No, Joe, you are not a nice guy. Despite your need to keep telling us, we know the ugly truth. You are a pretty nasty guy. You are pugilistic, a plagiarist, a documented racist, a race hustler, creepy with woman and children, the “Big Guy” of a crime family, and have thrown a wrecking ball into America. Your pugilism is epic. How many times have you garnished your weakness with the threat of taking someone behind the gym? There is a difference between a bully and a tough guy. The truth is you are the archetypal man of the pampered class. If reporters dare to ask uncomfortable or “unfair” questions, you either freak, cop a few alligator tears, or hastily leave the podium. Mostly you hide. If you are as bright as you think you are, why do you have a history plagued by plagiarism? Was it necessary for you to commit fraud in law school to get by? And who can forget your plagiarizing leaders such as Neil Kinnock? Do you realize that you were stealing his life story? The curious are wondering what was missing in your own life story. Adding that to your plagiarism of Hubert Humphrey and the Kennedy brothers classifies you as a first-rate charlatan. And stop taking credit for what Trump did to make vaccines available in “Warp Speed.” It is his success, not yours. Your not-so-thinly veiled racism disgusts the most. You have the nerve to smear our underpaid, overworked police force as systemically racist. It is they, Joe, who risk their lives every day for the safety of all Americans. There are a few bad cops, just as there are bad people in all professions-politicians, teachers, physicians, attorneys, and yes, clergy. The police force is not systematically racist. And the backlash from all your anti-cop rhetoric is that retirements are up and recruitment is down. Is that your intention, Joe? Oh, of course, it was the hero of the hard left, Karl Marx, who signaled that a “socialist society has a withering police force.“ Your racism goes way back, Joe. During your political career, you praised segregationist George Wallace, opposed school busing in the 1970s because, as you said, it would lead to a “racial jungle,” admired and eulogized a former KKK kleagle, voted for the 1994 crime bill, and praised Barack Obama as the “first mainstream African American who is articulate, and bright and clean.” It is a repulsive record, Joe. A racist record. For a documented racist, your constant race-hustling from the Oval Office is particularly disturbing. Time and time again, your Marxist ideology dictates your efforts to divide Americans to incite ethnic and racial tension. The Jim Crow reference concerning the new Georgia voting laws outstrips human decency. Your Marxist rhetoric is not only a lie but an insult to every Black American. Joe, you are not a nice guy. Creepy with women and children is an understatement. Who goes around sniffing women’s hair and continually invading a woman’s space? And what would you say about another older man who tells the story about the hair on his legs turning blond in the sun and then letting kids rub his blond hairy legs? Sick comes to mind. You are not a nice guy. While the media and intelligence have chosen to protect you from the investigation, it is clear to most that you are the “Big Guy” of the Biden crime family. Your family has an impressive rap sheet. They have had severe scrapes with the law but never pay for their crimes. How come, Joe? And you, what is your role in making your family millions? How often did you monetize the vice presidency? Anyone with an IQ above their body temperature can figure out what is going on. Your “Trump Derangement Syndrome” compelled you to reverse the effective border policies of the previous administration. As a result of your derangement, there is a humanitarian catastrophe at our southern border. Do you even care about the miserable conditions? It appears not. And your socialist economic policies are egregious and smell like inspissated bile. How long will it take for America to become Venezuela? No, Joe, you are not a nice guy by any stretch of the imagination. Please stop trying to convince us. Niceness is akin to money and sex. If you have it, there is no need to brag.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on “No, Joe, you are not a nice guy by any stretch of the imagination. Please stop trying to convince us. Niceness is akin to money and sex. If you have it, there is no need to brag.”
Doctor of the Church St. Bellarmine & Bp. Gracida: “A Doubtful Pope is no Pope”
Bishop Rene Gracida summed the situation we are in with the doubtfulness of the Pope Benedict XVI resignation:
“[I]f the [Pope Benedict XVI] Renunciation is doubtful, then in virtue of canon 332 §2, it is invalid for lack of due manifestation” [https://abyssum.org/ ]
Moreover, it appears that if someone has definite solid reasons from canon law to doubt the validity of Pope Benedict’s resignation one can it appears possibly commit a sin if he doesn’t resolve that doubt before claiming Francis is definitely pope.
The important theological book “Rodriguez and the Confession of Doubtful Mortal Sins” in page 225 says:
“If one does not resolve the doubt and deliberately does the action anyhow, it means that he is willing to offend God gravely, and therefore he commits a mortal sin.” (Google: Theological Studies -cdn- 1 PDF by U. Adelman – Cited by 1 Related articles)
Moreover, Dogmatic theology scholar Fr. Elwood Sylvester Berry (1879-1954), who was professor at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary in Maryland, in his apologetic and dogmatic treatise which according to his introduction “was originally written in Latin” stated that according to Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine: “a doubtful pope is no pope… ‘if a papal election is doubtful for any reason'” therefore a imperfect council of bishops is needed:
“Hence the saying of Bellarmine: a doubtful pope is no pope. ‘Therefore,’ continues the Cardinal, ‘if a papal election is really doubtful for any reason, the elected should resign, so that a new election may be held. But if he refuses to resign, it becomes the duty of the bishops to adjust the matter, for although the bishops without the pope cannot define dogma nor make laws for the universal Church, they can and ought to decide, when occasion demands, who is the legitimate pope; and if the matter be doubtful, they should provide for the Church by having a legitimate and undoubted pastor elected. That is what the Council of Constance rightly did.'” 8 (The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, By Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, Page 229, Note 8: Bellarmine, “De Concilio, ii, 19)
Latin Language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo’s detailed why Pope Benedict’s resignation may be doubtful:
Why Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori would say the Renunciation was invalid
by Br. Alexis Bugnolo The Saints who have been canonized are already in the glory of Paradise, and so, baring an extraordinary grace, do not speak to us anymore. But those Saints who have fully explained their opinions or teaching on any point, can be said to speak to us today. This is especially true of Saints who have taught on questions of law and the principles to be followed in controversies. Of which kind is Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori, Doctor of the Church on all questions of moral theology, and not a few questions of law.
No one has the right to interpret a Papal Resignation
As I reported in my notes for my meeting with Bishop Arrieta, Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Legal Texts — who is the top Vatican official for questions of legal interpretation — he emphatically declared, that no one has the right to interpret a Papal Resignation. It must be clear in itself.
This statement by Bishop Arrieta clears up the entire controversy over the renunciation of Pope Benedict. Because, it ends it. That is, since Pope Benedict XVI renounced the ministerium, not anything else. No one has the right to say that he renounced the Papal Office or petrine Munus or even power of governance. Because to say that something else, requires an interpretation. And no one, not even the man who is the pope, has the right to interpret the act of renunciation.
But the statement of Bishop Arrieta is not of his own making. It is the necessary conclusion of legal principles. First, that a declaration made by the man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the man, and not the pope, cannot be judged by anyone except according to the norm of law. And since a declaration by such man when regarding the renunciation of the Office regards the renouncing of the Office, one cannot appeal to the holder of the office to interpret it. Because if it was valid, then the holder is no longer the holder, and thus cannot receive appeals. If it was not valid, then appealing to the holder of the office is tantamount to declaring the renunciation in valid.
Any appeal to Pope Benedict XVI to clarify what he meant means that the Resignation is invalid
This is a very important point, which has been overlooked in this 7 year controversy. Anyone who appeals to anything which Pope Benedict said before or after Feb. 28, 2013, to explain that the Renunciation means the renunciation of the papacy, or of the petrine munus, or of the power of governance IS IMPLICITLY AFFIRMING THAT POPE BENEDICT IS STILL THE POPE AND THAT THE RENUNCIATION WAS INVALID, because they are trying to have recourse to an official interpretation. And if the act needs to be interpreted, then it is doubtful. And if the renunciation is doubtful, then in virtue of canon 332 §2, it is invalid for lack of due manifestation.
What Saint Alphonsus says about the interpretation of a law:
For those who have overdosed on the falsehood of universal acceptance, and quote Saint Alphonsus, let us see what the Saint would say about the games the authors of such sophisms play with the words “munus” and “ministerium,” to make the Resignation say what it does not say. For this we must have recourse to the teaching of Saint Alphonsus, taken from his great work, Theologia Moralis, Bk. I, tract ii, p. 242, De interpretatio legis. I will first quote the Latin, for those who can read Latin, and then give an English translation:
DE INTERPRETATIO LEGIS
200. Interpretatio alia est Authentica, alia Usualis, alia Doctrinalis. Authentica fieri potest vel ab ipso legislatore, vel ab eius successore, aut a superiore. Usualis est illa, quae ita ab usu est recepta. Doctrinalis autem est declaratio quaedam mentis legislatoris, quase a quocumque doctore fieri potest.
Hic dubitur an delcarationes, quae fiunt a Pontifice, vel a principe alicuius legis, indigeant promulgatione, ut obligent. In hoc distinguere oportet declarationes pure tales ab aliis quae sunt non pure tales, sed potius sunt merae interpretationes. Declarationes pure tales sunt, cum ab illis explicatur aliquis sensus, qui usque ab initio iam erat clare imbibitus in lege: ex. gr. si dubium sit, an sub verbo filii intelligatur solus legitimus aut eitam spurius, et legislator declarat intelligi etiam spurium, tunc verum fit quod sensus in lege erat clare imbibitus. Interpretatio autem, sive declaratio non pure talis est illa, cuius sensus non est clare imbibitus in lege, sed circa ipsum variae sunt opiniones, et tantum deducitur ex argumentis, v. gr. quod sub nomine patris intelligatur eitam avus, aut quod sub nomine moartis intelligatur etiam mors civilis, prout est carcer perpetuus, aut simile, recurrendo ad quamdam impropriam significationem.
His positis, dicimus cum Suarez, Castropal. Vasques, Sals, Salm. Holzaman, La-Croix, Supplet Sporger etc. quod declaratio sensus clare imbibiti in lege non requirit promulagationem, sed etiam obliget eos omnes qui illum noverint, cum talis declaratio non sit nova lex. Interpretatio vero alicuius sensus non clare, sed tantum obscure, sive improprie imbibiti in lege, quae est declaratio non pure talis (ut diximus) haec, quia habetur tanquam nova lex, ut obliget, necessario promulgationem requirit, sicut omnes aliae leges juxta dicta. n. 95 et 96. Hinc infertur cum Suar. de Leg. 1. 6. c. 1. n. 3 et Castrop. tr. 3. eod. tit. d. 5. p. 3. §. 1. n. 5 (qui citat pro se Bon. Salas, et Lorca) quod declaratio, quae fit a legislatore alicuius sensus clare in lege imbibiti (juxta exemplum adductum filii legitimi, et spurii) non requirit promulgatioem, ut obliget. Contra vero declaratio sensus obscure imbibiti (juxta exemplus avi sub nomine patris, vel mortis civilils sub nomine mortis) indiget quidem promulgatione; tunc enim ipsa novam constituit obligationem, quae per se non erat prius clare in lege imbibita. Et idem dicunt Suar. loc. cit. et Castrop. n. 2 de illis declarationibus, quae fiunt non ab eodem legislatore, sed ab eius successore, aut superiore; quia legislatoris mens nequit his esse ita cognita, ut erat ipsi legislatori; unde tunc, ut declaretur sensus (quamvis imbibitus in lege) alicuius obligationis, semper opus est recurrere ad argumenta, et interpretationes, quae novam legam constituunt, reddendo certum quod erat dubium; et ideo promulgatio requiritur, alias declaratio nunquam authentica, sed tantum doctrinalis repubabitur.
My English translation:On the Interpretation of Law 200. One interpretation is authentic, another customary, another academic. An authentic (interpretation) can be made either by the legislator himself, and/or by his successor, or by a superior. A customary (interpretation) is that, which has been received thus by custom. Moreover, an academic (interpretation) is a certain declaration of the mind of the legislator, which can be made by any professor. Here, there is doubted whether declarations, which are made by the Pontiff, and/or by a prince for any law, are in need of promulgation, to oblige. In this, it is necessary to distinguish those which are purely such from those which are not purely such, but rather mere interpretations. Declarations are purely such, when by them there is explicated some sense, which was clearly incorporated in the law already from the beginning: e. g., if there be a doubt, whether under the term, “son” there be understood only a legitimate or even an illegitimate son, and the the legislator declares (the word “son” in the law”) is to be understood even as an illegitimate one, then indeed it becomes that (that) sense in the law was clearly incorporated in the law. But an interpretation, or declaration which is not purely such, is that, the sense of which is not clearly incorporated in the law, but about which there are various opinions, and as much as is deduced through arguments, e. g., that under the term, “father”, there be understood also a grandfather, or that under the term, “death”, there be also understood a civil death, insofar as is perpetual incarceration, or the like, by recurring to a certain improper signification. With these things posited, We say with Suarez, Castropal., Vasquez, Sals. Salimancans, Holzman, La-Croix, Supplet Sporget etc.., that the declaration of a sense clearly incorporated in the law does not require promulgation, but that it also obliges all those who know of it, though such a declaration is not a new law. But an interpretation of some sense not clearly, but obscurely, or improperly incorporated in the law, which is not a declaration purely such (as we have said above), this (kind), because it is held to be a new law, to oblige, requires necessarily a promulgation, just as all other laws spoke of in nn. 95 and 96. Hence, there is inferred with Suarez de Leg. 1. 6. c. 1. n. 3 and Castrop. tr. 3. eod. tit. d. 5. p. 3. §. 1. n. 5 (qui citat pro se Bon. Salas, et Lorca), that a declaration, which is made by the legislator of any sense clearly incorporated in the law (according to the example given above of the legitimate and illegitimate son) does not require a promulgation, to oblige. However, contrariwise, the declaration of a sense obscurely incorporated (according to the example given of a grandfather under the term of “father”, and/or of a civil death under the term of “death”) do indeed need a promulgation; for then it itself constitutes a new obligation, which per se was not beforehand clearly incorporated in the law. And the same is said by Suarez. loc. cit, and Castrop. n. 2, of those declarations, which are not made by the ssame legislator, but by his successor, or superior; because the mind of the legislator is never so known to other as it was to the legislator himself: on which account, then, to declare the sense (though incorporated in the law) of any obligation, it is always necessary to have recourse to arguments, and interpretations, which constitute a new law, by rendering certain what was doubtful; and for that reason a promulgation is required, otherwise the declaration is never an authentic one, but only is reputed to be a doctrinal one.Thus, Saint Alphonsus.
What the teaching of Saint Alphonsus on Legal interpretation means in regard to the Renunciation
From this text, we can glean three truths.
When the meaning is clearly incorporated into the law, that meaning is the authentic one, and its sense is binding upon all, as for example, when Benedict says he renounces the ministry, all are obliged to understand that as a renunciation of ministry.
When the word which is subject to a possible interpretation is a noun which includes all possible interpretations according to its essential signification, such as “son” includes natural and legal sons, not just legal sons, then the interpretation is a customary one and is obliging upon all, once the legislator declares that his mind was to include all such possibilities. But before such a declaration it is not binding.
When the word which is subject to a possible interpretation is a noun, which DOES NOT include the possible wanted interpretation, such as “ministerium” in the text of Pope Benedict’s resignation is wanted to mean “munus” or “officium” which are entirely other words, then the interpretation is NOT AUTHENTIC and is not binding upon anyone, and only can become binding, when promulgated by the legislator or his successors.
And thus one can conclude, from the testimony of Bishop Arrieta and Saint Alphonsus, that the interpretation of the Cardinals and Bishops that Benedict’s renunciation of ministry is equivalent in law, or signification, or intention, to a resignation of the Papal Office or Petrine Munus, is not only an illegitimate interpretation, but is an interpretation which is not binding upon anyone! Moreover, one can conclude, that even if hypothetically any successor of Pope Benedict XVI were to say that such a reading of the text (where ministerium = munus) is the one Benedict intended, then the act itself posited by Benedict was invalid as per canon 332 §2, since it was not duly manifest in itself, but required another promulgated interpretation to make it valid. And this means that the very existence of the plot to solve the Pope Emeritus problem is not only evidence that the resignation was invalid from the start, but is DOOMED TO FAILURE since as an interpretation of the act, its very promulgation will publicly testify to and canonically establish the invalidity of the renunciation!
In other words, there is no way to fix the invalidity of the resignation by any subsequent act. And what the Cardinals and Bishops are doing is GRAVELY IMMORAL AND DISHONEST and, moreover, is a grave USURPATION OF RIGHT.
One can also honestly say, therefore, that the usurpation of the Papacy by Bergoglio is a moral consequence of the usurpation of the right of interpretation by the Cardinals, and that Bergoglio’s bizarre moral character and state of mind is the perfect fruit of and punishment for their sin.
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He want you to do next. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet
Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
As I wrote not long ago, I think we can expect a big boom of pent-up demand coming that will result in 5 percent or so of annualized GDP growth, maybe as early in late second or third quarter of 2021 lasting until mid-year next year but accompanied by inflation reaching 4-6 percent. And then at some point, depending on whether the Biden huge tax hike, green deals, and new regulations are in effect, much higher inflation, slower growth, and recessionary trends in late 2022 or early 2023. So growth/boom/inflation/stagflation/recession? You say, “So what? That’s the natural order of things”. Perhaps. But an entire generation has come of age without knowledge of anything but de facto zero interest, and little or no inflation, and plentiful jobs. I can attest from 1978-84, that inflation, recession, and unemployment can all exist at the same time. I can remember feeling lucky to have a farm production credit loan at 9% and knowing “delighted” friends who bought homes in 1981 at 10% and a family member who bought a car at 18% and felt he got a good rate. So buckle up… The general consumer price index went up in March at .6 percent, in just 30 days (if that were to continue, we would have an annualized rate of over 7 percent.) But what really counts are life’s vitals like increases in gasoline (out here it’s up $1 dollar a gallon since the new year), and natural gas heating (5 percent rise). But these measurements lag. Housing has gone up about 20 percent here in California, at least new housing that depends on sky-high lumber. So I drove into town again yesterday and did the following: bought gas at $3.97 a gallon; went to Home Depot: there I was stunned to see 4×8 one-inch plywood at over $100 a sheet and 1/2 inch over $60 (a year ago they were a quarter that or less). I wanted to buy a cheap ratchet set: all sold out, as many things in the tool departments were. All the lumber was either picked over or so expensive to be left alone (e.g., redwood 2/4s) or sold out, as paradoxical as that seemed. A family member is looking at a new house. The price from a year ago has gone up by a third. Propane has soared too. Labor is short; “now hiring” or “workers wanted” signs are common. In sum, millions, with stimulus money, are re-emerging from their cocoons—rediscovering the joys of eating out, traveling, going somewhere/anywhere, driving longer than to the supermarket and back, and eager to buy a car or truck, remodel, fix up something—as the somnolent economy retools to accommodate them, but in apprehension faces higher taxes and more regulations. And the Biden response: print more money, dream up more unproductive woke “investment” and run up bigger deficits as if we were back in March 2020 in need of stimuli.
San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone announced the release of his first pastoral letter on abortion at the Mass for Life at St. Mary’s Cathedral, May 1. (Photo by Dennis Callahan/Catholic San Francisco)
May 1, 2021Catholic San FranciscoArchbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone today published his first pastoral letter, “Before I Formed You in the Womb I Knew You: A Pastoral Letter on the Human Dignity of the Unborn, Holy Communion and Catholics in Public Life.”
For text of the pastoral letter and a link to today’s homily, please go to InTheWomb.org.“Abortion is the axe laid to the roots of the tree of human rights…Without protection of the right to life, no other talk of rights makes sense,” Archbishop Cordileone wrote in the teaching document to the priests and laity of the Archdiocese of San Francisco.Archbishop Cordileone publicly announced the letter in the homily of the 8 a.m. monthly Mass for Life at the Cathedral of St. Mary of the Assumption. Afterwards, many walked while saying the rosary to pray at the Planned Parenthood clinic four blocks away.Archbishop Cordileone spoke directly with compassion to pregnant women and those who have had abortions: “God loves you. We love you,” he said.“Abortion advocates argue that they are empowering women, but in fact the widespread practice of contraception and abortion has created a tremendous burden for a pregnant woman. …Now…. the pregnancy has become ‘her problem’,” Archbishop Cordileone wrote.The Archbishop emphasized Catholic teaching on who is morally responsible for abortion.“The teaching of our faith is clear,” he said. “Those who kill or assist in killing the child (even if personally opposed to abortion), those who pressure or encourage the mother to have an abortion, who pay for it, who provide financial assistance to organizations to provide abortions, or who support candidates or legislation for the purpose of making abortion a more readily available ‘choice’ are all cooperating with a very serious evil.”Reverence for the Holy Eucharist is at the heart of his concerns. Archbishop Cordileone pointed to St. Justin Martyr’s words in the second century A.D. to affirm this ancient and consistent teaching of the Church: “No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes what we teach is true; unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ.”“To apply these ancient requirements to the present topic,” Archbishop Cordileone wrote, “those who reject the teaching of the Church on the sanctity of human life and those who do not seek to live in accordance with that teaching should not receive the Eucharist.”Archbishop Cordileone spoke directly to Catholics in public life who advocate for abortion: “Please, please, please: the killing must stop,” he wrote. “And please stop pretending that advocating for or practicing a grave moral evil – one that snuffs out an innocent human life, one that denies a fundamental human right – is somehow compatible with the Catholic faith. It is not. Please return home to the fullness of your Catholic faith. We await you with open arms to welcome you back.”The open letter from the Archbishop to the clergy and laity of his diocese was published on the Memorial of St. Joseph the Worker, who is also the patron of the Church and protector of the Blessed Mother and the Child Jesus.Visit InTheWomb.org.
If you missed South Carolina Senator Tim Scott’s rebuttal to Joe Biden’s mess of a speech, you really must take the time to read it or watch it. And naturally, racist liberals went wild to attack this black man because he rejects their left-wing, anti-American ideology.
At one point in his speech, Sen. Scott said that America is not a racist country, but he also pointed out that he has been the target of white racists, but racists from the left. He has been attacked as a race traitor and an Uncle Tom for refusing to bow to the hardcore, socialist Democrats.
Republicans, Scott said. have an interest in making it “easier to vote and harder to cheat.” But Democrats, on the other hand, are only interested in “virtue-signaling.”https://lockerdome.com/lad/10817563773098342?pubid=ld-7985-7177&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fflagandcross.com&rid=&width=740
“Race is not a political weapon to settle every issue the way one side wants. It’s far too important,” Scott said. take our poll – story continues below
So, these racist liberals proved Scott to be right. But what were these scumbags all mad about? Scott’s address was uplifting, full of hope, and grounded in true Americanism.
Good evening. I’m Senator Tim Scott from the great state of South Carolina. We just heard President Biden’s first address to Congress. Our President seems like a good man. His speech was full of good words. But President Biden promised you a specific kind of leadership. He promised to unite a nation. To lower the temperature. To govern for all Americans, no matter how we voted. That was the pitch. You just heard it again. But our nation is starving for more than empty platitudes. We need policies and progress that bring us closer together. But three months in, the actions of the President and his party are pulling us further apart. I won’t waste your time tonight with finger-pointing or partisan bickering. You can get that on T.V. any time you want. I want to have an honest conversation. About common sense… and common ground. About this feeling that our nation is sliding off its shared foundation… and how we move forward together. *** Growing up, I never dreamed I’d be standing here tonight. When I was a kid, my parents divorced. My mother, my brother, and I moved in with my grandparents. Three of us, sharing one bedroom. I was disillusioned and angry, and I nearly failed out of school. But I was blessed. First, with a praying momma… Then with a mentor, a Chick-Fil-A operator named John Moniz… Finally, with a string of opportunities that are only possible here in America. But this past year, I’ve watched COVID attack every rung of the ladder that helped me up. So many families have lost parents and grandparents too early. So many small businesses have gone under. Becoming a Christian transformed my life — but for months, too many churches were shut down. Most of all, I am saddened that millions of kids have lost a year of learning when they could not afford to lose a day. Locking vulnerable kids out of the classroom is locking adults out of their future. Our public schools should have reopened months ago. Other countries’ did. Private and religious schools did. Science has shown for months that schools are safe. But too often, powerful grown-ups set science aside. And kids like me were left behind. The clearest case for school choice in our lifetimes. *** Last year, under Republican leadership, we passed five bipartisan COVID packages. Congress supported our hospitals, saved our economy, and funded Operation Warp Speed, delivering vaccines in record time. All five bills got 90 or more votes in the Senate. Common sense found common ground. In February, Republicans told President Biden we wanted to keep working together to win this fight. But Democrats wanted to go it alone. They spent almost $2 trillion on a partisan bill that the White House bragged was the most liberal bill in American history! Only 1% went to vaccinations. No requirement to re-open schools promptly. COVID brought Congress together five times. This Administration pushed us apart. *** Another issue that should unite us is infrastructure. Republicans support everything you think of when you think of “infrastructure.” Roads, bridges, ports, airports, waterways, high-speed broadband — we’re all in! But again, Democrats want a partisan wish list. They won’t even build bridges… to build bridges! Less than 6% of the President’s plan goes to roads and bridges. It’s a liberal wish-list of Big Government waste… plus the biggest job-killing tax hikes in a generation. Experts say, when all is said and done, it would lower Americans’ wages and shrink our economy. *** Tonight we also heard about a so-called “Family Plan.” Even more taxing, even more spending, to put Washington even more in the middle of your life — from the cradle, to college. The beauty of the American Dream is that families get to define it for themselves. We should be expanding options and opportunities for all families — not throwing money at certain issues because Democrats think they know best. *** “Infrastructure” spending that shrinks our economy is not common sense. Weakening our southern border and creating a crisis is not compassionate. The President is abandoning principles he held for decades. Now, he says your tax dollars should fund abortions. He’s laying groundwork to pack the Supreme Court! This is not common ground. *** Nowhere do we need common ground more desperately than in our discussions of race. I have experienced the pain of discrimination. I know what it feels like to be pulled over for no reason. To be followed around a store while I’m shopping. I remember, every morning, at the kitchen table, my grandfather would have the newspaper in his hands. Later, I realized he had never learned to read it. He just wanted to set the right example. I’ve also experienced a different kind of intolerance. I get called “Uncle Tom” and the N-word — by ‘progressives’! By liberals! Just last week, a national newspaper suggested my family’s poverty was actually privilege… because a relative owned land generations before my time. Believe me, I know our healing is not finished. In 2015, after the shooting of Walter Scott, I wrote a bill to fund body cameras. Last year, after the deaths of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd, I built an even bigger police reform proposal. But my Democratic colleagues blocked it! I extended an olive branch. I offered them amendments. But Democrats used the filibuster to block the debate from even happening. My friends across the aisle seemed to want the issue… more than they wanted a solution. But I’m still working. I’m still hopeful. *** When America comes together, we’ve made tremendous progress. But powerful forces want to pull us apart. A hundred years ago, kids in classrooms were taught the color of their skin was their most important characteristic — and if they looked a certain way, they were inferior. Today, kids again are being taught that the color of their skin defines them — and if they look a certain way, they’re an oppressor. From colleges to corporations to our culture, people are making money and gaining power by pretending we haven’t made any progress. By doubling down on the divisions we’ve worked so hard to heal. You know this stuff is wrong. Hear me clearly: America is not a racist country. It’s backwards to fight discrimination with different discrimination. And it’s wrong to try to use our painful past to dishonestly shut down debates in the present. *** I’m an African-American who has voted in the South all my life. I take voting rights personally. Republicans support making it easier to vote and harder to cheat. And so do voters! Big majorities of Americans support early voting… And big majorities support Voter I.D. — including African-Americans and Hispanics. Common sense makes common ground. But today, this conversation has collapsed. The state of Georgia passed a law that expands early voting; preserves mail-in voting; and, despite what the President claimed, did not reduce Election Day hours. If you actually read this law, it’s mainstream! It will be easier to vote early in Georgia than in Democrat-run New York. But the left doesn’t want you to know that. They want people to virtue-signal by yelling about a law they haven’t even read! Fact-checkers have called out the White House for misstatements. The President absurdly claims this is worse than Jim Crow. What is going on here? I’ll tell you. A Washington power grab. This misplaced outrage is supposed to justify Democrats’ sweeping bill that would take over elections for all 50 states; send public funds to political campaigns you disagree with; and make the bipartisan Federal Elections Commission… partisan! This is not about civil rights, or our racial past. It’s about rigging elections in the future. And, no — the same filibuster that President Obama and President Biden praised when they were Senators… that Democrats used just last year… has not suddenly become a racist relic just because the shoe is on the other foot! Race is not a political weapon to settle every issue the way one side wants. It’s too important. *** This should be a joyful springtime for our nation. This Administration inherited a tide that had already turned. The coronavirus is on the run! Thanks to Operation Warp Speed and the Trump Administration, our country is flooded with safe and effective vaccines. Thanks to our bipartisan work last year, job openings are rebounding. So why do we feel so divided… and anxious? A nation with so much cause for hope should not feel so heavy-laden. A President who promised to bring us together should not push agendas that tear us apart. *** The American family deserves better. And we know what better looks like! Just before COVID, we had the most inclusive economy in my lifetime. The lowest unemployment ever recorded for African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asian-Americans. The lowest for women in nearly 70 years. Wages were growing faster for the bottom 25% than the top 25%. That happened because Republicans focused on expanding opportunity for all Americans. We passed Opportunity Zones… criminal justice reform… and permanent funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities for the first time ever. We fought the drug epidemic… rebuilt our military… and cut taxes for working families and single moms like mine. Our best future won’t come from Washington schemes or socialist dreams. It will come from you — the American people. Black, Hispanic, white and Asian. Republican and Democrat. Brave police officers and Black neighborhoods. We are not adversaries. We are family! We are all in this together. And we get to live in the greatest country on Earth. The country where my grandfather, in his 94 years, saw his family go from cotton to Congress in one lifetime. So I am more than hopeful — I am confident — that our finest hour is yet to come. Original sin is never the end of the story. Not in our souls, and not for our nation. The real story is always redemption. *** I am standing here because my mom has prayed me through some very tough times. I believe our nation has succeeded the same way: Because generations of Americans, in their own ways, have asked for grace… and God has supplied it. So I will close with a word from a worship song that helped me through this past year. The music is new, but the words draw from Scripture. [May] the Lord bless you and keep you, Make His face shine upon you And be gracious to you… May His presence go before you, And behind you, and beside you… In your weeping and rejoicing, He is with you… May His favor be upon [our nation], for a thousand generations And your family… and your children… And their children. Good night, and God bless.
Should Biden Be Given Communion? April 30, 2021 Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the controversy over President Biden receiving Communion: Should President Joe Biden be given Communion? That’s not for the Catholic League to say. Our job is to defend the right of the Catholic Church to proclaim the truth, to teach the faithful and to disseminate Church teachings. We have no theology: We are a watchdog, a civil rights organization that fights defamation and discrimination. We also monitor those who seek to deceive the public or distort the Church’s teachings. Importantly, we know our place and are no substitute for the bishops or the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Do others have a right to opine on this issue? Catholics do. If this were a matter of public policy, everyone else would, too. But this is an internal Church matter, and it is therefore no one’s business but that of Catholics. David Crary of the Associated Press, with whom I have publicly differed with, wrote a very fair piece on this subject that was widely picked up by many media outlets. He said the bishops will discuss what to do about offering the president Communion when they meet in June. Fair enough. It didn’t take long, however, before the Church’s critics took to the keyboard. Michelle Boorstein wrote a story for the Washington Post contending that since Biden was elected, “the increasingly loud right wing of the church has made it clear that Biden cannot continue to expand abortion rights and call himself Catholic and go unchallenged.” There is nothing “right wing” about the bishops enforcing the Church’s teachings on any subject, whether it be immigration, the death penalty, school choice or euthanasia. Nor is there anything “right wing” about addressing public figures who boast of their “devout Catholic” status while constantly undermining what the Church teaches, especially on life and death issues. They have in-house strictures at the Washington Post, don’t they? Are they not enforced? Boorstein teed it up for some genius at the Washington Post who tweeted about “a rising group of right-wing U.S. Catholic bishops” who are clashing with our “very Catholic” president over abortion. A website that monitors conservative thought, conwebwatch, was incensed by what the bishops are considering; they took the opportunity to rip CNSNews for allegedly “bashing” Biden over its critical coverage of the president. Catholics for Choice, an anti-Catholic pro-abortion letterhead with no members (it is funded by left-wing foundations), issued a statement saying it “condemns U.S. Bishops for Attacking Biden on Abortion.” New York Magazine asked, “Will conservatives weaponize the Eucharist?” In the U.K., The Independent urged Biden to stand fast against the bishops; otherwise he will “let down the people who turned up for him at the ballot box.” If these people were just voyeurs looking into the Catholic Church, that would be one thing. But they are not. They have an agenda. Not to be mistaken, writing about this subject is one thing; using it as ammunition to whip up public opinion against the bishops is quite another. That’s exactly what is going on. The goal is to portray Biden as a loyal son of the Church—”look, he carries rosary beads”—while defending his lust for abortion rights. In other words, those who radically dissent from the Church’s teaching on the beginning of life, which is grounded in science as well as theology, are “very Catholic” and should therefore be emulated. In short, those who reject the Church’s teaching on abortion are Catholics in good standing the same way those who accept it are. Kansas City Archbishop Joseph Naumann, chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, said it best. “He [Biden] doesn’t have the authority to teach what it means to be Catholic—that’s our responsibility as bishops. Whether intentional or not, he’s trying to usurp our authority.” If we had a Catholic president who announced that he wants to make the death penalty a more common practice, or sought to weaken the laws against racial discrimination, he would not be called “very Catholic” by those who are convinced Biden is. As we get closer to the June meeting of the bishops, we will have much more to say about this issue. Stay tuned.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on THIS BISHOP WOULD VOTE “NO” IF HE STILL HAD A VOTE IN THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS BUT AS A RETIRED BISHOP HE NO LONGER HAS A VOTE, ONLY A VOICE AND HENCE ABYSSUM.ORG
Two days ago, I drove in a 5-square-mile radius and noticed that the 100 or so farms I grew up with are all gone. Caput. Everyone. Not one grandkid, relative, etc. seems to be farming. The acreage seems either rented out or sold off. The land is usually leased to conglomerated operations (and the almond orchards look beautiful). Renters from Mexico and Central America mostly live in the clapboard decaying houses, and the barns and sheds look empty or eroding—or rented out to boarders. Often, they also sublet the yard to families living in trailers and make-shift sheds. So strange that the land is more productive than ever, but the people who first developed it simply disappeared. Their only traces are these wooden skeletons that have not all been removed yet by larger agribusiness companies. I grew up and still live on a small part of the land that our great-great-grandmother bought (as bare scrub) from Leland Stanford’s Southern Pacific railroad in the 1870s. See Frank Norris’s The Octopus, and cf. the Mussel Slough Tragedy (7 miles away), for the animosity of small farmers in the latter 19th-century to “the railroad” that had urged them to buy on credit undeveloped land—only to leverage its repossession later when it was fully developed. (As a side note it is a paradox to work at Stanford, to listen to all the faculty and student earnests erasing the past about them, and to witness all the names of the supposedly illiberal and long-dead now vaporized for their crimes against 21st-century race, class, and gender norms (e.g., Father Sierra, David Starr Jordan, etc.). And yet, and yet—even the most zealous renamer and reeducator does not mention changing the name of Stanford itself, built on the profits of senior Leland Stanford. He had quite unkind things to say about the Chinese laborers who helped build his empire and whose railroad policies in the San Joaquin Valley were aimed at destroying small farmers whom he lured to develop the lands gifted to him by the government—only to seek to evict and destroy them when they were cultivated and worth 50 times more than when purchased in their wild aboriginal state. I supposed Trotskyizing Father Serra is easy, but giving up the Stanford careerist brand is non-negotiable even for most committed revisionists.) But enough of the modern editorialization: the homesteader agrarians who shot it out with the confiscators had public opinion on their side and ultimately the railroad began to back off, but not until after a lot of “tragedy”. A quarter-century ago, I wrote two books once about our family’s fifth-generation farming some 110 years later, and how it became impossible for small orchard and vineyard growers to continue. By 1980, four families were living on our 180-acre farm and we all had different views of what was going wrong around us, but all agreed something had gone haywire. For an idea of what life was like before the fall, my brother and cousin five years ago published some poems and art (My San Joaquin) that give a rich flavor of what were once the common lives of everyone we knew but are now mere fragments of memory. I note that Horace warned of the cranky laudator temporis acti (the praiser of time past), but for all the technological wonders of the 21st century, Hesiod was right 2700 years ago that with material progress often comes moral regress.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on FACT OF LIFE (ACCORDING TO HESIOD): WITH MATERIAL PROGRESS THERE OFTEN COMES MORAL DECAY
Nothing is stranger than the contemporary American university. Not long ago, Americans used to idolize their universities. Indeed, in science, math, engineering, medicine, and business, many of these meritocratic departments and schools remain among the top-ranked in the world. Top-notch higher education explains much of the current scientific, technological and commercial excellence of the United States. After World War II — won in part due to superior American scientific research, production, and logistics — a college degree became a prerequisite for a successful career. The GI Bill enabled some 8 million returning vets to go to college. Most graduated to good jobs. The university from the late 1940s to 1960 was a rich resource of continuing education. It introduced the world’s great literature, from Homer to Tolstoy, to the American middle classes. But today’s universities and colleges bear little if any resemblance to postwar higher education. Even during the tumultuous 1960s, when campuses were plagued by radical protests and periodic violence, there was still institutionalized free speech. An empirical college curriculum mostly survived the chaos of the ‘60s. But it is gone now. Instead, imagine a place where the certification of educational excellence, the Bachelor of Arts degree, is no guarantee that a graduate can speak, write or communicate coherently or think inductively. Imagine a place that requires applicants to submit high school grade-point averages and standardized test results but doesn’t require its own graduates to pass a basic uniform competency test. Imagine a place where after an initial trial period, a minority of elite employees receive lifetime job guarantees. Imagine a place supposedly devoted to equity where only 30 percent of the faculty are privileged enough to be tenure-tracked. The other 70 percent are second-class, categorized as part-time or “contingent” faculty. And they receive a fraction of the compensation per hour of instruction as their more elite counterparts. Imagine a place that cherishes student interaction and criticism of the “establishment,” yet the ratio of instructors to administrators is about one to one. The money devoted to non-teaching administrative costs is now about equal to the money devoted to classroom instruction. Imagine a place where “diversity” is the professed institutional ethos, while studies reveal that liberal faculty outnumber their conservative counterparts by over 10 to 1. Imagine a liberal place where in 2021 race can still be used as a criterion in selecting and rejecting applicants, choosing prospective dorm roommates, organizing segregated dorms, and restricting access to special places on campus. Imagine a progressive place that once renounced unconstitutional “loyalty oaths” but now rebrands them as “diversity pledges” and requires reeducation and indoctrination training. Imagine a place with non-taxable endowments that restricts free speech and expression. Nonprofit universities make it impossible for some speakers to lecture, and often suspend constitutionally protected due process for students facing particular allegations. Imagine a place loudly devoted to income, capital, and marketplace equity measured against the reality that 800 of the largest colleges and universities hold more than $600 billion in endowments. Yet just 20 elite universities account for half that total. And just four — Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Princeton — account for almost a quarter of all endowment funds. Imagine a liberal place that has upped its tuition and total costs far beyond the rate of inflation, with its graduates now collectively owing $1.7 trillion in student loan debt. There is little hope that many of these student debtors will ever pay back their obligations, which average more than $30,000 each. Imagine a place that has institutionalized human rights but welcomes nearly 400,000 students from human rights-violating China — a great many of whom are the offspring of elite Communist Party members who provide a lucrative source of university income. Imagine a place where faculty and students now selectively change the names of campus streets, centers, and buildings that honored supposedly illiberal, long-dead donors, graduates, and former heroes. Yet curiously, universities never alter their marquee founding brand names. Were founders or original funders such as Leland Stanford, Elihu Yale, and Lord Jeffery Amherst not as illiberal as Father Junipero Serra, Earl Warren, and Woodrow Wilson, whose names have been canceled on some college campuses? As long as universities produced highly educated and open-minded graduates at a reasonable cost and kept politics out of the lecture hall, Americans didn’t care much about peculiarities such as tenure, legacy admissions, untaxed endowments, rebellious students, and quirky faculty. But once they began to charge exorbitantly, educate poorly, politick continuously, indebt millions of people and act hypocritically, universities turned off Americans. Just as a sermonizing Hollywood grates when it no longer can make good movies, a once-hallowed but now self-righteous university seems hollow when it charges so much for so little.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on As long as universities produced highly educated and open-minded graduates at a reasonable cost and kept politics out of the lecture hall, Americans didn’t care much about peculiarities such as tenure, legacy admissions, untaxed endowments, rebellious students, and quirky faculty. But once they began to charge exorbitantly, educate poorly, politick continuously, indebt millions of people and act hypocritically, universities turned off Americans. Just as a sermonizing Hollywood grates when it no longer can make good movies, a once-hallowed but now self-righteous university seems hollow when it charges so much for so little.
On the Question of SystemicRacism in the United States
By: E.P. Unum
April 29, 2021
Hat Tip: Rip McIntosh
The substance of this essay originated in an article by Ian Duncan of the Baltimore Sun Newspaper entitled The Black Dilemma. I took the time to fact-check some of his data points and found them to be accurate. His article provides some very fascinating perspectives that you never see or hear from the media, and I have tried to include all of them in this essay. Hopefully, you will agree it is worth your time to read and think about. It has been said that we are a nation of immigrants, each coming together in a sort of “melting pot” we call America. Our motto of course is E Pluribus Unum, Latin for Out of Many, One. I believe that accurately reflects what America has been, is and hopefully shall ever be. With that in mind, let’s think about this “melting pot” of immigrants who came together from points all over the globe to build the greatest nation the world has ever known. Most of these people came penniless offering only their skills, talents, and work ethic for just a chance to be a part of the American Dream. They were white, black, brown, yellow, red but more than the color of their skin was the content of their character. They were provided with no safety net, no cash stipend to help in finding a home, food, and health care; just a chance to be a part of something better than the life they left behind. What did they do with this chance? They built a nation. They built a nation complete with a standard of living that is the envy of the world, a thriving economy that has fueled innovation, creativity, medical and scientific discoveries that improved the quality of life for its citizens, then shared this knowledge with the rest of the world. They invented the computer, split the atom, built huge skyscrapers and cities. They pioneered the west and set their sights on the stars, put men on the moon, and explored space to expanded our knowledge of the universe. They built the strongest military the world has ever seen and used it to defend our nation and to rescue Europe twice in the 20th century from tyranny, never once seizing lands or treasure but instead used their resources to rebuild nations they had defeated in war. And, perhaps most remarkably, they accomplished all of this in 245 years, a mere blip on the radar screen of life on this planet. And the distinguishing characteristic of the people who achieved these things is they all came to our shores in search of freedom. We are told by left-wing radicals that America is plagued by systemic racism; that our very existence was predicated on slavery as its core foundation and that America is evil. The New York Times’ endorsement of the 1619 Project which espouses this falsehood knows full well that such a position lacks credulity and has no historical basis in fact. Yet the U.S. Department of Education has formally sanctioned the teaching of this to our children in elementary and high schools and many colleges and universities have embraced it as well. The premise of the 1619 Project represents a gross distortion of history and essentially teaches children to hate America. If you are a parent or grandparent you should demand of your school boards that this sinister approach to educating our children be stopped immediately, and you should let your representatives in Washington know your feelings by writing to them often. Consider, if you will, these realities and facts:● The English came to our shores seeking freedom to worship as they choose. They were poor but they worked hard, assimilated into our culture, enjoyed freedom, and today some are rich.● The Scots came seeking freedom, pitched in, worked hard, and built a life for themselves and their families. They were poor, but now they are solidly free and some are rich.● The Germans came with little but the clothes on their backs. They brought with them trades and craftsmanship, built a foundation, and are part of American culture.● The Irish came, some as indentured servants. They worked hard, gained their freedom, and built solid lives for themselves and their families. Some are even wealthy● The Poles came with little to offer but hard work and iron-clad perseverance. They were poor but today they are a strong component of the middle class and some are even wealthy.● The Hungarians came, most were poor, but they worked hard and benefited from the opportunities available to them in America. They were poor but now some are rich.● The Cubans came escaping from the terror of Castro’s Revolution and Communist Rule. They were poor but they all had a tremendous work ethic and built thriving businesses and are no longer poor.● The Vietnamese came, escaping war and poverty and the devastation of a murderous Communist Regime. They were poor but today they have through hard work and dedication built businesses and are among the brightest students in our colleges and universities. Once they were poor and now some are wealthy…and all are free.● The Italians came with their trade skills and an extraordinary work ethic. They were poor but they worked hard, built families and businesses and now some are rich ● The Africans came, brought here to our shores by Muslim, white, and black slave traders. They were poor, unskilled, and without a common written language, and today, for the most part, they continue to be poor. And today, unlike the English, Hungarians, Italians, Spanish, Indians, Vietnamese, Asians, blacks blame their lot in life on slavery. Why is that? Read on…..For almost 150 years the United States has been conducting an interesting experiment. The subjects of the experiment: black people and working-class whites.The hypothesis to be tested: Can people taken from the jungles of Africa and forced into slavery be fully integrated as citizens in a nation where the majority of its citizens are white?The whites were descendants of Europeans who had created a majestic civilization. The former slaves had been tribal peoples with no written language, no unique skill sets, and virtually no intellectual achievements. Acting on a policy that was not fair to either group and only after we became a “House Divided” and had fought a long Civil War in which well over 600,000 mostly white soldiers on either side, North and South perished was slavery abolished by law in America. The Civil war today stands alone as the bloodiest war in American history. That war was fought pitting brother against brother, sons against fathers to free black slaves and abolish slavery in America forever. At the end of hostilities, Congress led by Republicans ratified the Emancipation Proclamation, and the government then released newly freed black people into a white society that saw them as inferiors. America has struggled with racial discord ever since. Decade after decade the problems persisted but the experimenters, who were predominantly white, never gave up. They insisted that if they could find the right formula, the experiment would work, and so they concocted program after program to get the result they wanted. They created the Freedman’s Bureau, passed civil rights laws, invested Trillions into the Great Society, declared The War on Poverty, ordered race preferences to increase the chances for blacks to succeed, built housing projects, and tried midnight basketball. Their new laws intruded into people’s lives in ways that would have been otherwise unthinkable. In 1965, when the Great Society began in earnest following the massive electoral landslide reelection of LBJ, the out-of-wedlock birthrate among the black community was 21 percent. By 2017, this figure had risen to a whopping 77 percent. In some cities, this rate is as high as 80 percent, with most of the unwed mothers being teenagers.https://ammo.com/articles/lbj-great-society-war-on-poverty-welfare-state-helped-ruin-black-communities They called in National Guard troops to enforce school integration. They forced black students to be bussed to schools where the student population was predominantly white and vice versa. They outlawed freedom of association. They tried with money, lots of money, trillions to be sure, special programs, relaxed admission standards to prestigious colleges and universities, and endless hand wringing to close the achievement gap. To keep white backlash in check they began punishing public and even private statements on race. They hung up Orwellian public banners that commanded whites to Celebrate Diversity! and Say No to Racism. Nothing was off-limits if it might salvage the great experiment.Some thought that what W.E.B. DuBois called the Talented Tenthwould lead the way for black people. A group of elite, educated, successful blacks would knock down doors of opportunity and show the world what blacks were capable of. An abysmal failure.There is a Talented Tenth. They are the black Americans who have become entrepreneurs, lawyers, doctors, engineers, astronauts, and scientists. But ten percent is not enough. For the experiment to work, the ten percent has to be followed by a critical mass of people who can hold middle-class jobs and promote social stability. That hasn’t happened. That is what is missing.Speaking bluntly, it is an incontrovertible fact that through the years, too many black people continue to show an inability to function and prosper in a culture manifestly unsuited to them. Detroit is bankrupt, the South Side of Chicago is a war zone, and the vast majority of black cities all over America, Newark NJ, New York City, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Los Angeles are beset by homelessness, degeneracy, and violence. Interestingly, blacks never seem to take responsibility for their failures. Instead, they lash out in anger and resentment and blame someone else.Across the generations and across the country, as we have seen in Detroit, Watts, Newark, Los Angeles, New York, Cincinnati, Portland, Seattle, and Ferguson, rioting, and looting are just one racial incident away. The white elite would tell us that this doesn’t mean the experiment has failed. We just have to try harder. We are preached to that we need to eliminate systemic racism. We need more money to throw at the problems of black America, more time, more understanding, more programs, and more opportunities. We need more! Really? How has that worked over the last 100 years? How about the last fifty years?But nothing changes no matter how much money is spent, no matter how many laws are passed, no matter how many black geniuses are portrayed on TV, and no matter who is president. Some argue it’s a problem of culture, as if culture creates people’s behavior instead of the other way around. Others blame white privilege. I am not even sure I know what white privilege is! I do know that when my grandfather and grandmother came to America they were not considered privileged. And I grew up on the streets of New York and can tell you most assuredly that I was not privileged.But since 1965, when the elites opened America’s doors to the Third World, immigrants from Asia and India and impoverished areas in South America, people who are not white, not rich, and not connected, have quietly succeeded. While the children of these people are winning spelling bees and math contests and getting top scores on the SAT, black youths are committing half the country’s violent crime, which includes viciously punching random white people on the street for the thrill of it. Such actions have nothing to do with poverty. They have an awful lot to do with a lack of respect for anyone in authority and a lack of guidance from their homes. Think about it: Black Americans constitute 13% of the population of the United States and 50% of the crime. That is astounding and it should shock you to your core.The great experiment has failed. Not because of white culture, or white privilege, or white racism. The fundamental problem is that American black culture has evolved into an un-fixable and crime-ridden mess. They do not want to change their culture or society and expect others to tolerate their violence and amoral behavior. They have become socially incompatible with other races by their own design, not because of the racism of others – but by their own hatred of non-blacks. No matter how many dollars are given to them, they believe they are entitled to more because they are descendants of slaves. And, so today, black advocates and politicians pandering to blacks for their votes are now clamoring for “reparations’ to compensate blacks for the “sin of slavery”. Think about this for a second: white Americans who never owned slaves and had nothing to do with bringing slaves to America’s shores, are expected to pay black Americans money because they may be descendants of slaves but were never slaves themselves. The sheer lunacy of this defies explanation. But they are doing precisely this in Illinois! But you will not hear any of this from the elites in Washington. They use the term systemic racism without ever defining what it is. The term means racism is rampant throughout America and that is a blatant lie. President Biden has been in government for fifty years and served two terms as Vice President of the United States under President Barack Hussein Obama, our first Black President. If there was systemic racism in our nation, why didn’t they fix it when they were in power? The answer is there is no such thing as systemic racism. It is a false narrative and a self-defeating one.Our “leaders”, made up of politicians who are not real leaders, don’t seem to understand just how tired their white subjects are with this experiment. They don’t understand that white people aren’t out to get black people or keep them down; they are just exhausted with them. They are exhausted by the social pathologies, the violence, the endless complaints, and the blind racial solidarity, the bottomless pit of grievances, the excuses, and the reflexive animosity. The elites explain everything with racism and refuse to believe that white frustration could soon reach the boiling point.You know, there is an old adage that goes like this:” if you kick a dog long enough, he’s gonna bite.” Maybe it is time to take a tougher stance. Maybe the safety nets should be eliminated or drastically reduced and made available only in the most extreme circumstances. Maybe we should return to a time when burning and looting are not tolerated and police are empowered to respond to such threats with force. Maybe a little tough love ought to be the order of the day. When I coached baseball if my team was not hitting well, I’m gonna do something. I’m gonna change the lineup a bit because I need to shake things up to get my offense going. Maybe we might play a little small ball and bunt guys into scoring position, maybe we will play hit and run a little bit, take some chances on the bases and change the hitting order a bit…..but we are gonna do something different! But this is one thing I would hammer home and I hope and pray Republicans en masse stand up and announce to all the world that we do not buy into Critical Race Theory or the 1619 project and that America is not a racist nation.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on I hope and pray that Republicans en masse stand up and announce to all the world that we do not buy into Critical Race Theory or the 1619 project and that America is not a racist nation.
The first 100 days of the Biden-Harris administration have brought an unprecedented tsunami of anti-life extremism. Almost daily, there are fresh assaults not only on the unborn and their mothers, but on the foundations of America itself as pro-abortion Democrats hurry to push through their agenda before the 2022 midterm elections.
Even before his inauguration, President Joe Biden was working to fill his Cabinet with pro-abortion radicals such as Xavier Becerra and Shalanda Young. Becerra is known for suing pro-life nuns and pregnancy centers during his time as the attorney general of California, as well as prosecuting journalists who exposed Planned Parenthood’s role in trafficking baby body parts. As a congressman, he even voted against banning partial-birth abortion. Young, meanwhile, has characterized taxpayer-funded abortion as “economic and racial justice” — a fringe view in the United States, including among women and low-income voters.
From the start, the Biden-Harris administration has sought to pay back the abortion lobby that spent millions to elect it.
Two of Biden’s early executive orders force American taxpayers to bankroll the abortion industry — domestically and overseas. One repealed the Global Protect Life Rule (formerly the Mexico City policy, which had been expanded under Trump), while the other initiated the rollback of the domestic Protect Life Rule, which stopped tax dollars from being funneled to abortion businesses via the Title X program. The administration could barely contain its glee in undoing the pro-life work of the Trump-Pence administration, with Biden’s Health and Human Services announcing plans to cancel the Protect Life Rule on the same day HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra was confirmed.
In March, Biden signed the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded abortion since Obamacare. Unlike prior COVID-19 relief bills, the so-called “American Rescue Plan” broke with more than four decades of bipartisan consensus by failing to include Hyde Amendment protections. The Hyde family of pro-life policies (which includes the Weldon, Dornan, and Helms amendments, to name a few) has saved the lives of more than 2.4 million children in the U.S. Biden was once an ardent supporter of the Hyde Amendment himself, but today he has fully caved to extremists in his party.
A single week in April brought two more anti-life decrees. First, the Food and Drug Administration decided not to enforce safety regulations on mail-order abortion drugs. The abortion industry has long sought essentially to convert every post office into an abortion center — lowering overhead and increasing profits. Abortion drugs pose even greater risks to women than surgical abortion, including infection, severe bleeding, incomplete abortion, or even death.
Next, HHS announced it will resume funding for experiments using the bodies of abortion victims without limits. Trump-Pence administration policies had stopped National Institutes of Health intramural grants and required an ethics review for other proposals. These experiments are barbaric in themselves, but they also do a profound disservice to patients — diverting resources from superior, uncontroversial alternatives and holding out grandiose promises of cures that don’t pan out.
Pro-abortion Democrats can’t abide losing and don’t want a fair fight. There is no rule they won’t violate or rewrite in their desperation to hold onto power.
Biden’s commission to “study” ways to alter the Supreme Court is a prime example. Make no mistake: Court-packing is court-destroying. Within days, House and Senate Democrats gave away the endgame with their own legislation to stack the court with pro-abortion justices. Biden opened the door; Congress stampeded through it.
Similarly emboldened, congressional Democrats continue looking for ways to erode the legislative filibuster, create new states, remove the deadline to insert the pro-abortion Equal Rights Amendment in the Constitution, and more. Worst is their push for a sweeping federal takeover of elections in H.R. 1/S. 1, defeating efforts nationwide to prevent election fraud.
Defenders of life have this advantage: the Biden-Harris abortion agenda is deeply unpopular.
In 2019 after Democrats in New York expanded late-term abortion and Virginia’s governor endorsed infanticide, state lawmakers responded with their own tidal wave of pro-life laws. This year, the number of bills introduced since Jan. 1 is about 500. We gain ground under hostile conditions by going on offense in the states while educating voters and ensuring that extreme pro-abortion candidates pay a political price in 2022 and beyond.
There is no room for defeatism; we must engage. As difficult as it may be right now to envision, the standard set over the past four years can be our future once again.
San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone announced the release of his first pastoral letter on abortion at the Mass for Life at St. Mary’s Cathedral, May 1. (Photo by Dennis Callahan/Catholic San Francisco)
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.