The Left Wins because It Fights Politics on the Field of Morality
 by Ben Shapiro August 24, 2016 4:00 AM
Americans must relearn political {?} morality.
This week, President Obama headed down to Louisiana to view the flood damage in Baton Rouge. He’d resisted doing so for weeks; according to political ally Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post, Obama “believes he can monitor the situation as well — or better — from where he is. And that the sole reason to go to Louisiana is for the theatrical piece of politics, a piece that he not only rejects but detests.” Of course, Obama didn’t detest such politicking in 2012, when he flew to New Jersey to view Hurricane Sandy damage — and then took Chris Christie for a romantic stroll along the boardwalk. And he didn’t detest visiting Louisiana flood areas when he blasted George W. Bush for seeing the victims of Hurricane Katrina “from the window of an airplane instead of down here, on the ground.” This, of course, is why only about half of Americans consider Obama honest. And that’s a higher number now than it has been in years.
Obama isn’t the only dishonest national politician, of course. Hillary Clinton lies routinely to her own supporters. She campaigned on the ridiculous pledge to stop crony politicking — but meanwhile, she’s been plagued by allegation after allegation of pay-for-play corruption at the State Department, where she traded access for donations to the Clinton Foundation Official Slush Fund. Hillary says she wants to take the rich down a peg, but she and her husband turned their “dead broke” status into a $100 million fortune on the back of backscratching from friends at firms such as Goldman Sachs — companies she pretends to hate.
Just 11 percent of Americans think Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy. Then there’s Donald Trump, who spent the early part of this week walking back his hardline position on illegal immigration. After flip-flopping positions on every issue from due process for gun removal to punishment for abortion, Trump has reportedly decided to renege on his central campaign promise: to deport 11 million illegal immigrants. Just 16 percent of
Americans think Trump is honest and trustworthy. Americans know our politicians lie to us. And yet we’re more loyal to politicians than we’ve been any time in recent history.
Honesty and trustworthiness are now seen as obstacles to political success. Personal unpopularity, as pollsters have noted, now seems completely disconnected from election results. Voters know they’re pulling the lever for liars and charlatans, but they don’t seem to care. In fact, they seem averse to candidates who tell them precisely what they’re going to do.
The most truthful candidates in the Republican primaries did the worst: According to a February 2016 Quinnipiac poll, for example, 72 percent of Republicans said that Marco Rubio was honest and trustworthy; 70 percent said that Jeb Bush was; 65 percent said John Kasich was; 62 percent said Ted Cruz was; just 60 percent said Trump was. Among Democrats, 87 percent said Bernie Sanders was honest and trustworthy, while Hillary Clinton clocked in at just 61 percent. Guess who won.
There are two reasons for that. First off, honesty and trustworthiness are now seen as obstacles to political success. Americans think that the government is so corrupt that we need corrupt people to fix it — people who won’t work within the system, but who will instead shatter it. New Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon, a bona fide former Goldman Sachs Beltway insider turned faux-political outsider, expresses the sentiment well: “Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”
Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton to use her corruption on behalf of leftism. Republicans nominated Donald Trump to use his corruption on behalf of nationalist populism. Then there’s the second reason: In the absence of loyalty to political principle, Americans instead fall into god-worship for their politicians. Most Americans believe in certain political solutions: higher taxes or less regulation, more military funding or criminal-justice reform. But few Americans have a coherent political worldview.
Why is one solution better than another? Why should we respect some rights while quashing others? For decades, both Left and Right have answered: Certain policies are better because certain policies are more effective. But effectiveness isn’t a foolproof argument, thanks to the complexity inherent in politics. For example, which was responsible for the 1990s economic boom, Ronald Reagan’s tax cutting, or Bill Clinton’s tax increases? Who was more responsible for the economic collapse of 2008, Clinton for his sponsorship of subprime lending, or George W. Bush for not restricting investments by banks? Policy experts battle these issues out daily, but there’s no clear-cut answer (though some arguments are significantly stronger than others).
In the end, most Americans decide which policies they prefer on the basis of morality. And because Americans no longer learn political morality {or any kind of morality}— they no longer learn about the moral framework that supports the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution — they fall back on bumper-sticker morality. Democrats believe in “Stronger Together.” Republicans believe in “America First.” These slogans have little meaning in a vacuum.
Political leaders must give them meaning. And so Americans fall in behind politicians they don’t trust to impose slogans that mean nothing, but give them a sense of meaning. The politicians need not fulfill any philosophic worldview — they need only offer an agglomeration of policy positions under their broadly agreeable rubric. Hillary’s flip-flopping on the Trans-Pacific Partnership doesn’t threaten her “Stronger Together” sloganeering. Trump’s flip-flopping on immigration doesn’t change that he believes in “America First.” And so we get politicians who lie — and we celebrate their lies, since only liars can win in a corrupt system. The only corrective to this perverse marriage of cynicism and star-worship lies in a revival of principle.
Imagine a world in which we hold our politicians to the standard of God-given rights protected by a government designed not to invade those rights, in which interest checks interest, in which states and the federal government balance each other in a great ongoing battle for power. That was the vision of the Founders. And that vision meant that Americans demanded that our politicians not lie to us — that they cohere to our worldview, and stand for that worldview in the eternal grinding of gears that the Constitutional structure represents. Until we have such a vision again, we’ll get petty, corrupt politicians we worship as saviors from our petty, corrupt system. We’ll cheer them because they mouth dumbed-down slogans three generations removed from any real philosophic underpinning. And then we’ll wonder why our politics continue to degrade. —
Ben Shapiro is the editor-in-chief of the
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


One of my favorite blogs is the one maintained by Hillary White, a North American expatriate, who has chosen to live the rest of her life in the birthplace of Saint Benedict and his sister, Saint Scholastica: Norsia. Hillary is a wonderful writer, her posts are full of information, humor,wit,irony and satire.

An American Benedictine restored the ancient monastery that contains the actual birthplace of the saints and Hillary is close to the monks, attending the choral recitation of the divine office.

The link I have provided above contains Hillary’s description of the earthquake that did so much damage and caused so much death on Italy this morning.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments



Pope Francis Says Catholics Don’t Need To Breed ‘Like Rabbits’

January 20, 20151:41 PM ET
Jasmine Garsd.

On his return trip from Asia, Pope Francis made strong statements supporting the church’s ban on artificial means of birth control. He also said Catholics should practice “responsible parenthood” and don’t have to breed “like rabbits.”

Speaking with reporters on a flight Monday from the Philippines to Rome, Francis encouraged the use of church-approved contraception.

The National Catholic Reporter says Francis “made what appears to be an unprecedented statement that Catholics may have a moral responsibility to limit the number of their children.” It describes the pope’s remarks this way:

“Telling the story of a woman he met in a parish in Rome several months ago who had given birth to seven children via cesarean section and was pregnant with an eighth, Francis asked: ‘Does she want to leave the seven orphans?’

” ‘This is to tempt God,’ he said, adding later: ‘That is an irresponsibility.’ Catholics, the pope said, should speak of ‘responsible parenthood.’

” ‘How do we do this?’ Francis asked. ‘With dialogue. Each person with his pastor seeks how to do that responsible parenthood.’

” ‘God gives you methods to be responsible,’ he continued. ‘Some think that — excuse the word — that in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits. No.’ ”

Francis’ comments in defense of the 1968 Humanae Vitae seem to show a more conservative side of a leader often perceived as more liberal than his predecessors.

Catholic News Service’s Francis X. Rocca tells NPR: “I think partially the image of him as being more liberal is a mixed bag. To some extent it’s accurate if we say liberal to mean more socially progressive, more egalitarian, more interested in social justice … when it comes to social and moral issues, which are so touchy for a lot of people. Certainly Francis struck a note very early on when he talked about ‘who am I to judge’ [regarding gay priests] — which is a statement you have to read in context. But nevertheless he used the word ‘gay,’ and he did strike a note of new tolerance.”

But Rocca says Francis also has aimed to reassure members of the flock that he is still in line with traditional Catholic values. “I think perhaps there is more of a new emphasis — and on this trip we saw it — on reassuring people that he is orthodox on these things.”


9:17 AM (22 minutes ago)

Jeff Jacoby

Have more kids; save the world

      by Jeff Jacoby
      The Boston Globe
      August 24, 2016

      FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL, humankind has regarded it as a blessing to be fruitful and multiply.

      Not Travis Rieder.

      A philosopher and bioethics instructor at Johns Hopkins University, Rieder was the focus of a recent NPR story, in which he argued that having children is immoral and should be discouraged with government penalties. It’s not that Rieder dislikes children — in fact, he has a 2-year-old daughter of whom he’s quite fond. But with “dangerous climate change” approaching a tipping point “very, very soon,” he says, bringing more children into the world is unethical. After all, every additional baby means additional carbon emissions, and more carbon emissions mean rising global temperatures. Without drastic change, the planet will soon be “largely uninhabitable for humans.” So the natural human urge to procreate, Rieder insists, must be suppressed.

      “It’s not the childless who must justify their lifestyle,” he tells NPR. “It’s the rest of us.” And no, it’s not enough for would-be parents to adopt a rigorously “green” lifestyle. Rieder says that no amount of conservation — driving less, recycling faithfully, using energy-efficient light bulbs and appliances — comes remotely close to the level of CO2 reduction achieved by having one fewer child. (On its website, NPR helpfully supplies a sidebar with statistics confirming the point.)

      Curiously, Rieder seems to believe he is saying something fresh and unusual. “Here’s a provocative thought,” he announces. “Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them.”

      Provocative? The notion that too many people are having kids, and that “overpopulation” spells doom for life on Earth, has been an article of faith among environmental extremists since at least the 1960s.

      Babies are more than carbon footprints. They grow up not merely to consume, but to produce. With more people a society gets more innovation, more acts of kindness, more social welfare, more enterprise, more prosperity. To say nothing of more entertainment, like the hit 1970s TV show, “The Waltons.”

      David Brower, the longtime executive director of the Sierra Club, insisted decades ago that childbearing should be “a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.” The current White House science adviser, physicist John Holdren, was writing in the 1970s about the catastrophe that would result if governments didn’t turn to forcible sterilization, compulsory abortion, or anti-fertility drugs in the water supply to shrink the population. “If the population control measures are not initiated immediately and effectively,” wrote Holdren in a book co-authored with ecologist/alarmist Paul Ehrlich, “all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.”

      Population misanthropes were freaking out about the disasters sure to come from making too many babies as far back as ancient Greece. But though babies keep being made — at present, some 130 million of them every year — the disaster never comes. The number of men, women, and children on the planet has exploded from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 7.4 billion today, yet humanity is better off than ever. People live longer, healthier, and more comfortable lives than at any time in human history. By and large, they have more wealth, more education, more food, more medical care, more energy, and more natural resources than their forbears could have dreamed of.

      Never have there been so many people in the world. Never have the world’s people been so well off. Coincidence? Not at all. When people are fruitful and multiply, they tend to make the world better, not worse.

      Population doomsayers get lots of attention, but the doom they predict invariably fails to materialize. That is because babies are more than carbon footprints. They grow up not merely to consume, but to produce. They think and create and explore and imagine — and they inspire others to do so as well. With more people a society gets more innovation, more acts of kindness, more social welfare, more enterprise, more caregiving, more discovery, more growth, more prosperity.

      When parents bring a baby into the world, they do a wonderful thing — both for the baby and for the world. You really want to save the planet? Ignore the gloom-and-doomers, and have more children.

      (Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).

      — ## —


      CANDIDE: “Is this the best of all possible worlds ???”

      DR. PANGLOSS: “Yes, indeed it is the best of all possible worlds !!!”

      What do you think ???

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known by the alias Lenin, was a Russian communist revolutionary, politician, and political theorist, shown here addressing Russian troops in 1919.

Leaked e-mails show George Soros paid $650K to influence bishops during Pope’s US visit

    1. by John-Henry Westen


      catholic , george soros , pope francis , us bishops

      Updated Aug. 23, 2016 at 9:10 pm EST

      August 23, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Leaked emails through WikiLeaks reveal that billionaire globalist George Soros – one of Hilary Clinton’s top donors – paid $650,000 to influence Pope Francis’ September 2015 visit to the USA with a view to “shift[ing] national paradigms and priorities in the run-up to the 2016 presidential campaign.” The funds were allocated in April 2015 and the report on their effectiveness suggests that successful achievements included, “Buy-in of individual bishops to more publicly voice support of economic and racial justice messages in order to begin to create a critical mass of bishops who are aligned with the Pope.”

      The monies were granted to two US entities that have been engaged in a long-term project, according to the report, of shifting “the priorities of the US Catholic church.” Grantees were PICO, a faith-based community organizing group, and Faith in Public Life (FPL), a progressive group working in media to promote left-leaning ‘social justice’ causes. Soros has funded left-wing causes the world over and was just found to have been funding an effort to eliminate pro-life laws around the globe.

      Board Minutes from the May 2015 meeting of Soros’ Open Society Foundation in New York reveal that in the planning stages of the papal visit initiative, the group planned to work through one of the Pope’s key advisors, Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga, naming him specifically in the report. In order to seize on the opportunity provided by the Pope’s visit to the US, says the report, “we will support PICO’s organizing activities to engage the Pope on economic and racial justice issues, including using the influence of Cardinal Rodriguez, the Pope’s senior advisor, and sending a delegation to visit the Vatican in the spring or summer to allow him to hear directly from low-income Catholics in America.”

      In 2013 Cardinal Rodriguez endorsed PICO’s work in a video during a visit from PICO representatives to the cardinal’s diocese. “I want to endorse all the efforts they are doing to promote communities of faith,” he said, “… Please, keep helping PICO.”

      The post operative report on the funding to influence the papal visit comes in the 2016 report entitled, Review Of 2015 U.S. Opportunities Fund. The Soros group was pleased with the result of their campaign and saw statements by various bishops against presidental candidates who are using “fearmongering” – likely a reference to the GOP lineup, and perhaps Trump specifically – as one outcome of their efforts. “The impact of this work and the relationships it has fostered can be seen in the broad range of religious leaders hitting pointedly back at presidential candidates for their use of fearmongering,” the report said.

      Additionally, the summary report says their funding was helpful to counter “anti-gay rhetoric” in the media. The “efficacy of the media campaign can be seen in the team’s ability to react to and counter the anti-gay rhetoric following the Kim Davis story (the Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for defying a federal court order to issue marriage licenses to gay couples whom the Pope visited),” the report states.

      The grant specifically targeted the ‘pro-family’ agenda, redirecting it from defending marriage to being concerned with income equality. “FPL’s media, framing, and public opinion activities, including conducting a poll to demonstrate that Catholic voters are responsive to the Pope’s focus on income inequality, and earning media coverage that drives the message that being ‘pro-family’ requires addressing growing inequality,” says the May report.

      Attorney Elizabeth Yore, who served on the Heartland Institute Delegation that traveled to the Vatican in April 2015 to urge Pope Francis to re-examine his reliance on UN population control proponents who promote climate change, spoke to LifeSiteNews about the Soros initiative. “Catholics serve as a huge and influential voting block in the U.S. election,” she said. Soros, she said, is “using the head of the Catholic Church to influence this key voting block,” with the “bully pulpit of the papacy” to ensure Hilary Clinton’s election.

      Yore pointed out “this is not the first time that the unholy alliance of Soros and the Vatican successfully collaborated on a political project.” In 2015, she recalled, “the Soros operatives, embedded in the Vatican, directed Pope Francis’ Environmental Agenda, by delivering for Soros and the UN, an Apostolic Exhortation on Climate Change, and a prized papal endorsement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Pope’s apostolic blessing on the Paris Climate Treaty.”

      In terms of the Soros goal of shifting the priorities of the Catholic Church away from moral absolutes, two US bishops stand out as champions of the move. San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy has repeatedly stressed changing the Church’s priorities and has had the backing of Pope Francis’ ‘favored son,’ Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich. McElroy created a furor at the U.S. Bishops Conference meeting last November over his attempt to change a document instructing Catholics on how to vote.

      McElroy made a pointed argument that the document was out of step with Pope Francis’ priorities — specifically, by putting too much emphasis on abortion and euthanasia, and not enough on poverty and the environment. Cupich later praised McElroy’s intervention as a “real high moment” for the conference and supported the move to put degradation of the environment and global poverty on par with abortion and euthanasia.

      Concluding their report reflecting on the success of the grant to influence the papal visit, the Soros group was very pleased with the results. Looking to the future, they are excited that the long-term goal of shifting the priorities of the Catholic Bishops in the United States “is now underway.”



      Idiota útil

      En la jerga política, el término idiota útil o tonto útil (ruso: Полезный идиот, transliterado como Polieznyi, Polyeznyi o Poljeznyj idiot) era usado para describir a los simpatizantes de la Unión Soviética en los países occidentales, y la supuesta actitud del régimen de ésta hacia ellos. La implicación era que aunque la persona en cuestión tontamente se veía a sí misma como aliada de la URSS y de otros comunistas, en realidad era tratada con desdén por parte de aquélla y de éstos, a la vez que esa persona era cínicamente utilizada.[cita requerida]

      Este vocablo compuesto es ahora usado más ampliamente para describir a alguien que es manipulado por un movimiento político, generalmente de tendencia extremista, un grupo terrorista o un gobierno hostil, sea esa agrupación de naturaleza comunista o no lo sea.[cita requerida]


      1 Supuesto uso del término por parte de Lenin
      2 Otros
      3 Uso moderno
      4 Tonto útil
      5 Referencias
      6 Véase también
      7 Enlaces externos

      Supuesto uso del término por parte de Lenin
      Commons-emblem-question book orange.svg
      Este artículo o sección necesita referencias que aparezcan en una publicación acreditada. Este aviso fue puesto el 21 de mayo de 2016.
      Puedes añadirlas o avisar al autor principal del artículo en su página de discusión pegando: {{sust:Aviso referencias|Idiota útil}} ~~~~

      El término es originalmente atribuido a Lenin, fundador de la Unión Soviética, a veces en la forma compuesta de “idiotas útiles de Occidente”, para describir a aquellos intelectuales escritores y reporteros occidentales que viajaban a la URSS y que regresaban a sus respectivos países de origen hablando de forma entusiasta acerca de los “logros soviéticos en educación y salud”, los “avances técnicos en agricultura e industria” y “la construcción de una nueva sociedad”. El término “tonto” se refería a la ingenuidad o credulidad que mostraban esos visitantes cuando el gobierno soviético -a través de visitas guiadas- les hacía ver diversos hospitales, granjas, escuelas y fábricas, cuyas instalaciones habían sido especialmente preparadas o maquilladas con fines propagandísticos. Un “idiota útil” que ejemplificó esta actitud fue el periodista estadounidense Lincoln Steffens, quien al regresar de la URSS escribió que “He visto el futuro, y funciona” (I’ve seen the future, and it works).

      No obstante, en los Estados Unidos no se hizo pública referencia a los simpatizantes comunistas como “idiotas útiles” hasta 1948, es decir, hasta décadas después del uso de la frase por parte de Lenin respecto de los “compañeros de ruta” occidentales. Recién en ese año la frase en cuestión sería comentada por un medio estadounidense de gran circulación, al ser utilizada en un artículo del tradicional diario The New York Times relacionado a la tendencia izquierdista que se estaba notando en la Italia de post-guerra. Los críticos del término aseveran que la expresión en cuestión nunca ha sido descubierta en ningún documento publicado por Lenin en vida, además que nadie nunca dijo haberlo escuchado decirla. En la primavera boreal de 1987, Grant Harris, bibliotecario de la biblioteca del Congreso estadounidense (The Library of Congress), dijo al respecto que “No hemos podido identificar esta frase [idiotas útiles de Occidente] entre las obras publicadas [de Lenin]”. 1

      El escritor Edvard Radzinsky, en su libro “Stalin”, atribuye al artista Yuri Annenkov, quien dijo haber visto algunos papeles dejados por Lenin, mientras trabajaba en el instituto que llevaba el nombre del líder soviético, antes de emigrar hacia Occidente en 1924, el mismo año de la muerte del fundador de la URSS. La reproducción de memoria de Annenkov fue publicada en 1961. 2

      Radzinsky conjeturó que eso era una parte del texto completo del testamento original de Lenin, que éste habría deliberadamente ocultado, mandando sólo un nuevo texto al entonces nuevo secretariado del Partido Comunista soviético.

      “Los así llamados elementos culturales de Europa Occidental y de los Estados Unidos son incapaces de comprender el estado actual de los asuntos [internacionales] y el equilibrio real de fuerzas, por lo que aquéllos deben ser tratados como sordomudos y tratados en consecuencia…”

      Una revolución nunca se desarrolla a través de una línea directa de tiempo, por expansión continua, sino que forma una cadena de explosiones [es decir, “avances”) y retiradas, ataques y [posterior] quietud, durante la cual las fuerzas revolucionarias ganan fuerza para la preparación de su victoria final…

      “Debemos (1) Para aplacar a los sordomudos, proclamar la ficticia separación de nuestro gobierno… del Comintern [la Internacional Comunista], declarando [oficialmente] que esa agencia es un grupo político independiente. Los sordomudos se lo creerán (2) Expresar un deseo de inmediata reanudación de las relaciones diplomáticas con los países capitalistas, sobre la base de la completa no interferencia en sus asuntos internos. Otra vez, como sordomudos se lo creerán. Inclusive estarán encantados y abrirán sus puestas de par en par, a través de las cuales los emisarios del Comintern y las agencias de inteligencia del Partido [Comunista soviético] rápidamente se infiltrarán en estos países, disfrazados como nuestro personal diplomático, cultural y representantes de comercio. Los capitalistas de todo el mundo y sus gobiernos, en su deseo de ganar [el potencialmente grande] mercado soviético, cerraran sus ojos a a las actividades mencionadas anteriormente y se volverán ciegos y sordo-mudos. [Por lo que] Suministrarán créditos, que servirá como un medio [indirecto] de apoyar a los partidos comunistas de sus [propios] países y, al suministrarnos a nosotros, reconstruiremos nuestra industria de guerra, lo que nos será esencial para [realizar] futuros ataques sobre nuestros proveedores. En otras palabras, ellos trabajarán para preparar su propio suicidio”

      Desde la antigüedad (como ya se podía ver en el legendario Código de Hammurabi), hasta tiempos recientes, los términos “sordomudo” y “sordo-mudo” eran análogos al de “idiota”. Varias versiones de lo que podría ser traducido como “idiotas útiles” también ha sido utilizado respecto de algunos estadounidenses y de algunas sociedades capitalistas.
      Uso moderno

      En los Estados Unidos, el término es a veces usado despectiva o peyorativamente contra los liberals (traducibles como “centroizquierdistas” o “socialdemócratas”), y hasta contra los radicales. El tono utilizado al definir a un “idiota útil” sugiere que éste último es en realidad un ignorante de las motivaciones ocultas de quienes se aprovechan de él, a tal punto que termina involuntariamente por favorecer el avance de una causa (usualmente política) adversa a sí mismo o a sus propias creencias, la que obviamente no apoyaría si estuviese mejor informado o analizase más a fondo esos hechos subyacentes.

      Asimismo, el término ganó una renovada popularidad después de la publicación de un libro por parte de la columnista conservadora Mona Chare.3

      También es a veces usado por anarquistas y otros radicales para describir a grupos e individuos cuya ideología, según alegan ellos, es excesivamente deferente hacia un gobierno o movimiento político autoritario.

      Desde los ataques terroristas del 11 de septiembre de 2001 en Nueva York y Washington, el término “idiota útil” también ha sido utilizado por parte del analistas políticos para describir a individuos que proponen acciones o medidas más blandas contra el islamismo militante y el terrorismo de ese origen. Por ejemplo, Anthony Browne escribió en el periódico británico The Times:

      “Elementos del Establishment británico sentían una notable simpatía hacia Hitler. Hoy, los islamistas disfrutan de un apoyo similar. En la década de 1930 era Eduardo VIII, los aristócratas y el Daily Mail, esta vez son los activistas de izquierda, el The Guardian y secciones de la BBC. Ellos no desean una teocracia global, pero son como los apologistas de la Unión Soviética, los idiotas útiles”4

      De manera similar, Bruce S. Thornton, profesor de Classics en la facultad regional de Fresno de la Universidad de California, reveladoramente escribió al respecto:5 :

      “Lenin los llamó ‘idiotas útiles’, aquella gente que vivía bajo democracias liberales quienes, al brindar apoyo material y moral a una ideología totalitaria, en efecto estaban entretejiendo la soga con la que serían ahorcados. El porqué gente que disfrutaba de libertad y [una relativa] prosperidad, trabajaba apasionadamente para destruir a ambas es una pregunta fascinante, que aún está con nosotros hoy en día. Ahora los idiotas útiles pueden encontrarse en el coro del apaciguamiento, reflexivo antiamericanismo, e idealismo sentimental que trata de inhibir las respuestas necesarias hacia otra ideología que odia la libertad, el Islam radical.”

      En países de habla hispana se ha utilizado el término para referirse a los seguidores del líder cubano Fidel Castro suelen viajar a La Habana como turistas o invitados a congresos y que repiten la propaganda del gobierno comunista encabezado por su hermano Raúl, aunque probablemente no tolerarían que políticas similares fuesen aplicadas o implementadas en sus respectivos países de origen.[cita requerida]
      Tonto útil

      Es una expresión política generada en los escritos de Karl Marx y describe a personas que al luchar por un ideal pueden transformarse en instrumentos de otros grupos políticos. Se refiere a personas que colaboran involuntariamente con los intereses creados de terceros.

      Ese término compuesto en cuestión puede ser empleado para designar a personas que colaboran con cambios, reformas o revoluciones lideradas por otros o por personas que mantienen un sistema que no les beneficia.

      Boller, Jr., Paul F.; George, They never said It: A book of fake quotes, misquotes, and misleading attributions, Oxford University Press, Nueva York, 1989, ISBN 0-19-505541-1.
      Vospominaniya o Lenine, Novyi Zhurnal [transliteración del término francés journal], número 65, Nueva York, 1961 (en ruso). Después sería publicada en inglés, en The Lufkin News, King Featurers Syndicate, Inc., 31 de julio de 1962, página 4, para ser luego reproducida por el Freeman Report (“Informe del hombre libre”) del 30 de septiembre de 1973, en la página 8.
      Charen, Mona Useful idiots: How liberals got it wrong in the Cold War and still blame America first (“Idiotas útiles: Cómo los liberals se equivocaron en la Guerra Fría y aún primero culpan a los Estados Unidos”), Regnery Publishing, 2003, ISBN 0-89526-139-1.
      Traducido de Anthony Browne, Fundamentaly, we’re all useful idiots (“Fundamentalmente, todos nosotros somos idiotas útiles”, The Times, primero de agosto de 2005: [1]

      Traducido de Bruce S. Thornton, The chorus of useful idiots (“El coro de los idiotas útiles”), Frontpage magazine, primero de noviembre de 2002: [2]

      Véase también

      Compañero de ruta
      Intelectual orgánico

      Enlaces externos

      Esta obra proviene de la traducción de Useful idiot de Wikipedia en inglés, publicada por sus editores bajo la Licencia de documentación libre de GNU y la Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-CompartirIgual 3.0 Unported.


      Terminología política

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment



Bergoglio Too Has His Nonnegotiable Principles

    They are the four postulates with which he continually inspires his governance of the Church, the first of which says that “time is greater than space.” The trouble is that they do not hold up. An erudite Benedictine monk explains why

    by Sandro Magister


    ROME, August 23, 2016 – That “Amoris Laetitia” has not resolved “all the doctrinal, moral, or pastoral discussions” on communion for the divorced and remarried is plain for all to see. On the contrary, it has reignited them more than ever.

    But this is precisely what Francis wanted, according to what he himself wrote at the beginning of the post-synodal exhortation:

    “Since ‘time is greater than space,’ I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium.”

    Further on, in the same exhortation, Francis translated his assertion as follows: “It is more important to start processes than to dominate spaces.”

    And with this he referred for the umpteenth time to what is the cornerstone of his thought: to the first of the four postulates that act as his compass, which he listed in the agenda-setting document of his pontificate, the apostolic exhortation “Evangelii Gaudium.”

    It is the very same postulate that says that time is greater than space. While the other three are that unity prevails over conflict, the reality is more important than the idea, the whole is greater than the part.

    Jorge Mario Bergoglio has clung to these four guiding thoughts for a lifetime, and above all to the first:

    > The Four Hooks On Which Bergoglio Hangs His Thought

    And he continues to draw inspiration from them even as pope, in his magisterium. Without ever forcing himself to explain their reasonableness – which to an expert eye immediately appears highly fragile – but instead insisting each time on their practical purpose, which is mainly that of “starting processes.”

    It therefore comes as no surprise that these postulates should be the object of critical analysis today, in part because they do not stem in any way from divine revelation nor have any foundation in the Sacred Scriptures, but are a mere product of the human mind, which Pope Francis however is audaciously elevating as driving principles of the life of the Church.

    A first extensive critical analysis, philosophical in nature, of the four Bergoglian postulates was formulated last spring by Fr. Giovanni Scalese, 61, a Barnabite, since 2014 head of the “sui iuris” mission in Afghanistan, the only outpost of the Catholic Church in that country, and previously a professor of philosophy and rector of the Collegio alla Querce in Florence:

    > I postulati di papa Francesco

    But now comes a second analysis, no less acute. The work this time of Fr. Giulio Meiattini, of the order of St. Benedict, a monk at the Abbazia della Madonna della Scala in Noci and a professor at the Theological Faculty of Puglia and at the Pontifical Atheneum of Saint Anselm in Rome.

    The complete text of the analysis, clear and well-written, is on this other webpage:

    > Il tempo è superiore allo spazio? Intorno a una tesi di papa Bergoglio

    In it, Fr. Meiattini lays bare above all the inconsistency of the postulate “time is greater than space” from the point of view not only of philosophy but also of linguistics, since Bergoglio systematically understands space as “space of power.”

    And then he takes head on the purpose to which the pope bends his postulate: that of “generating processes.” Emphasizing its contradictions, including those inherent in “Amoris Laetitia.”

    Which has certainly started “processes”: “debates, controversies, diametrically opposed interpretations, polarizations, perplexities of faithful and priests, uncertainties in the episcopal conferences.”

    But “that this is a matter of virtuous processes is something no one can say for now.”

    Below is reproduced an extract of this second and concluding part of the analysis.


    “That this is a matter of virtuous processes is something no one can say for now”

    by Giulio Meiattini OSB

    One gets the impression that the affirmation of the superiority of time over space serves an interest: that of starting processes. [. . .] But in spite of appreciating the stimulus of Pope Francis, is starting processes truly so vital today, so much so as to become a priority? Is aiming at this objective and recalling it in a pressing way truly what man and society need today, and Catholics in particular? Is this what is most needed at this global juncture of the life of the Church?

    Allow me to express a strong doubt in this regard. Today there is already a huge number of processes underway, and in addition to this they are overwhelming and often of gigantic proportions. The much-cited “fluidity” of our society and our cultures, the migrations from south to north, the displacement of geopolitical balances, the changes in values, and the transformations brought by technology to the sphere of ethics fully justify the apt expression of the pontiff himself: “We are living not in an epoch of changes, but in a change of epoch.”

    The changes are already underway, they are numerous, of enormous impact and planetary extension. [. . .] So much so that to me it seems possible to say that the main problem of contemporary man is not so much that of immobility as it is that of no longer having markers and measurements for the processes underway. The movements in course are highly self-referential: that is, they have no relatively stable externalities that could measure or orient them to some extent. They have no purpose or meaning. [. . .] If everything is in motion, and if “change” as an end in itself seems to be the only thing that remains, everything is made equivalent. [. . .] The very word “process,” which the pope uses, appears so neutral that in and of itself any change can be defined as a process. But if the important thing is to processualize and change, and I am not told the where and the how to which the process-change must lead, nor its wherefore, then in the multiplication of changes everything is equivalent. [. . .]

    My opinion is that today the word to be expected from the Church is not: begin processes. These, as I have said, are already underway to the nth degree, both positive and negative, and are not waiting for us Christians to continue their course or to regulate themselves.

    The processes begun at the time of the fall of the Roman empire and of the invasions of the new Eurasian peoples were not begun by Christianity: but this was able to make them less devastating and gradually to channel them thanks to an oriented vision of the world.

    Today as well one would expect that in the transience and impermanence of social and cultural, economic, political and ethical configurations, criteria of evaluation and discernment should be offered, references and topographies that could serve to understand whereabouts we are and where we may be going. In short, compasses and maps to orient the faithful and the men of our time.

    Contemporary humanity, above all in countries that have their origins in Western culture and its influence, does not suffer from immobility, but from disorientation because of excessive mobility. Even the great lobbies of power not rarely use the strategy of destabilization – starting processes, would you look at that! – to obtain specific reactions in their favor. Starting processes is not innocent in principle, doing so can also be in the interest of the power toward which the pope rightly warns us we should be on guard. [. . .]

    The conclusion to which I come personally is that magisterial statements should be expected to display more guarded language and greater lucidity of thought. For the good of all, since a correct exercise of reason is a good service not only for the theology and life of the Church, but also for a virtuous communication with the world of culture. Because more than a greater importance of reality over the idea, it should be remembered that the idea is part of reality, since thought is a mode of being and the “medium” through which being is knowable to us and becomes “verum.”

    Not caring about the idea and the process of ideation (which is also a process!), meaning thought, would risk estranging us from the being that comes to the idea. Imprecision in the use of concepts and in the exercise of thought does not create understanding, but uncertainty and confusion. The conciliar constitution “Dei Verbum,” the expression of a rich theology of salvation history and in full conformity with the sacramental nature of the Church, reminds us of the inseparability of actions and words, facts and language. There is no superiority of actions over words, or vice versa.

    It concerns me to point out that the principle-postulate examined here is also used enigmatically in the context of a document like “Amoris Laetitia”:

    “Since ‘time is greater than space,’ I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium” (no. 3).

    I wonder: what connection is there between the principle recalled and the consequence drawn? Perhaps what is meant is that the statements of the magisterium (including of “Amoris Laetitia”?) are a symptom of immobilist fixation or the preservation of “spaces of power”? The implication sincerely escapes me.

    In any case we can say that, under the banner of this principle, the effect has taken hold: there has begun, following the post-synodal exhortation on the family, a series of “processes”: debates, controversies, diametrically opposed interpretations, polarizations, perplexities of faithful and priests, uncertainties in the episcopal conferences.

    That this is a matter of virtuous processes is something no one can say for now. Personally I dare to say that perhaps this was not what was needed most on the issue of the family today.

    Why, after no fewer than two synods, was not even a page expended in this exhortation on preparation and formation for Christian marriage? And to say that the “relatio finalis” of the second synod had dedicated significant attention to it, even if not yet entirely sufficient, in my view. Are we really sure that today the sacraments are being given to “Christians”?

    I am convinced that this is the true process that the Church has urgent need of starting: generating to Christian faith and life authentic believers through baptism and Christian initiation. Then comes the rest, including marriage, including the construction of social peace and the common good.

    But is there anyone left who still thinks seriously about baptism and the catechumenate? Baptism is not a postulate, nor is it an abstract idea. Baptizing and making disciples of the peoples is the heart of the Church’s mission, it is the mandate of Jesus.


    English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment



When I was a priest of the Archdiocese of Miami, I learned an important lesson that has served me well throughout the years as priest and bishop. I learned that the wishes, the intention of persons requesting certain things be done by the Church and its ministers following their death should be done unless what has been requested by the person would clearly be immoral, contrary to divine or positive law, or result in scandal for the faithful and that this principle is enshrined in the Church’s Code of Canon Law in many canons.

At the time I was the Administrator of a parish in the Archdiocese. I was approached by a man who stated that he was the executor of the estate of a deceased member of the parish who had provided in his will that he wanted a large bequest be made to the Parish on the condition that the Parish would construct a statue of the Blessed Mother in front of the Church and dedicate it to the memory of the individual who was reputed to have been a Mafia Don. I approached the Archbishop and asked whether I could accept such a large donation under the prescribed condition. The Archbishop replied that ordinarily such a donation could be accepted and the statue of the Blessed Mother could be erected even though such erection was done in memory of a Mafia Don as long as the dedication was only a mental dedication in the mind of the donor, but since the donor wanted a plaque affixed to the base of the statue with the name of the Mafia Don I could not accept the donation. The wishes of the donor must be respected, the Archbishop said, unless those wishes would cause scandal and in this case he thought they would cause scandal.

Later, in another parish where I was Pastor, a wealthy woman wanted to give property valued at over $1,000,000 to the Archdiocese and also to give the funds for the construction of a retirement home for priests. I approached the Archbishop and he instructed me to take up a survey and determine the interest in priests in the Archdiocese and in northern arch/dioceses in living in such a retirement home.
Unable to find any interest among priests for such a home, the Archbishop told me to thank the woman but to tell her he could not accept the gift under her conditions.

In the last decade of the 20th Century a group of bishops challenged the Board of the John G. and Marie Stella Kenedy Foundation over the administration of the Foundation, seeking to gain control of the Foundation and make it a Texas-wide foundation under the control of all the bishops of the State, even though the Foundation Board had for ten years regularly given grants to their dioceses. The Holy See appointed a Commission consisting of Cardinal John O’Connor, Cardinal Bernard Law and (then) Bishop Raymond Burke to mediate the dispute. A meeting was held with all of the bishops of Texas and the Commission. (Cardinal Burke later told me that Cardinal O’Connor never invited him to another meeting of the Commission after this meeting.) At the meeting I insisted that the Foundation Board was acting properly in making over half of its grants to entities in South Texas since that is what Sarita Kenedy East had in mind when she established her Foundation in memory of her parents because in her lifetime the majority of her generous giving was to entities in South Texas. Cardinal O’Connor replied that no one could know what Sarita Kenedy East had in mind. I, and the other members of the Board were shocked to hear a Cardinal of the Church say such a thing since the documentary evidence was so plain as to what the mind of Sarita Kenedy East had been.

More recently, a priest I know was asked, in writing, by an elderly priest to preach the homily at his funeral Mass when he died. Months later the elderly priest died and when the priest showed up at the church prepared to preach the homily, as he had been asked by the deceased to do, the bishop told him that he would preach the homily. The priest showed the bishop a copy of the deceased priest’s letter, but it made no difference. The bishop preached the homily, clearly against the wishes of the deceased priest, who did not like the bishop.

Even more recently, another priest I know was asked, in writing by an elderly priest to celebrate his funeral liturgy using the Extraordinary (Tridentine) Form of the Mass. The elderly priest died and when the priest who had been asked to celebrate the funeral liturgy attempted to do so he was forbidden by the bishop who himself celebrated the funeral liturgy using the Novus Ordo Form of the Mass.

0I cannot explain these cases. Clearly the Church has always believed and taught and the Revised Code of Canon Law promulgated by Saint John Paul II in 1983 clearly gives basic rights to all members of the Church. Surely among those rights that Catholics have are some that pertain to the reasonable, lawful requests that they make of us regarding the disposition of their mortal remains and their property after they die.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment


Interior of the Opera House in Graz, Austria

August 22, 2016
When An Opera Is Like a Vatican II Liturgy
Kevin T. DiCamillo

Angels-Singing-in-Tune_Hubert and Jan Van Eyck

Years (and years) ago I went to an opera in Graz, Austria—I guess the American equivalent to this is going to see the Boston Red Sox play at Fenway Park (if you are a huge baseball fan) or Ricky Skaggs play the Grand Ole Opry in Nashville, if you are a big blue-grass or country-western aficionado. Anyway, the opera was Verdi’s “Aida” known for its show-stopping cast of hundreds, including animals of all types and stripes. I entered the stunning opera house and waited for the spectacle.

Not this night, though: while Graz boasts the second largest opera-house in all of Austria (after the massive Staatsoper in Vienna), this particular production of Verdi’s “Aida” featured stuffed animals. I don’t mean life-sized elephants that had been to see a taxidermy expert: no, when an animal was called for, an infant’s giraffe or lion or elephant was held up by the cast member who was then singing.

Not content with deconstructing one great operatic experience, on another night, during a production of Mozart’s “The Magic Flute” the stage was not only literally barren, but the only “scenery” were people walking around on stilts. I thought I’d accidentally walked into a German circus.

Sir Kenneth Clark has observed wisely that in the history of civilization, opera is a particularly weird anomaly that has managed to hang on: “What is it that causes people to dress up, go to a stunning building, sit still for over three hours, and listen to people sing in a language that they [the audience] do not understand?” Sir Clark’s point is that, during the high rococo period, opera houses in Europe began (especially in France) to take the place of the local church, or, better, cathedral. Hence so many European opera houses look like magnificent churches, even now.

Opera is a pretty strange experience to begin with, but what I saw in those Austrian productions many years ago didn’t “fit”—that is, a “minimalist” version of Verdi (and Mozart) made no sense in Graz’s resplendent opera house.

I have often thought that this is the “problem” with the Novus Ordo liturgy, especially when it is celebrated in a pre-Vatican II church: the fit is all wrong. Sure, it is valid and licit (as certainly as I can say, “I saw Verdi and Mozart performed in Austria!”) and no doubt fulfills our “Sunday duty”—but whenever I’m in a magnificent church, I find myself hungering for either a full-blown choir chanting with the pipe organ or, at Low Mass, the unbroken quiet of the numinous experience of the unbloody reenactment of the Sacrifice on Calvary while surrounded on all sides by stained glass that recounts our collective salvific history and statuary that actually resembles the saints.

This disconnect may account for why post-Vatican II churches look the way they do—that is, a sort of cross between something Lutheran and Low Anglican: they were never intended for a Solemn High Mass sung in Latin—they were meant as a sort of ecumenical meeting-hall. The “event” of the Mass had been lowered from the rococo style to the post-abstract-expressionism of the 1960s.

In good news, opera has somehow, almost inexplicably endured: Lincoln Center’s Metropolitan Opera House (“The Met” with its murals by Marc Chagall, who himself designed at least one famous church and painted Pope Francis’s favorite painting, “The White Crucifixion”) is about as close to a secular “church” that you’ll ever come across in the United States. To its detractors, though, “The Met” is “The most efficient factory for the production of opera ever devised” said one music critic in The New Yorker.

Back in Europe, The Royal Opera House at Covent Garden in London, La Scala in Milan, Bayreuth, Paris’s L’Opera, and, of course, Vienna’s Staatsopera, all still get at least partial Federal subsidies to put on their productions. In fact, in Vienna the opera “season” produces more than twice as many operas than New York City’s The Met—and, in a real relief, only plays to its historical strength (read: tradition)—lots and lots of Mozart, Wagner, Beethoven, and Richard Strauss. Which explains, I suppose, why the city of Graz (which is to Austria what Buffalo is to New York: a second-place city with a huge inferiority complex) has an opera house that feels “updating” the classic opera is not only a good idea, but somehow “necessary.”

Music in general and opera in particular have, of course, moved on, as have all the arts and if you are into atonality or twelve-tone theory or the musical avant-garde—perhaps the most notorious version of this is John Cage’s infamous 4’33”, where a pianist takes the stage and proceeds to sit silently at the piano for, yes, you guessed it, four minutes and thirty-three seconds—there’s no lack of it out there. And I do mean “Out There.”

Still, if my wife and I dress up for an evening at a grand opera house whether in Milan or the Met (though given the prices, I can’t imagine we’ll be doing this anytime soon), I’m not sure we want innovation as much as something that will bring us musical pleasure.

Likewise, if once a week I’m going to argue with my twins that they are going to put on their Sunday best and I’m going to struggle tying a Windsor-knot tie, then more often than not I want the entire sensory experience of the Holy Mass to be—or at least feel—holy.

Perhaps this is to concentrate only on surfaces. I’d be hard-pressed to argue against that. And maybe my reading of opera as a type of mirror of Vatican II is a bit overly-determined. Regardless, when at an opera house I want an opera, not a bunch of people holding up children’s stuffed-animals, and in a Church (assuming it looks like a Church) it’s fitting to have something holy wholly surrounding and enveloping you.

Tagged as Liturgy, Novus Ordo Mass, opera, post-Vatican II Crisis, Sacred Architecture, sacred music
Kevin T. DiCamillo
By Kevin T. DiCamillo

Kevin T. DiCamillo is a freelance writer and editor who writes regularly for National Catholic Register and PublishingPerspectives. He won the Foley Poetry Prize from America Magazine. His work has appeared in Columbia, The Priest, The Times Literary Supplement (of London), James Joyce Quarterly, The National Poetry Review, The Antigonish Review, Opium and other publications. In addition to being a co-founder of The Notre Dame Review (where he earned his Master’s degree), he is the former poetry editor of Traffic East, and was a University and Doctoral Research Fellow at St. John’s University.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


The Conversion of Saint Paul by Caravaggio
The Conversion of the Lemann Brothers

The Lemann brothers were Jews, twin brothers orphaned at an early age, and raised by their uncles and aunts in a wealthy, aristocratic Jewish family in Lyons, France. They, on their own initiative and without the knowledge of their family, were baptized into the Catholic faith at the age of eighteen; when the family found out it tried to get the boys to recant; and when that failed, several of their uncles violently attacked them. At the point of death, one of the boys was able to struggle free sufficiently to cry for help, and they were rescued by the police. The incident, occurring as it did in one of the foremost families of the city, caused quite a scandal, and the family attempted to justify its behavior by accusing the boys of having been hoodwinked by the priest who baptized them, claiming he was only after their inheritance. To defend the priest the boys, then eighteen, sent the following letter to the local newspaper:

Dear Editor, Sunday, September 17, 1854

We see ourselves in the necessity of breaking a silence which we had determined to keep. The newspapers have spoken enough about the unfortunate incident which has brought us to the public’s attention. If we alone were being accused, the condemnation that was placed on our conversion would be of little concern to us; our conscience belongs to us alone, and we recognize no one else’s right to it. But, as certain people are circulating malicious insinuations with respect to the clergy, it has become our duty to reveal the truth and enlighten the opinions of reasonable men.

In our conversion, all has been the work of God. From our childhood, the sight of Catholic services greatly impressed us, to the point that we felt regret that we were not Christian. When we began school, this regret became more acute; we saw, on one hand, a few Jews; on the other hand, a great number of Christian children. This difference struck us. When they went to Mass and we heard the songs accompanied by the organ, we blushed to be reduced to gathering in an ordinary classroom and go through the motions of a pointless ritual.

But what shook us even more were the love and the devotion of the priests and religious who vowed themselves to the service of the ill, a devotion which we compared with the coldness and indifference of the others who surrounded us. On top of that, one of us fell gravely ill. We were drawn more and more to Catholicism. However, we dared not broach the question; we wanted to study further. The further we advanced in our study, the more sharply we saw the false position we were in. We opened up history, and we could not avoid becoming aware of the present state of the Jewish people as compared to its past.

More and more difficulties, which our Rabbi never could resolve, piled up in our heads. The study of the classics of Bossuet, of Fenelon, of Massillon, was able to prepare our hearts to receive the grace of a God of mercy. Then we searched the Holy Scriptures. From the start, we understood that we could not walk alone; we must find a holy Priest. Every day from then on, he gave us instruction, dissipated our doubts, explained to us the prophecies, and enabled us to grasp the link between the old and the new law.

Then, we said to ourselves ‘If the Messiah has already come, it’s Jesus Christ, and we must become Christians. If he has not yet come, we must nevertheless no longer remain Jews, because the time of the promise has passed and our books have lied.’

He made us wait over a year. After we graduated from high school, we insisted on being baptized; we had been out of school over a month.

He could not refuse our request, we became Christians and we became happy.
No one can make us renounce our faith, we are resolved to die first.

It seems to us that the age of eighteen is old enough to discern the true from the false. Furthermore, the Jews have demanded freedom of religion for themselves and for Protestants; they can hardly refuse it to us.

P.S. Sir, we rely on your fairness to print this letter in your next issue.

The twin brothers went on to become priests, theologians, and canons of the Church; they became good friends of Pope Pius IX and played an active role at the First Vatican Council. At that council, they circulated a ‘Postulatum’ which was signed by almost all of the Fathers of the council, and which was heartily endorsed by Pope Pius IX. Only the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war, which prematurely terminated the council, prevented the official proclamation of the Postulatum. It consisted of a warm invitation to the Jews to join the Catholic Church; the text follows:

The undersigned Fathers of the Council humbly yet urgently beseechingly pray that the Holy Ecumenical Council of the Vatican deign to come to the aid of the unfortunate nation of Israel with an entirely paternal invitation; that is, that it express the wish that, finally exhausted by a wait no less futile than long, the Israelites hasten to recognize the Messiah, our Savior Jesus Christ, truly promised to Abraham and announced by Moses; thus completing and crowning, not changing, the Mosaic religion.

On one hand, the undersigned Fathers have the very firm confidence that the holy Council will have compassion on the Israelites, because they are always very dear to God on account of their fathers, and because it is from them that the Christ was born according to the flesh.

On the other hand, the same Fathers share the sweet and intimate hope that this ardent desire of tenderness and honor will be, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, well received by many of the sons of Abraham, because the obstacles which have held them back until now appear to be disappearing more and more, the ancient wall of separation now having fallen.

Would that they then speedily acclaim the Christ, saying ‘Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed be He who comes in the name of the Lord!’

HAT TIP: Ed & Carroll Hummel

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


Judas Pontius Kaine


    Guy McClung, J.D., Ph.D.

      { If something should happen to Hillary Clinton (e.g. be indicted for lying to Congress or be impeached and removed for “high crimes and misdemeanors”) Time Kaine would be President of the United States !!! God forbid, but it may happen because of the stupidity of the ‘ignorati’ and the cupidity of the ‘illuminati.’ +RHG }

    As a conscientious Catholic voter, who has examined the words and actions of the Catholic Democrat candidate, Tim Kaine, I have come to the conclusion that to vote for this man would be a grave sin. Yes, Kaine has said he is against abortion. However, he says one thing to court the Catholic vote, but his actions contradict his words.

    It is with this incongruity in mind that I ask you to please consider the fact that Tim Kaine is the embodiment of the Democrat’s most useful principle of truth-not-truth, the principle of non-noncontradiction: simultaneously, a thing can be and not be. His own words make this crystalline.

    Judas P. Kaine – Jekyll

    When he ran for governor of Virginia, he said:

    “The truth is, I cut taxes as mayor of Richmond. I’ll enforce the death penalty as governor, and I’m against same-sex marriage. I’m conservative on personal responsibility, character, family and the sanctity of life. These are my values, and that’s what I believe.” In that same campaign, he said: “I support restrictions on abortion — no public funding and parental consent — and I’ve worked to pass a state law banning partial-birth abortion.”

    He also dissed a GOP opponent who, he said, failed to pass a ban on such public funding. This ad began with him saying he was: “not afraid to tell you where I stand.”

    In 2008 he said, again, that he opposed abortion and supported legal restrictions on it. While he was governor of Virginia he supported state funding for crisis pregnancy centers and, really upsetting the pro-death folks, signed into law legislation for Virginia’s “Choose Life” license plates. Daily now, these plates are all over Washington D.C.

    Judas P. Kaine – Hyde

    Another Kaine became a U.S. senator. With a pro-death, pro-abortion record in the senate, he voted prodeath, against life, whenever he could. He voted pro-death to permit government funding of abortion businesses. He voted pro-death and against a law that would have required an abortion death dealer doctor to inform at least one parent of a minor from another state (e.g. a thirteen or fourteen-year-old girl) before killing her baby.

    In true adherence to the democrat non-noncon principle, he co-sponsored an act that would not protect women and would not enhance their health, eerily called the “Women’s Health Protection Act” (S.217).This was a feminis-for-death dream, a eugenicist’s reverie, which, in effect was an “Abortion Without Limits Until Birth Act.” The Act would negate most laws, state and federal, in any way limiting or restricting baby killing. It would have also prevented all the states from passing any effective pro-life laws in the future.

    Both Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Action League gave Senator JP Kaine perfect scores. The National Right To Life Committee gave him a zero.

    Judas P. Kaine – Almost a “world ruler of this present darkness”

    Fast forward to now. JP Tim Kaine is now a vote and then, possibly, a heartbeat away from being earth’s most powerful man. This man has now embraced the Party Of Death’s new platform that, among its promotion of so many evils, now demands that all of us pay for abortions for all women in America.

    These “women” will include the likes of some great grandparents’ fourteen-year-old great-granddaughter, standing before a complicit judge, whose parents think she is on a school field trip. She will be comforted in court by a Planned Parenthood operative and represented by a Planned Parenthood attorney, whose fees are also being paid for with our tax dollars, so that this child can kill the child growing within her without her mommy and daddy’s knowledge or consent – a grandchild that the parents will never know exists until they arrive in Heaven will die a horrible, terrorizing, gruesome death. Planned Parenthood will be able to sell the murdered child’s brain, saved as salable while the child still lives, for $1000 if it is “prime” quality.

    Jesus also spoke about Tim Kaine:

    “The Son of Man must die, as said long ago by the Scriptures. But woe to the man who betrays Him. It would be far better for him if he had never been born!” (Mk 14:21)


    Tim Kaine: An Explosion Waiting to Happen?
    Hadley Arkes
    TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2016
    We have seen this script before: The Democrats, confirmed now as a radical, pro-abortion party, will fill out their presidential ticket with a Catholic candidate for Vice President. He will be down-to-earth, with all of the warmth associated with a certain ethnic style of Catholic life. He will be earnest in his professions of attachment to the Church, he will attend Mass regularly. But for the sake of fitting into that party in its current incarnation, he is willing to detach himself, discreetly, from the deepest moral teachings of his Church, most notably, on the taking of innocent life in abortion.
    Thus it was with Joseph Robinette Biden, and thus it is with Timothy Michael Kaine now, as he joins the ticket headed by Hillary Clinton. Between the two, Kaine has had a wider experience in political life, and he seems to have had a deeper involvement in the life of the Church. His skills will become far more necessary now, for he has a harder task than Joe Biden had.
    For Kaine is moving to the head of a party that is now willing to make war on religious institutions and private businesses that will not fund the “right to abortion” or respect same-sex marriage. Kaine’s own attempts to offer some modest gestures to the pro-life side will now become the source of an embarrassment that Joe Biden never presented – and a possible explosion in the campaign. The wonder of it all is that the Clinton campaign, with its formidable Engine of Vetting, seems not to have noticed.
    Tim Kaine served as Mayor of Richmond, Virginia, before he was elected Governor in 2006, and then U.S. Senator in 2012. As a Democratic mayor in Richmond he cultivated the art of connecting with the black community. He has preserved that connection as a practicing member at St. Elizabeth, a predominantly black parish.
    Fr. Jim Arsenault, his priest there, recalls that on this past Good Friday he asked Kaine to carry a “life-size” cross to the front of the church for veneration. “And Tim was there, as people with tears in their eyes would venerate the cross. . . .[H]e’d help them up after they were kneeling. . . .And they’d give Tim a nice hug. Everybody knows Tim Kaine.”
    Timothy Michael Kaine
    Timothy Michael Kaine
    It might be said of Kaine, as H.L. Mencken said of Grover Cleveland, that he was “a good man in a bad trade.” But he made his life harder by deciding to rise politically in a party that was more and more pro-abortion without even minor restraints. When he ran for governor he favored a ban on the grisly surgery known as “partial-birth abortion.” He was also willing to support a scheme of “informed consent,” to give a woman information about the state of the child she was thinking of aborting. But he was also emphatically against “criminalizing abortion.”
    Yet why seek an “alternative” if there was something rightful and legitimate about abortion? If we were dealing with the taking of a human life, why shouldn’t this kind of homicide be punished?
    The tip-off came when Kaine professed to have a “faith-based opposition to abortion.” There was the Kennedy-Biden formula: the moral case against abortion does not depend, as the Church has it, on the reasoning of natural law, weaving the facts of embryology with principled reasoning. It is merely a matter of “belief,” and therefore Kaine would decorously decline to impose on the public the “beliefs” he professes to hold.
    Still, Kaine has said more than enough to put himself – and Hillary Clinton – in the most awkward situation now. Could it be that the Clinton people really hadn’t noticed that the House of Representatives, last September, passed the bill to restore penalties to the Born-Alive Infants’ Protection Act?
    If Kaine was opposed to the killing of a child at the point of birth in partial-birth abortion, surely he would be opposed to killing the child, born alive, and surviving an abortion.
    He surely must know that Mr. Obama threatened to veto that bill, and that 177 Democrats voted against this move to punish the surgeon who kills a child born alive, surviving an abortion. He must also know that the bill awaits action in the Senate, and he has a decision to make.
    His party is now firmly committed to the notion that the right to abortion, established in Roe v. Wade does not end with the pregnancy; that it entails the right to kill a child born alive. That is the position that it falls now to Hillary Clinton and Kaine to defend in public.
    You may also like Hadley Arkes’ “Tim Kaine: An Explosion Waiting to Happen?”
    The marvel is that the media, including the Catholic commentators at Fox News, have steadily declined to report this issue or to raise it as questions for the candidates. But Kaine’s presence on the ticket may surely draw attention to that issue now. And that is surely nothing that the Clinton people wanted to emerge suddenly in this campaign.
    Did they fail to anticipate the issue? Or had they simply reached the point where they took it as a matter of course that their party would support the killing of a child born alive, if it were an accident of abortion?
    For them, the prospect was no longer shocking. And so they had no reason to think it would shock anyone else or be, in the vast scheme of things, something worth noticing.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment



The DCLeaks document dump exposes the pro-Islamist Left’s sinister attempt to slime truth-tellers about Jihad.

    August 19, 2016
    Matthew Vadum
    Michael Finch via

    {I remind my readers that in 2008, when Barack Hussein Obama was in his first campaign to become President of the United States, I published a political cartoon on my Huffington Riposte Blog that portrayed George Soros as the puppet master pulling the strings that activated Obama, the puppet. My post was on my Blog on owned and operated by Google,Inc. My post was only on my Blog for two days when Google removed it and I have never been able to recover it. Soros is a heavy investor in Google,Inc. I am a personal witness to the power of George Soros to influence the debate about the future of America. +RHG}

    Radical left-wing billionaire George Soros developed a strategy five years ago to publicly disparage, delegitimize, and marginalize conservatives like David Horowitz who go to great pains to warn Americans about the threat posed by political Islam and the ongoing Islamization of the U.S.

    It is part of the Left’s push to create an alternate reality in which world temperatures claimed to be rising at an imperceptibly slow rate pose more of a threat to mankind than militants flying commercial jetliners into skyscrapers.

    Soros is a foreign-born atheist who as a 14-year-old collaborated with the Nazis in occupied Hungary, describing that time as “probably the happiest year of my life” and “a very positive experience.” He has described himself as “some kind of god, the creator of everything,” and has said his “goal” was “to become the conscience of the world.”

    He is an enabler of Islam which has been expanding by conquest and deception for 1,400 years. To put things in Islamic terms, Soros’s proposed mass importation of Muslims would expand the ummah, or community of Muslims, by means of what Muslims call hijrah, or jihad through emigration, from the Islamic world, the Dar al-Islam (house of peace), to the Dar al-Harb (house of war).

    Soros’s affinity for Islam makes perfect sense. Nazi sympathizers and Islamists have much in common. It is fair to say that Islamic terrorists are the last of Adolf Hitler’s World War Two coalition partners that have yet to be vanquished.

    The Islamic world aligned with the Third Reich, and this alliance “has largely been whitewashed from the pages of history,” Pamela Geller reminds us:

    Many Muslims fought on the German side during World War II. The Wehrmacht had six legions with a Muslim majority and the SS had three Muslim divisions, a brigade and a Waffenbrigade. Each Muslim unit got a mullah as an adviser. In November 1944, an SS mullah school was established in Dresden, founded by Himmler.

    The end goal for Soros, long the preeminent funder of the Left, is to weaken America by making the country safe for Islam, a fascistic, religion-like ideology founded by Muhammad in the seventh century after the birth of Christ. Soros urges the dissolution of borders and demands that the U.S. accept unlimited immigration, including from regions that produce people who hate America and its values and founding principles.

    A constellation of well-heeled funders are part of a long-term campaign aimed at making the tenets of Islam acceptable in American society and glossing over the problems associated with importing terrorism-prone Muslims. The 86-year-old Soros, whose estimated net worth is now at a record $24.9 billion, is by far the wealthiest of these funders.

    Secret internal documents from Soros’s primary philanthropic vehicle, Open Society Foundations (OSF), were hacked by DCLeaks and published on the group’s website this past weekend.

    One memorandum dated Jan. 12, 2011, bears the subject line “U.S. Models for Combating Xenophobia and Intolerance.” It is included in the document bundle labeled “Extreme Polarization and Breakdown in Civic Discourse.”

    The memo identifies a plan that calls upon the Center for American Progress (CAP), founded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, to combat a phantom the Left calls “Islamophobia.” This neologism is wielded as a cudgel against those who dislike Islam and those who are merely skeptical of it. Leftists are determined to stamp out criticism of Islam, and they have an army of nonprofit organizations, foundations, academics, media outlets, and name-calling activists to help them.

    The 57-member state Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is onboard with attacking Islamophobia. It wants to outlaw all criticism of Islam in every country on planet Earth. Such criticism is not only blasphemous but also defamatory, according to Islamic thinking.

    The memo states:

    We need a clearer understanding of what by all indications is a well-orchestrated and well financed system by which right-wing think tanks, pundits, and politicians are able to introduce false narratives and flawed research into the media cycle and use their misinformation to manipulate public opinion and thwart progressive counterterrorism policies.

    It describes the “Examining Anti-Muslim Bigotry Project” espoused by the Center for American Progress. The project would:

    (1) study anti-Muslim bigotry in the public discourse and respond on a rapid response basis throughout the 10-month grant period using CAP’s state of the art communications platform; (2) conduct investigative research on the Islamophobia movement and issue a major report on its findings in the first quarter of 2011; and (3) convene in the first quarter of 2011 two dozen experts, including representatives of progressive organizations and the Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian-American (AMEMSA) community, to formulate strategies for combating anti-Muslim xenophobia.

    It also indicates that CAP “will research and track the activities of the most prominent drivers of Islamophobia,” including “David Horowitz’s Freedom Center,” Stop Islamization of America led by Pamela Geller, Foundation for Defense of Democracies led by Cliff May, and Liz Cheney’s group Keep America Safe. CAP will also examine “the role played by right-wing media, the Tea Party movement, prominent politicians, pundits, and conservative donors in spreading anti-Muslim hysteria.”

    CAP took Soros’s money and did his bidding. Even today CAP is working hard to convince Americans that this make-believe mental illness of Islamophobia is a threat to American democracy and pluralism. CAP claims a $57 million network “is fueling Islamophobia in the United States.” The group created a sophisticated, flashy website ( that identifies leading alleged Islamophobes. The site draws upon “Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America,” a 2011 CAP report, and “Fear, Inc. 2.0: The Islamophobia Network’s Efforts to Manufacture Hate in America,” a CAP report from 2015.

    CAP warns that there is “a small, tightly networked group of misinformation experts guiding an effort that reaches millions of Americans through effective advocates, media partners, and grassroots organizing.” These people, particularly a handful of key individuals and their organizations, spread “hate and misinformation.”

    The Podesta-founded Center’s top six targets for vilification are: David Horowitz, founder and CEO of the David Horowitz Freedom Center (DHFC); Robert Spencer, co-founder of Stop Islamization of America, director of the DHFC-affiliated Jihad Watch, and vice president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative; Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy (CSP); Steven Emerson, founder and executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT); Daniel Pipes, founder and president of the Middle East Forum (MEF); and David Yerushalmi, founder of the Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE), and general counsel for CSP and Stop Islamization of America.

    The site also directs fire at author and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born ex-Muslim who is a fierce critic of Islam.

    Although political correctness dictates that Hirsi Ali’s opinions should be given greater weight because she is female, black, an immigrant, and a victim of violence (female genital mutilation), she is too important a target to ignore. The CAP-created website notes disapprovingly that she calls Islam “a destructive, nihilistic cult of death” and says we will lose the fight against terrorism “unless we realize that it’s not just with extremist elements within Islam, but the ideology of Islam itself.”

    The website tries to discredit its targets by stating or implying, often without offering any proof, that they are “radical right-wing,” ignorant, misinformed, paranoid, or bigoted. It smears CSP’s Gaffney, for example, claiming he “makes unsubstantiated claims,” and publishes commissioned papers whose authors knowingly arrive at “exaggerated and incorrect conclusions.”

    The site claims Robert Spencer “is the primary driver in promoting the myth that peaceful Islam is nonexistent and that violent extremism is inherent within traditional Islam.” It quotes Spencer saying Islam “is the only major world religion with a developed doctrine and tradition of warfare against unbelievers.”

    The site attacks David Horowitz, approvingly quoting the Southern Poverty Law Center which has dubbed him “the godfather of the anti-Muslim movement.” The site also pillories Horowitz for saying that “virtually every major Muslim organization in America is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, the fountainhead of Islamic terror,” and for amplifying the voices of “fellow anti-Muslim bigots and their schemes of conspiracies and threats.”

    And it claims the DHFC, which publishes FrontPage, “promoted the myth that Muslim extremists infiltrated an array of political organizations on both the left and the right.”

    Soros’s “U.S. Models for Combating Xenophobia and Intolerance” memo is both an important leftist document and a window into the thinking of Soros operatives. It shows their preference for far-left talking points over the dispassionate analysis of facts. It also ought to disabuse any readers of the notion that OSF, formerly known as the Open Society Institute, is bursting with good people with good intentions. Many of these people viscerally hate those who disagree with them, viewing them not merely as ignorant or misguided, but as evil.

    The memo is also a character assassination roadmap that enlists the assistance of disreputable left-wing groups including Media Matters for America, Muslim Public Affairs Council, and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

    Addressed to OSF president (now president emeritus) Aryeh Neier, the memo is from OSF staffers Ann Beeson, Nancy Chang, and Raquiba LaBrie – all lawyers and veteran social justice warriors – plotting to smear those who dare to tell the truth about Islam. It lays out a plan “to counter xenophobia and intolerance in the U.S.”

    ACLU alumna Beeson replaced current Democracy Alliance president Gara LaMarche in 2007 as U.S. Programs director at OSF. She now runs of the Center for Public Policy Priorities in Austin, Texas. Chang managed OSF’s National Security and Human Rights Campaign but it wasn’t clear at time of writing if she still worked at OSF. She was previously senior litigation attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, a virulently anti-American public interest law firm. Harvard-trained LaBrie is director of philanthropy at L+M Development Partners in New York City and a board member of the Urban Justice Center.

    The 2011 strategy memo is a template for a well-funded smear campaign against critics of Islam, associating them with the shooting that January of then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.). The attack “provides a grim backdrop to U.S. Programs’ consideration of rising xenophobia and intolerance.” The shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, turned out to be a paranoid left-winger.

    The memo sets the stage by repeating the long ago debunked Daily Kos-originated smear that Sarah Palin, “the most visible Tea Party leader,” somehow caused the mass shooting in which Giffords was severely wounded because she supposedly contributed to the “extreme and violent rhetoric [that] pervades our political discourse.”

    It regurgitates the leftist article of faith that “prejudice against Muslims, Latinos, African Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, and other minorities is growing in a climate of fear, anger, and economic uncertainty.” It blames “anti-Muslim bigotry” for opposition to the construction of an “Islamic community center” at Ground Zero in lower Manhattan. It claims that “[c]able television channels, talk radio and political blogs pander to people’s fears and privilege expression of extreme views.”

    America is a fetid hellhole of racial and religious hatred, the memo continues.

    There is “growing intolerance and fragmentation in U.S. society” and it is important to examine the “full range of actions from rhetoric to harassment to violence perpetrated by government officials and private individuals, or embodied in laws or policies.” More money “should be devoted to uncovering the connections between individual actors, hate groups and extremist ideologies.”

    The memo authors recommend that Open Society Foundations contribute $200,000 of the project’s $225,000 budget. It states that as of that point in time OSF had given a total of $6,759,991 to CAP. However, IRS filings show that if OSF grants and grants from Soros’s other philanthropy, the Foundation to Promote Open Society, are combined, the total amount given to CAP rises to $10,541,376.

    The OSF grant to CAP does not appear in philanthropy databases. Three separate $200,000 grants – two in 2011 and one in 2013 – to CAP for an “anti-Muslim bigotry” project do appear but they come from the Foundation to Promote Open Society.

    Another OSF memo from April 26, 2010 (“Strategic Opportunities Fund – May 3, 2010 Docket Recommendation”) urges funding for the absurdly named Free Exchange on Campus Coalition which it states was created three and a half years earlier “to counter vigorous assaults on freedom of expression.”

    OSF acknowledges it approved a $150,000 grant for FECC in 2009 and planned to give an additional $110,500 to its apparent fiscal sponsor, the American Federation of Teachers Educational Foundation. “Because FECC does not have its own 501c3 status, the coalition members decided to house the staff coordinator position at the American Federation of Teachers Educational Foundation,” the planning document states.

    FECC was founded after an OSF-hosted meeting in 2006 “following which leading faculty, student and civil liberties organizations launched Free Exchange on Campus Coalition (FECC) as a joint effort to counter conservative activists and their allies’ ideological assault on higher education.”

    At that time “assaults on free exchange on campuses … included public relations efforts to undermine popular support for the academy, on-campus student campaigns, and efforts to pass state and federal legislation, based upon the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s ‘Academic Bill of Rights’ (ABOR) proposal, to place restrictions on higher education.”

    FECC began to organize students and faculty in key states to roll out a public communications strategy” and “played a major role in organizing students and faculty to oppose proposals to restrict the free exchange of ideas in Pennsylvania, Montana, Missouri, Virginia, Iowa, Arizona, Georgia and Texas.”

    In fact the Academic Bill of Rights was drafted to protect students from abusive, indoctrination-oriented professors with the goal of returning the academy to traditional principles of open inquiry and true academic freedom that puts students and teachers on an equal footing.

    Horowitz is also mentioned in an article from the OSF document dump called “9/11 at 10: Lessons Learned from Anti-Muslim Haters,” by Faiz Shakir, at the time vice president of CAP. According to his LinkedIn profile he left CAP in June 2012 to become “New Media Director & Senior Adviser” to House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, and In March 2013 he became “Senior Adviser” to “U.S. Senate Majority [sic] Leader Harry Reid[.]” (The article is one of several in a PDF file called “tab-7-usp-board-articles-oct-2011[.]”)

    Shakir describes Horowitz as one of “a host of grassroots organizers and activists” who disseminates the work of “anti-Muslim experts.” After that, “[m]edia voices on the right-Fox News, National Review, and hate radio hosts like Michael Savage-then amplify the Islamophobic rhetoric. Ultimately, right-wing political actors like Newt Gingrich and Rep. Allen West (R-FL) help mainstream the ugly prejudice.”

    Shakir adds:

    The lesson is simple: We need to isolate the Islamophobia network. That means demanding the media not give a platform to this small cadre of voices. That also means demanding that politicians divorce themselves from the network’s propaganda. It’s possible.

    Shakir’s right. It is possible to smear and intimidate people who want to speak the truth.

    The Left, surfing on a tidal wave of Soros money, does it every day.

    Matthew Vadum, senior vice president at the investigative think tank Capital Research Center, is an award-winning investigative reporter and author of the book, “Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers.”

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment