.


UPDATE: Right after I posted, this huge story broke.  

The question now is who decided to order the CIA to stand down during the Benghazi attack?  I would think that is the sort of decision made at “the highest levels”, as they say.

Remember that I warned of coming damaging (to Obama) intelligence leaks after Biden threw the intelligence community under the bus during the VP Debate.  It’s happening.

So Obama wants us the think voting for him is like sex? Really??

In my almost infallible election prediction, I mentioned that Democrats are becoming so unhinged, they could make matters worse.  I think this already infamous ad makes matters worse.

So the Obama campaign wants us to think voting for The One is like sex?  Really?  REALLY?

Leaving aside the disturbing cult of personality displayed in the ad (And do note an analogous Putin ad over at Hot Air.), it is a combination of desperation and poor judgement.   It obviously tries to renew the tingly feelings of those misguided youth who voted for Obama in 2008.  But it is just as likely to remind them that they voted for Obama, and he, well, screwed them.  The ad practically begs for that interpretation, especially in irreverent youthful minds.

It makes Obama look that much more unpresidential during a time when Romney has established himself as presidential.  It is more likely to offend rather than win undecided voters.  It will further alienate older voters and Black churchpeople, with whom he is already on thin ice with his support of gay marriage.  (Yes, I know Obama will take the Black vote.  But any defection or failure to turn out hurts him.  Tepidness in Black support could doom him.)

I really cannot see any scenario in which this ad helps Obama more than it hurts him.  And, yes, it does reek of desperation.  This ad may contribute to Obama . . . doing himself in.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Useless(?) Semi-infallible Election Prediction

I am now prepared to predict the 2012 election almost infallibly.

Romney will win.  And it will not be that close.

The polls I put the most weight on, Rasmussen and Gallup, are breaking for Romney.  Rasmussen daily tracking this morning (but taken before the last debate) has Romney 50% to Obama 46%.  The latest Gallup polls also have Romney over 50%.  Late deciders tend to break against the incumbent, especially when the economy has been punk under the incumbent.  That is what we are seeing now, and it's not over. 

And, yes, I expect this trend to be strong enough for Romney to carry Ohio.  He has gained there, and polls have him roughly tied.  Ohio will continue to move toward Romney.

In addition, the vote for Romney (and against Obama) is more intense and angry/enthusiastic than for Obama.  One very helpful measure of this is Rasmussen’s Presidential Approval Index.  It persistently shows between 40% and 45% strongly disapprove of Obama, much more (now more than 16 more) than the percentage who strongly approve of Obama.  So I expect the turn out will be much more favorable to Republicans than 2008, though perhaps not quite as favorable as 2010.

I just do not see a big event coming to save Obama as much as a few may try to manufacture one.  In fact, Democrats are becoming so unhinged, they could easily say something to make things worse.  They are acting pretty silly already with binders and such.

Now here’s where I am a real outlier – the Republicans will take the 50 seats they need to control the Senate (with Veep Ryan providing the tiebreaking vote if needed).  This will be a ticked-off had-enough election like 1980.  Yes, Obama is Carter Redux in more ways than one. And in 1980, the big shocker wasn’t Reagan winning, but the GOP gaining twelve Senate seats.  The GOP won’t gain twelve this time, but they will surprise again and take the Senate if by the skin of their teeth.

Whether my prediction is useless or useful, I’ll let you be the judge.

Friday, October 19, 2012

Episcopalian Double Jeopardy UPDATED

A. S. Haley, aka the Anglican Curmudgeon, has posted painstaking analysis of the Episcopal Church’s attack on the Diocese of South Carolina.  What I find most disturbing is the use of double jeopardy as a modus operandi.

In 2011, the Disciplinary Board for Bishops looked at the charges against the Bishop of South Carolina, Mark Lawrence, and did not find him guilty of “abandonment.”   Yet in 2012 the Disciplinary Board did find him guilty.

So what changed? The board’s membership.  Presiding Heretic Schori was able to stack the board at the 2012 General Convention, and having done so, her people pushed the same charges against Lawrence and found him in “abandonment” this time.

Yes, this is double jeopardy. We see here “the tactic of bringing up the same charges over and over again until there is a majority in favor of them.”

Now this is legal.  The Episcopal Church may commit double jeopardy in its deliberations if it wishes.  The U. S. Constitution is not part of the Canons of The Episcopal Church.  But it is a sad commentary that not only does TEC not hold to Biblical standards, it cannot even bring itself to meet minimal secular standards of fair play anymore.

Meanwhile, those who filed the complaints against +Mark Lawrence have revealed themselves.  They claim to have acted independently, that “no one from elsewhere in the Episcopal Church encouraged or initiated the complaint.”  Yeah, right.

Their number is 14, twelve laypeople and only TWO priests.  That --Schori did not find more tools than that speaks volumes.


This action is a deplorable assault upon the Bishop of this Diocese. The attack came in the midst of negotiations whose stated intent was to find a peaceful solution to our differences with the Episcopal Church. It involved a process in which there was no prior notice of the proceedings, no notice of the charges against him nor any opportunity to face the local accusers (who remained anonymous until today).

Also deeply concerning is the fact that all of the stated reasons for “abandonment” were known nearly a year ago, when an earlier attempt to remove him failed. This second attempt is double jeopardy of the most egregious sort and is contrary to the very canons they have used. Worst of all, canons that were originally meant for the removal of clergy who had well and truly “left” the church are now being used to purge a Bishop who has diligently sought to keep his Diocese both intact and within the Episcopal Church.

. . . it strains every notion of common sense to apply the charge of "abandonment" in this case. This is a provision that is in canons to make it expeditious to deal with a priest or bishop who has openly decamped to another ecclesial body, or none; a cleric who stops showing up for meetings, stops worshiping as an Episcopalian, and disavows any association with the Episcopal Church. 

By contrast, since I became a bishop in March of last year, Mark Lawrence has attended every meeting of the House of Bishops except one, which a great many bishops also missed because it was held in Ecuador. He was present at General Convention. He has continued to lead a diocese that uses the Episcopal Church's Book of Common Prayer in its worship. He has abandoned nothing, and to accuse him of doing so is ludicrous on its face.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

On The Episcopal Church Attacking the Diocese of South Carolina

The new --Schori puppet Disciplinary Board for Bishops of The Episcopal “Church” (TEC) has declared that the Bishop of South Carolina has abandoned TEC.  This triggers provisions previously passed by the Diocese which now take it out of TEC.  So, in effect, Presiding “Bishop” Schori has kicked the Diocese of South Carolina out of her Unholy “Church” . . . and will now send in her lawyers to attempt to seize all the diocese’s assets, of course.

Given that the Bishop of SC, Mark Lawrence, has taken great pains to keep South Carolina in TEC while upholding the Faith and guarding the integrity of his diocese and parishes, I find this attack shocking.

But I probably should not be shocked.  As Sarah Hey points out, Schori and company are a vindictive bunch, “utterly amoral, bullying, and controlling.”  And, back in 2006, I asserted time and again that there is no safe place for the orthodox in The Episcopal Church.  Now I am proven right . . . again.

Christopher Johnson suspects the presenting issue was that +Lawrence acted to allow parishes to protect their property.  Given the sheer greed and vindictiveness of --Schori, that might be so.

Although I would have questioned trying to stay in The Episcopal Church as the Diocese of South Carolina has, they have done us the service of showing us just how implacable TEC has become.  Bow down to Great Whore of 815 and all her abominations, or else.

Stand Firm and the AnglicanCurmudgeon have followed this matter closely and surely will continue to do so, and I defer to them for more in-depth coverage.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Cheating Candy

During last night’s debate, we saw a brazen display of cheating.  The most egregious instance was supposed Moderator Candy Crowley intervening with her little fact check (which turned out to be an inaccurate one) in blatant violation of debate rules:

"The moderator will not... intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the 2 minute response period."

I don’t know how many times Obama and Biden have lied during these debates.  But not once has a moderator fact-checked them during the debate.  Nor should they.  The time for that is afterward, except for the candidates themselves who can and should fact-check each other.  Candidates are to debate the facts with each other, not the moderator.  Candidates are to give answers, not the moderator.

Last night was the last straw for me.  I am fed up with these so-called moderators from the liberal news media.  Hell, let’s give up the pretense that they are fair facilitators of debates.  Let’s give the news media a podium right up there on stage and let them debate the Republican candidate right along with the Democrat.  Because that is practically what really happened last night.  It was blatant cheating that affected the debate, and it is an outrage.

And, by the way, in all three debates, Obama/Biden was given more time than Romney.  And no wonder - the moderators keep interrupting Romney/Ryan.  Some moderators.

“Moderator” Candy was not the only one who cheated last night.  Michelle Obama applauded during the debate in clear violation of the clearly stated rules.

Thanks in large part to Candy, I consider the debate a draw.  But judging from reactions from undecided voters on Fox and MSNBC, my evaluation may be too pessimistic.

Also, it is a good thing it is a long way to sunset.  I may have a hard time not letting the sun go down on my anger on this one.


Why the heck do we trust the “mainstream” news media to provide fair moderators for presidential debates?  Oh, that’s right.  We don’t.  And Candy Crowley exemplifies why.

Friday, October 12, 2012

The VP Debate Summarized

I am a bit behind on getting things done today.  So I will have to keep this brief.

I think the most important moment of the debate was Joe Biden claiming on Libya, “We weren’t told they wanted more security there. . . We did not know they wanted more security there.”

Given repeated reports and testimony that our people in Libya did ask the Obama Administration for more security, this reveals either gross incompetence or more lying . . . probably both actually.

Also important is that Biden pinned a lot of blame on supposed bad intelligence.  It would not surprise me to see more leaks that debunk that line.  For I doubt our intelligence community appreciates being thrown under the bus to cover up for Obama.

There’s a good post on those two points over at Hot Air.

As far as the debate as a whole, I cannot summarize it better than Proverbs 29:9 (ESV):

If a wise man has an argument with a fool,
the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.

Downright prophetic.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

BREAKING: Obama Campaign caught knowingly assisting double voting ON CAMERA

Don’t take my word for it.  Watch for yourself.

Project Veritas has done great work exposing how easy it is to commit vote fraud.  Now they have caught on camera the Obama Campaign and Democrats knowingly and cheerfully assisting in the commission of vote fraud.

And given Project Veritas’ history, there may well be more to come.  (UPDATE: Sure enough, a second video is up.  I don’t think it quite as incriminating as the first one, but still . . . )

As for the impact on the election of this being exposed, we’ll see.  I hope nationwide anger over this will at least offset fraudulent Democrat “votes”.

An Economic Reality Check

CEO David Siegal has emailed his employees and more or less told them that there will be lay-offs if Obama is re-elected.  For taxes and other costs of business have and would become so bad under Obama that working, hiring, and taking risks just isn’t worth it to him:

Obviously, our present government believes that taking my money is the right economic stimulus for this country. The fact is, if I deducted 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, that's what happens to me.

Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate business, not kill it. However, the power brokers in Washington believe redistributing wealth is the essential driver of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change they want.
So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone. . . .

You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about.

That may sound mean.  He (along with yours truly) is more blunt than most.  But he is not alone.  There are a lot of Americans who can say with the Atlas Shrugged II trailer, “I will not be a slave.”  If you tax job creators at rates of 40%, 50% or more, that is nothing less than tax slavery.  Why take the risks and work hard if half or more of the profits of success are taxed away?  Lose, you lose; win, you only half win – that’s a sucker’s game.

And why take risks and do the things that create jobs if you think the economy is going down?  That bogus 7.8% unemployment number aside, there are numerous indicators that we are about to slip back into recession.  Just this morning, Cummins Engine announced that they expect “to reduce its workforce by between 1000 and 1500 people by the end of the year.” (And as I type this, the Jolts Survey on job openings is out and is virtually unchanged.)

My personal business is very small.  But if Obama is re-elected, I will act on the assumption that America is going to Hell.  For I am convinced it will under more Obama.  And what I intend will not help the U. S. economy (except hopefully to conserve principal to invest if and when things get better one day).  If the United States is intent on going to Hell, I do not intend to go with it.  And, again, I am not alone.

Sorry if this is not cheerful and flag waving.  But a reality check is needful here.  I, David Siegel, and countless others would much rather make economic choices that help the economy and help it soon.  But if the electorate of this country vote to go to economic Hell and turn investors and businesspeople into tax slaves, we will adjust our economic choices accordingly.  And that will contribute to tipping this country back into recession, if not worse.

Tuesday, October 09, 2012

The 2011 NIV goes off the rails.

Robert+ Munday is examining the 2011 New International Version translation of the Bible.  And already he has noticed an enormity that disqualifies the whole enterprise in my mind.   (And I should note now that he deals with this more gently than I will.)

Here is Psalm 8: 4-6 in the 1984 NIV:

4 what is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?
5 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor.
6 You made him ruler over the works of your hands;
you put everything under his feet

I’ve never been a fan of the NIV.  But I have no objections there. That is a fair and accurate rendering.  But now look at what that passage has become in the  2011 NIV:

4 what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
human beings that you care for them?
5 You have made them a little lower than the angels
and crowned them with glory and honor.
6 You made them rulers over the works of your hands;
you put everything under their feet

As Munday points out (Again, more politely than I.), the 2011 rubs out an important Messianic term, “the son of man,” replacing it with the vomitous “human beings” to appease the gods of gender neutrality or inclusiveness or whatever that clap trap is called.

“Son of man” is an important Messianic title in both Old and New Testaments, used frequently by Jesus no less.   And this passage in particular is quoted as referring to the Messiah in Hebrews 2:5-9.  There is no excuse for rubbing this important title out of Psalm 8.  None.

It’s not for nothing that Missouri Synod Lutherans are joining Southern Baptists in recommending the NIV 2011 not be used.

This reminds me of my Oxford encounter with the New Revised Standard Version, in which the very same Messianic title “Son of man” is rubbed out in Daniel 7:13 in favor of – you guessed it – “human being.”

I am generally not in favor of burning Bibles.  But I might make exceptions for the 2011 NIV and for the NRSV.

Monday, October 08, 2012

Obama Administration Withdrew Special Ops Team from Benghazi Before 9-11 Attack

More and more keeps coming out about the Obama Administration’s willful negligence in defending our ambassador and staff in Libya.

The latest is that, in August, the Obama Administration withdrew a 16 member Special Ops team from Libya assigned to protecting the ambassador and embassy staff in spite of Ambassador Stevens’ pleas about security and desire that the Special Ops team stay.

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens wanted a Security Support Team, made up of 16 special operations soldiers, to stay with him in Libya after their deployment was scheduled to end in August, the commander of that security team told ABC News.

The embassy staff’s “first choice was for us to stay,” Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, 55, told ABC News in an interview. “That would have been the choice of the embassy people in Tripoli.” …

Asked for comment to the memo and Wood’s comments, a spokesman for the House Oversight Committee told ABC News: “Diplomats working in Libya viewed security provided by highly trained Americans as critical to their safety and mission. The Oversight Committee’s investigation continues to seek answers about why — even as threats against Americans increased — senior State Department officials erroneously decided such security was no longer needed.”

Investigators are exploring whether anyone at the State Department told the Embassy specifically not to request another extension.

Again, this is part of a willful negligence in defending our people in Libya.  This is beyond scandalous and should be the last straw in bringing down Obama, and Hillary as well. . . .  Note that I said "should". 

Note: Yes I had a typo in the title.  The Specials are a ska group; and it is still morning . . . 

The Mystery of Marc Andrus Explained?

A brief follow-up to my last post.  Sarah Hey of Stand Firm has posted the best explanation of what likely happened when TEC “Bishop” Marc Andrus was not seated at the installation of the new RC Bishop of San Francisco.

If anyone knows for sure what happened, they aren’t saying yet.  But I would be willing to bet depreciating dollars on Ms. Hey’s version.

However, I am too lazy to summarize, so get thee hence.

Friday, October 05, 2012

The Mystery of Marc Andrus and the Archdiocese of San Francisco

This much we know - TEC “Bishop” Marc Andrus went to attend the Mass for the installation of the new RC Archbishop of San Francisco, Salvatore Cordileone, but was detained by staff.  When the service began without him, he left.

But exactly why he was detained, and whether he arrived to the service on time is a mystery.  Andrus’ version from his blog:

I was dropped off at the cathedral at 1:30PM by my assistant. After making my way around protestors and showing my invitation to security guards, I was in the lower level area to which I was directed by 1:40.

The instructions the Archdiocese had given my assistant were that I should be at St. Mary's by 1:45. The service was scheduled to begin at 2.

I identified myself to an assistant to the archbishop, who spoke to someone through a headset, saying, "Bishop Andrus is here."

I saw the Greek Metropolitan, a good colleague of mine, who was in the same room with me, several Greek Orthodox priests, archdiocesan employees and security guards. I greeted the metropolitan and we spoke briefly.

An archdiocesan employee attempted to escort me upstairs with the Greek Orthodox group, but was stopped from doing so by the employee to whom I had first identified myself. This person, who appeared to be in a superior role, instructed another employee to stand with me.

At this point no other guests remained in the downstairs area. The employee and I chatted while waiting. I began to wonder about the time holdup. I checked my phone; it was 1:50PM. I asked the employee standing with me if the service indeed started at 2, which she affirmed.

At 2PM, when the service was to begin, I said to the employee, "I think I understand, and feel I should leave." Her response was, "Thank you for being understanding." I quietly walked out the door. No one attempted to stop me. No attempt was ever made to explain the delay or any process for seating. I arrived early, before the time given my assistant, and waited to leave until after the service had begun.

My intention for attending the installation was to honor our ecumenical and interfaith relations in the Bay Area.

But an Archdiocean spokesman says he was late and then did not wait long enough to be seated:

San Francisco Archdiocese spokesman George Wesolek chalked it up to a misunderstanding. Andrus had arrived late and missed the procession of interfaith clergy who were to be seated up front. Church staff were looking for an opportunity to bring the bishop in without disrupting the service, according to Wesolek. When they went to retrieve him, he had already left.

“We had no intention of excluding him at all,” Wesolek said. “If he felt like because of the wait that was insulting to him, we certainly will apologize.”

I do not know what to conclude except that Marc Andrus had best learn that neither the world nor the church revolves around him, nor any other apostate “bishop”.  And he’s supposedly Anglican.  He should know by now to show up to church early, not barely on time or late, especially for a big service.

But who, if anyone, was at fault here - well, that is a mystery.