My first reaction when I read the news that Jeffrey John is considering suing over not being appointed bishop, I doubted the story. Like Peter Ould , I thought The Very Rev. John had more class than this.
But apparently not. The story is now very much confirmed.
For the record, before this story came out, my main issue with Jeffrey John being made bishop was his teaching. Someone could have an impeccable moral life, but if he taught what John teaches, I would oppose him as bishop.
But now, with this display of hubris, I think he has all the more disqualified himself. In my Reformed Episcopal Church, it is well known that if a man lets it be known that he thinks he should be a bishop, that makes it unlikely he will ever be one. Such a lack of humility and sense of entitlement virtually disqualifies a man.
And to have such a sense of entitlement as to sue the church over not being enthroned . . . . May Jeffrey John never be made bishop.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Friday, January 13, 2012
Proverbs 30:20 Illustrated
The sheer shamelessness of Democrat National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz never ceases to appall and amaze. On the first anniversary of the Tucson shooting, she used the occasion to blame the Tea Party:
“We need to make sure that we tone things down, particularly in light of the Tucson tragedy from a year ago, where my very good friend, Gabby Giffords — who is doing really well, by the way, — [was shot],” Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic National Committee chair said during a “Politics and Eggs” forum this morning. “The discourse in America, the discourse in Congress in particular . . . has really changed, I’ll tell you. I hesitate to place blame, but I have noticed it take a very precipitous turn towards edginess and lack of civility with the growth of the Tea Party movement.”
Having brought up the Giffords attack as a political cudgel, Wasserman Schultz doubled down on that attack. “You had town hall meetings that they tried to take over, and you saw some their conduct at those tea party meetings,” Wasserman Schultz said today. “When they come and disagree with you, you’re not just wrong, you’re the enemy.”
To his credit, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus called her out on this, tweeting that she “should apologize immediately for her reckless comments blaming the Tea Party for the horrific Tuscon shooting.”
(By the way, I am not a fan of the RNC. In fact, I’ve twice told them in the past week that I don’t give to RINOs and that they are not to call me. So if you think I’m a sycophant for the RNC, think again.)
Wasserman Schultz’s response? Why, “I’d NEVER politicize Tucson!”
Yeah, right. As Priebus tweeted back, check the transcript.
When I read all this, Proverbs 30:20 came to mind.
So is the way of an adulterous woman; She eateth, and wipeth her mouth, And saith, I have done no wickedness.
Substitute “lying Leftist harpy” for “adulterous woman” and you’ve got Debbie Wasserman Schultz right there.
“We need to make sure that we tone things down, particularly in light of the Tucson tragedy from a year ago, where my very good friend, Gabby Giffords — who is doing really well, by the way, — [was shot],” Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic National Committee chair said during a “Politics and Eggs” forum this morning. “The discourse in America, the discourse in Congress in particular . . . has really changed, I’ll tell you. I hesitate to place blame, but I have noticed it take a very precipitous turn towards edginess and lack of civility with the growth of the Tea Party movement.”
Having brought up the Giffords attack as a political cudgel, Wasserman Schultz doubled down on that attack. “You had town hall meetings that they tried to take over, and you saw some their conduct at those tea party meetings,” Wasserman Schultz said today. “When they come and disagree with you, you’re not just wrong, you’re the enemy.”
To his credit, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus called her out on this, tweeting that she “should apologize immediately for her reckless comments blaming the Tea Party for the horrific Tuscon shooting.”
(By the way, I am not a fan of the RNC. In fact, I’ve twice told them in the past week that I don’t give to RINOs and that they are not to call me. So if you think I’m a sycophant for the RNC, think again.)
Wasserman Schultz’s response? Why, “I’d NEVER politicize Tucson!”
Yeah, right. As Priebus tweeted back, check the transcript.
When I read all this, Proverbs 30:20 came to mind.
So is the way of an adulterous woman; She eateth, and wipeth her mouth, And saith, I have done no wickedness.
Substitute “lying Leftist harpy” for “adulterous woman” and you’ve got Debbie Wasserman Schultz right there.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Loco
Some things just make you say, “What the heck?!” This news story is one of them:
The Anglican Church of Mexico stands with the country’s political left in opposing amendment of Article 24 of the country’s constitution, Archbishop Carlos Touche-Porter tells The Church of England Newspaper.
Reforming the constitution to lift restrictions on religious groups holding services in public without first receiving government permission is a “very dangerous move that would only benefit the majority [Catholic] church and the growing ultraconservative Neo-Evangelicals and Neo-Pentecostals. Both groups are equally right wing and eager to impose their “values” on the entire population,” Archbishop Touche-Porter said.
…
“Most Mexicans support a total separation of Church and State,” the Anglican archbishop said, adding that “we are not used and do not wish to have uncontrolled open air religious services or to see the President of Mexico and other politicians making a public display of their religious beliefs.”
Yes, we must have total separation of Church and State. We want the State to restrict the religious speech of those predatory extremist right-wing ultraconservative rival churches who somehow are much more popular than we are.
Huh?
How can someone with half a brain advocate “total separation of Church and State” and the State restricting the freedom of speech of churches?
For that matter, how can one be a Christian and wish the State to muzzle the Gospel?
I guess one has to be a Leftist or an Episcopalian to get that kind of logic.
---
A big hat tip to Christopher Johnson.
The Anglican Church of Mexico stands with the country’s political left in opposing amendment of Article 24 of the country’s constitution, Archbishop Carlos Touche-Porter tells The Church of England Newspaper.
Reforming the constitution to lift restrictions on religious groups holding services in public without first receiving government permission is a “very dangerous move that would only benefit the majority [Catholic] church and the growing ultraconservative Neo-Evangelicals and Neo-Pentecostals. Both groups are equally right wing and eager to impose their “values” on the entire population,” Archbishop Touche-Porter said.
…
“Most Mexicans support a total separation of Church and State,” the Anglican archbishop said, adding that “we are not used and do not wish to have uncontrolled open air religious services or to see the President of Mexico and other politicians making a public display of their religious beliefs.”
Yes, we must have total separation of Church and State. We want the State to restrict the religious speech of those predatory extremist right-wing ultraconservative rival churches who somehow are much more popular than we are.
Huh?
How can someone with half a brain advocate “total separation of Church and State” and the State restricting the freedom of speech of churches?
For that matter, how can one be a Christian and wish the State to muzzle the Gospel?
I guess one has to be a Leftist or an Episcopalian to get that kind of logic.
---
A big hat tip to Christopher Johnson.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
An Appalling Ruling in Virginia
I am not familiar with all the arcane details of the legal dispute between The Episcopal “Church” and the seven Anglican CANA/ACNA parishes in Virginia. So I hesitate to get into legal commentary on this. I’m sure the Anglican Curmudgeon will dive into that in due time.
But I must say am appalled by yesterday’s ruling. I know at least Falls Church and Truro Church predate The Episcopal Church. And I seriously doubt they in any way have ever signed over their property to that organization.
My prayers are with those congregations. Their foundation is Christ, and they will long outlast Schori and her lawyers. But the loss of these properties cannot be an easy thing.
And what does the Episcopal “Church” gain? Properties they can hardly hope to use adequately with the bills that come with them. And some of the properties are difficult to sell due to historic graveyards and no telling what other use restrictions.
And that after TEC could have benefitted from generous settlements.
This lawsuit was almost pure vindictiveness. Anathemas are in order.
But I must say am appalled by yesterday’s ruling. I know at least Falls Church and Truro Church predate The Episcopal Church. And I seriously doubt they in any way have ever signed over their property to that organization.
My prayers are with those congregations. Their foundation is Christ, and they will long outlast Schori and her lawyers. But the loss of these properties cannot be an easy thing.
And what does the Episcopal “Church” gain? Properties they can hardly hope to use adequately with the bills that come with them. And some of the properties are difficult to sell due to historic graveyards and no telling what other use restrictions.
And that after TEC could have benefitted from generous settlements.
This lawsuit was almost pure vindictiveness. Anathemas are in order.
Thursday, January 05, 2012
Tyrant
After Obama’s illegal and anticonstitutional appointments yesterday, there is no question that we have a tyrant in the White House. It’s practically official now. For Obama has gone “full-rogue unconstitutional” and made key appointments brazenly against the law and the Constitution.
Yes, I just repeated myself. It is that important, and too many are ignoring it. We have a president who just willfully broke the law and violated the Constitution to make appointments a Congress not in recess opposed.
And this is not just a procedural dispute. It is a willful violation of the Constitution. The governor of Texas can no more declare Texas has five U. S. senators now than can a president ignore the law and the Constitution like this.
If we let Obama get away with it, I fear for this country.
By the way, I warned you again and again that this man has a totalitarian impulse. And I am getting tired of being right. This complete disregard of the rule of law is yet one more spasm of Obama’s totalitarian streak.
--
MORE:
Even Obama’s own lawyers have recognized he cannot do what he just did:
Obama’s own lawyers publicly stated in a 2010 exchange with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts that the president doesn’t consider a congressional recess official — meaning he can’t legally exercise his recess appointment power — until Congress has been gone for three full days. ‘The recess appointment power can work in — in a recess,’ Obama’s Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal said. ‘I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than three days [to make an appointment].’ The Senate entered a recess on Tuesday, after having held a pro forma session to keep Obama from making any recess appointments. Another was planned for Friday. By making the appointments just one day after the Senate went into a recess, Obama appears to breaking his own administration’s rules and, as scores of Republicans are quick to point out, decades of executive precedent.
Yes, I just repeated myself. It is that important, and too many are ignoring it. We have a president who just willfully broke the law and violated the Constitution to make appointments a Congress not in recess opposed.
And this is not just a procedural dispute. It is a willful violation of the Constitution. The governor of Texas can no more declare Texas has five U. S. senators now than can a president ignore the law and the Constitution like this.
If we let Obama get away with it, I fear for this country.
By the way, I warned you again and again that this man has a totalitarian impulse. And I am getting tired of being right. This complete disregard of the rule of law is yet one more spasm of Obama’s totalitarian streak.
--
MORE:
Even Obama’s own lawyers have recognized he cannot do what he just did:
Obama’s own lawyers publicly stated in a 2010 exchange with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts that the president doesn’t consider a congressional recess official — meaning he can’t legally exercise his recess appointment power — until Congress has been gone for three full days. ‘The recess appointment power can work in — in a recess,’ Obama’s Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal said. ‘I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than three days [to make an appointment].’ The Senate entered a recess on Tuesday, after having held a pro forma session to keep Obama from making any recess appointments. Another was planned for Friday. By making the appointments just one day after the Senate went into a recess, Obama appears to breaking his own administration’s rules and, as scores of Republicans are quick to point out, decades of executive precedent.
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
More Poormouthing of Santorum
Moving beyond the outrageous, the attempts to put down Rick Santorum after his amazing showing in Iowa are already getting silly.
There is much complaining that he really isn’t conservative. Well, gosh, everyone who does not believe exactly as I do is not orthodox and will be excommunicated from my cathedral apartment.
Is Santorum the perfect conservative? No. I particularly disagree with him on national service. But he (and Newt Gingrich for that matter, who is the recipient of similar whinging) is a heck lot more conservative than Mitt Romney. This conservative, for one, trusts Santorum much more than Romney. No perfect conservative is in the running for the Republican nomination. Deal with it, and not by enabling Romney or Obama.
Even sillier are those opining that Santorum’s showing in Iowa is no big accomplishment and doesn’t really matter. Here is one example:
Of course he can challenge Romney in Iowa: It’s tailor-made for him with its heavy evangelical presence and he’s spent months there doing retail politics. Like Ben Smith says, the deeper lesson is that if Santorum can’t even beat a weak frontrunner like Mitt here, where can he beat him?
Well, after months of retail politics, Santorum was still in Huntsman and Bachman territory in the polls nationwide and in Iowa. That he so caught fire the past two weeks is quite a phenomenon and accomplishment . . . and shows how earnestly most Republicans do not want Romney. To write it all off as just those Iowa yokels is ignorant at best. With indications that Bachmann and perhaps Perry are dropping out soon, expect conservatives now to flock to Santorum to stop Romney.
The real lesson is the establishment Romney machine can be beat . . . and Santorum may be the man to pull it off.
There is much complaining that he really isn’t conservative. Well, gosh, everyone who does not believe exactly as I do is not orthodox and will be excommunicated from my cathedral apartment.
Is Santorum the perfect conservative? No. I particularly disagree with him on national service. But he (and Newt Gingrich for that matter, who is the recipient of similar whinging) is a heck lot more conservative than Mitt Romney. This conservative, for one, trusts Santorum much more than Romney. No perfect conservative is in the running for the Republican nomination. Deal with it, and not by enabling Romney or Obama.
Even sillier are those opining that Santorum’s showing in Iowa is no big accomplishment and doesn’t really matter. Here is one example:
Of course he can challenge Romney in Iowa: It’s tailor-made for him with its heavy evangelical presence and he’s spent months there doing retail politics. Like Ben Smith says, the deeper lesson is that if Santorum can’t even beat a weak frontrunner like Mitt here, where can he beat him?
Well, after months of retail politics, Santorum was still in Huntsman and Bachman territory in the polls nationwide and in Iowa. That he so caught fire the past two weeks is quite a phenomenon and accomplishment . . . and shows how earnestly most Republicans do not want Romney. To write it all off as just those Iowa yokels is ignorant at best. With indications that Bachmann and perhaps Perry are dropping out soon, expect conservatives now to flock to Santorum to stop Romney.
The real lesson is the establishment Romney machine can be beat . . . and Santorum may be the man to pull it off.
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
News Media Scum Attack Rick Santorum
The “Mainstream” News Media liberals (Sorry for the repetition.) seem determined to pick our president and even the Republican nominee. As soon as a conservative rises up in polls, he gets shot down.
The problem is that the latest conservative to rise up is Rick Santorum, one of the good guys, a highly ethical and honest man. So the news media has to really dig deep to come up with mud to throw at him. So they try to paint him as “crazy” for how his family chose to grieve the death of their new born son. And, of course, they try to smear him as a RAAAACIST!
Disgusting.
Thankfully, both attacks are already thoroughly discredited.
The contrast with the kid glove treatment the “news” media gives Obama and Romney could hardly be greater.
The problem is that the latest conservative to rise up is Rick Santorum, one of the good guys, a highly ethical and honest man. So the news media has to really dig deep to come up with mud to throw at him. So they try to paint him as “crazy” for how his family chose to grieve the death of their new born son. And, of course, they try to smear him as a RAAAACIST!
Disgusting.
Thankfully, both attacks are already thoroughly discredited.
The contrast with the kid glove treatment the “news” media gives Obama and Romney could hardly be greater.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)