Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for April 8th, 2010

Although I disagree with many of Lloyd’s leftist comments and assertions in the article below, she does offer a few reactions to the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church that warrant scrutiny.

“I]f I were contemplating re-entering Christianity, I doubt that I could stomach becoming a Catholic right now, despite being raised in an observant Catholic family. And while the sex abuse scandal wouldn’t be the only factor, it would certainly weigh heavily in my thinking.

You certainly wouldn’t keep sending your kids to a school whose management tacitly condoned pedophilia or looked the other way. Nor would you work for a business that did so. I doubt anyone would even join a gym with this track record, no matter how much they liked the equipment and the staff.

[A] revolution is already afoot at the base of the Catholic Church and … it’s only a matter of time before the church hierarchy is forced to follow suit. [T]he Catholic Church would have a lot of takers if it undertook true, bottom-up reform or developed a free-standing liberal wing.”—Delia Lloyd

Lloyd and her leftist friends seem to be setting the stage for a progressive papacy, but if the visions of a 12th century Irish bishop prove accurate, they will be ushering in the last Pope.

According to some interpretations of St. Malachi’s vision, the Pope who succeeds Benedict XVI will be “Petrus Romanus” (Peter the Roman) the final Pope who will oversee the destruction of the Catholic Church.

“In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Petrus Romanus (Peter the Roman), who will feed his flock amid many tribulations; after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people.”

I am fascinated … I am on edge …

I.M. Kane


 

Why I Could No Longer Be a Catholic

By Delia Lloyd

An old friend of mine recently posted the following sentence on his Facebook page: “I know this is totally not a PC thing to say, but can someone please explain to me why anyone is still Catholic?”

It’s a fair question. And my Politics Daily colleague, Melinda Henneberger, has one answer. In an honest and moving piece she wrote a few days back, Melinda tells us that she’s as put off as the next person by the current sex abuse scandal roiling the Catholic Church, as well as by the Vatican’s latest attempts to play the victim and point fingers. At the end of the day, though, Melinda is going to hang in there with this church, because being Catholic is integral to who she is. “In the end,” she writes,”it is not about them.”

Melinda’s argument is a variant on one that many of my pro-choice Catholic friends use when defending their choice to remain in a church even when its hierarchy (and — it must be said — most of its adherents) condemn a practice which my friends find perfectly legal and justifiable. They are somehow able to separate their personal beliefs on this issue from official church doctrine, and can carry on as practicing Catholics because they buy into other church teachings.

In both versions, these arguments imply that the messenger doesn’t matter. If you yourself can find solace and meaning in embracing Catholicism at its “base,” it doesn’t really matter what the hierarchy says or does.

I respect the views of all concerned and I strongly believe that everyone has to find their own way toward religious practice. Lord knows I do. But personally, I’m not convinced by this idea that we’re free to ignore the Pope. I’m currently contemplating becoming part of a faith — Judaism — which has its own issues. (Among others, it’s not at all clear that they’d be willing to take me.) But even if I were contemplating re-entering Christianity, I doubt that I could stomach becoming a Catholic right now, despite being raised in an observant Catholic family. And while the sex abuse scandal wouldn’t be the only factor, it would certainly weigh heavily in my thinking.

This point was driven home to me this past weekend, when an old friend from the States came to visit us at our home in London. She’s a practicing Catholic who would very much like to raise her children in the Catholic Church. But she’s increasingly troubled by the sex abuse scandal, and has refused to give the church any money since the scandal first broke in America back in 2002. Her husband, an attorney who was raised as a Baptist but — other than the scandal — is reasonably comfortable with Catholicism, wonders whether his wife would be willing to continue to be a member of any other institution where all of this was going on inside it.

He’s got a point. You certainly wouldn’t keep sending your kids to a school whose management tacitly condoned pedophilia or looked the other way. Nor would you work for a business that did so. I doubt anyone would even join a gym with this track record, no matter how much they liked the equipment and the staff.

Nor is it clear to me that it is just a management problem. As the writer and former Catholic priest James Carroll noted recently, the sex abuse scandal isn’t just about the current Pope. It’s about an institution that systematically undervalues women, champions obedience and authority over self-expression and democracy, and actively suppresses normal (by which I mean any) sexual impulses through its chastity vow.

My friend who just visited me is actively reconsidering whether she wants to remain in the Catholic Church. Apparently, many of her friends back home have been encouraging her for years to join the Episcopal Church, often described as “Catholicism without the Pope.” While she was here in London, she attended an Easter service at a local Church of England parish and felt quite comfortable there. What’s holding her back — as I suspect holds many Catholics back right now — is the cultural betrayal she feels for her Catholic grandparents who’ve passed away but instilled in her the service-oriented aspects of Catholicism that most resonated.

The American Episcopal Church has already fragmented over issues such as homosexuality and the ordination of women, and now seems headed for a definitive schism with the broader Anglican Communion. Maybe the Catholic Church will do the same. Or maybe change will come from within. That’s certainly Carroll’s view. He thinks that a revolution is already afoot at the base of the Catholic Church and that it’s only a matter of time before the church hierarchy is forced to follow suit. Others are less sanguine.

Personally, I think the Catholic Church would have a lot of takers if it undertook true, bottom-up reform or developed a free-standing liberal wing.

And who knows? Even someone as conflicted as I am over religion might decide to show up.

Follow Delia on Twitter.

Read Full Post »

Brother O flat out lied to the American people when he announced on March 31 the opening of new lands in the OCS for energy exploration. The truth is he didn’t open any new lands for oil exploration; he only announced a study of the Delaware to Georgia coastline for potential offshore leasing many years down the road. In fact, America’s first dictator locked up vast amounts of energy reserves. Blogger Charles Rowley points out that the Bread and Circuses administration has:

“reinstated much of the moratorium area that Congress and the President released in August 2008.  It has cancelled the lease-sale programs of the Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service (MMS), while paying lip-service to opening up other areas by planning to study them. 

In the meantime, it has acted wherever possible to retard ongoing exploration efforts. For example, Shell Oil outlayed more than $3 billion to acquire Alaskan offshore leases from MMS and prepare for exploration. Of about 37 permits required for 2010 only 3 have been granted. Permit delays and litigation will prevent further exploration in 2010 and effectively doom a project that would provide 35,000 high-paying jobs per annum and more than $70 billion of payroll for several decades.

The Army Corps of Engineers recently denied ConocoPhillips a permit to construct a drill pad in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, threatening 400 construction and 100 operating jobs and new production that could extend the life of the trans-Alaska pipeline. 

And many other instances of obfuscation and delay permeate the Obama administration’s policy of preventing any move towards national energy independence, other than through green subsidies and carbon taxes.”

Brother O plans to push through the politically unpopular cap-and-trade bill, which is an energy tax, and Republican sell outs need cover to sign on to it. In the must read article below, Thomas Pyle exposes Brother O’s deception:

Summer 2008:  the Democrat-controlled Congress and President George W. Bush retired both the congressional and executive bans on offshore oil and natural-gas production, which effectively opened nearly the entire Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) for responsible energy production.

March 2010:  Brother O announced that he, for the first time, is opening new lands in the OCS for energy exploration.

Brother O did not open anything; almost all of the OCS was already open for nearly two years. In fact, he locked up the entire West Coast, the North Atlantic, and portions of Alaska— areas that hold a resources potential of up to 77 billion barrels of oil—more oil than the entire Russian reserve and three times as much as the current U.S. recoverable reserves.

In addition, he also delayed a scheduled lease sale off the Virginia OCS from 2011 to 2012.

By the way, the United States is the only country in the industrialized world that intentionally embargos its own energy resources.


 

Oil drilling head fake

By Thomas J. Pyle

Nearly 30 years ago, Congress imposed a moratorium on the safe and environmentally sound practice of offshore oil and natural-gas exploration. In the early 1990s, President George H.W. Bush imposed a similar ban in the form of an executive order. And while this ban was in place for decades, many in Congress and the public at large had no idea that the United States was the only country in the industrialized world purposely embargoing its own energy resources.

Fast-forward to the summer of 2008: Oil was $150 a barrel, the price at the pump exceeded $4 a gallon, and the American people – of all political stripes – were genuinely outraged. In response, the Democrat-controlled Congress and President George W. Bush retired both the congressional and executive bans on offshore oil and natural-gas production. That move effectively opened nearly the entire Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) for responsible energy production.

Now fast-forward to March 2010: President Obama announced that he, for the first time, is opening new lands in the OCS for energy exploration. You might be scratching your head at this point, because many energy-industry leaders, newspaper reporters, cable news pundits, lawmakers and politicos applauded the president’s announcement as some major policy breakthrough and the White House’s willingness to compromise on energy policy. However, the announcement, along with the president’s sudden eagerness to trade his proposed national energy tax for increased oil and natural-gas drilling, is nothing more than political theater.

Enter reality. Mr. Obama did not open anything. In fact, he locked up vast amounts of energy reserves. In March, as it has been for nearly two years, almost all of the OCS was open. Now, in April, the entire West Coast, the North Atlantic and portions of Alaska are off-limits.

The president’s speech did not move this nation any closer to creating the 1.2 million jobs that development of the OCS would make possible. The president did not move us any closer to producing more domestic oil and natural gas. And he certainly didn’t move us any closer to reaping the benefits of affordable, reliable energy – including the trillions of dollars increased exploration and production would add to the government’s ever-dwindling coffers through the collection of increased royalties and tax revenues.

What the President did do was delay a scheduled lease sale off the Virginia OCS from 2011 to 2012. He also locked up areas that hold a resources potential of up to 77 billion barrels of oil – more oil than the entire Russian reserve and three times as much as the current U.S. recoverable reserves.

The administration claims Mr. Obama is opening up the Atlantic coast from Delaware to Georgia for exploration. But further examination of his actions – in direct contrast to his words – shows that he only announced a study of this area for potential offshore leasing many years down the road.

More offshore exploration and production would create upward of 1.2 million jobs and nearly $70 billion in annual wages. The president knows this and said as much in his speech. He clearly understands that more than two-thirds of the American people support offshore exploration, that it would create good-paying jobs and make our nation more secure and economically competitive. That’s why he is going to great lengths to appear to support more offshore exploration and production, while in reality, his administration has done everything in its power to deny Americans access to the energy that rightfully belongs to them.

So, one may ask, why all the hype and fanfare? We have a little inkling as to the goal of this particular stage show.

Many readers of this page are acutely aware of the various cap-and-trade proposals moving through the Senate in an attempt to levy a tax on coal, natural gas and oil, which provide us with 85 percent of our energy needs. Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, has been leading the charge to “price carbon,” while others, with the backing of some big oil companies, recently have advocated for an increase in the gasoline tax. Could the president’s announcement last week have been designed to appease both camps and finally move cap-and-trade through the Senate?

When Mr. Graham took to the pages of the New York Times with Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, to outline their plan for global-warming legislation in the Senate, they made mention of a “comprehensive” approach, defined as a package to include increased nuclear power and offshore oil and natural-gas drilling.

Just a few weeks ago, on Feb. 16, Mr. Obama and Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced that the administration would award $8.3 billion taxpayer-backed loan guarantees to build two new nuclear reactors in Georgia. At face value, this announcement was a nod toward increased nuclear-energy production and, of course, the mainstream media reported it as being a bold step toward compromise to the all-of-the-above approach being advanced by the Republican leadership. And yet, just days before the announced taxpayer-funded nuclear giveaway, the administration zeroed out funding for the creation of a nuclear-waste repository in Yucca Mountain. Never mind the glaring policy contradiction here and the virtual guarantee of the status quo on nuclear-power production as a result.

So there you have it. In two carefully crafted stage performances on nuclear and offshore oil and gas production, the president just may have provided his allies with enough political cover finally to move cap-and-trade through the Senate and impose a national energy tax on an unwilling American public.

Thomas J. Pyle is president of the Institute for Energy Research and American Energy Alliance.

Read Full Post »

Republican candidate Pat Toomey beats Democrats Sen. Arlen Specter (46-43) and Specter’s primary opponent, Rep. Joe Sestak (42-36), in a general election for the US Senate.

Only 34 percent approve of Specter’s job performance, while 52 percent disapprove.

Brother O also has low job approval ratings in Pennsylvania, only 46 percent approve and 50 percent disapprove.

The state’s primary is May 18.


 

Sen. Specter trails in latest Pennsylvania poll

By Emily Goodin

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) is trailing in the latest Pennsylvania Senate poll.

Public Policy Polling (D) has released its first survey of the race and found the Republican candidate, former Rep. Pat Toomey (Pa.), beats both Specter and Specter’s primary opponent, Rep. Joe Sestak (D), in a general election matchup.

Toomey beats Specter by three, 46-43, and he beats Sestak by six, 42-36.

Specter’s job rating is troubling for an incumbent. He had a 34 percent approval rating and a 52 percent disapproval rating.

President Barack Obama also has low approval ratings in the state, which could be helping Toomey. Obama has a 46 percent approval rating and 50 percent disapproval rating. Obama has hosted one fundraiser for Specter and, when Specter switched parties last year, the president vowed to help him win reelection.

Public Policy wrote in its analysis:

This race is basically a toss-up at this point. The big question is whether this represents the low water mark for Democrats in this election cycle. There are a couple of paths to reelection for Specter despite his unpopularity. If Obama’s numbers go back up he’ll more than likely bring Specter along for the ride.

The poll surveyed 934 Pennsylvania voters from March 29 to April 1. The survey’s margin of error is plus-or-minus 3.2 percent.

Specter has trailed Toomey in several other polls, but he’s also been leading Sestak in the primary matchups. The primary is May 18.

Read Full Post »

[M]oderates may be able to “win” elections but we have learned the hard way that when they win we all really lose. 

Palin should have stayed out of that Senate race in deference to McCain.  To endorse McCain and campaign against the conservative in the race is inexcusable, especially considering his lifelong betrayal of conservative principles”—Mr. Arbitrage


 

Michael Steele’s prodigality & race-baiting could open door for Palin as RNC Chairma’am

By MrArbitrage

“Republicans as well as Democrats blasted Michael Steele’s suggestion that he’s being unfairly criticized due to his race.” – Newsmax.com

I think perhaps I understand what temptation Michael Steele –may- have been indulging with his “racism” allegations.  These remarks elicit the natural perception that Michael Steele is no different than any other race card playing liberal once he gets himself into trouble.  It would appear that he (like Democrats) just doesn’t want to take responsibility and will stoop to blaming others instead.

According to a Newsmax column by David Patten, “it’s not the first time that Steele has suggested there are racial reasons for the criticism he’s encountered.” He recently told Washingtonian Magazine, I don’t see stories about internal operations of the DNC that I see about this operation Why? Is it because Michael Steele is the chairman, or is it because a black man is chairman?”

It is obvious that the liberal media are not forensic accountants when it comes to the expenses of the DNC and he has a valid point in mentioning that double-standard.  Being perturbed by this transparent bias, I imagine it could be tempting to take the opportunity of turning the tables on the Demagogues and the media by accusing –THEM- of being racists – for a change.  It is understandable because they truly are racists down to their very core and that is the amazing thing.  It is astounding how this party of bigots successfully bamboozled over 92% of an entire ethnic group into supporting them when the Democrat Party’s most sacred sacrament of abortion was designed to rid this country of their very race! 

I don’t know that there is a historical parallel so I will have to make one up to illustrate.  It would be akin to Africans voluntarily marching to and then standing in line for hours for their turn to be shackled and thrown into a hot, reeking slave ship.  But it is worse than this hypothetical because the design of the Democrat Party elite and Planned Parenthood is not to make them –labor- but rather to exterminate them altogether.  That may sound like invidious rhetoric but it happens to be historical fact and they damned well know that.  That’s why the Democrats control the schools from pre-k to the PhD.  That is why they control the airwaves and now conspire to filter the Internet so that you can only find porn and propaganda.  They want to keep you addicted and ignorant of historical reality -and if you are black- many of the whites in the Democrat Party want you to “DIE QUICKLY”.  Yes

I know The False Prophet is part African but that’s just another irony of life.  It’s just as bizarre as the fact that the last holocaust was led by a black haired, brown eyed mad man – who wanted to create a blond haired, blue eyed master race.  I think that when God allows a nation to destroy itself, He makes sure that the absurdity is topped off with the preposterous to serve as an exclamation point to posterity.

It would be fun to accuse these make believe journalists of being racists (because they certainly are) but if that is the strategy Steele is taking, he is miscalculating.  I’m giving Steele the benefit of a doubt in this theory but regardless of whether I’m right, it is still an unacceptable strategy and the –reason- is a key difference in the noble way conservatives operate versus liberals.  Because the specific attribute that makes liberals –liberals- is the desire to wallow in evil at all costs, they are willing to cannibalize anyone anytime anywhere.  As long as their actions protect or increase the killing of babies, advance sodomy and expand overall debauchery, they are willing to undermine our foundations.

When Democrats are under suspicion of murder like Ted Kennedy, when Democrats are obviously betraying their country by taking cash bribes for legislation like William J. Jefferson and other forms of bribery like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, when a Democrat brings disgrace to the Presidency by perjuring himself in a lawsuit against himself for rape, when the disbarred President lies to the entire nation on national television about having oral sex with the young girl whom he and his lawyer instructed to perjure herself during her testimony regarding his sex crimes – when all forms of infamy and treachery are embodied in the person of a serving Democrat, the entire Democrat party rally behind that criminal to the detriment of our country –unless- like Democrat Jim Traficant, he opposes the murder of innocent babies and codifying special rewards for all forms of sexual deviance  into law.

When Republicans discover this type of behavior has infiltrated the party, we do not sit around for one moment looking for a way to justify disgraceful activities, no matter who committed them and how powerful they were.  As with South Carolina’s Governor Mark Sanford, Congressman Mark Foley and others, we did not support them and we did not even think for one second to try to defend them.  We demand consistency.  Conservatives demand that their representatives be held to –higher- standards then anyone because of the power with which we entrust them.  We can –forgive- those people who betrayed us but we cannot –trust- them with authority once it has been violated.

What makes us different is that we are not willing to sacrifice our Constitution and our national security for the sake of winning.  We don’t want to BECOME the left to defeat the left.  That is the reason why people like Arlen Specter, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, John McCain and Lindsey Graham are now so loathed by our party.  That is why once popular Florida Governor Charlie Crist is suddenly being overwhelmingly rejected by his constituents. Thanks to the False Prophet and The Harlot, we have had a literal come to Jesus experience. The aforementioned moderates may be able to “win” elections but we have learned the hard way that when they win we all really lose.  Like hemorrhoids, we tolerated them and the imposters who advanced them for too long.  Now we need invasive surgery to remove them and we will.

The point is that Michael Steele needs to understand is this is no time to be cute.  Conservatives are serious and we are not going to advocate playing the race card even if doing so highlights leftist hypocrisy.  The race card strikes against one of our deepest convictions that people need to take responsibility for their mistakes.  Mr. Steele also needs to assure this party that the activities in question are unacceptable and we are not going to become another version of the Democrat Party.  The Libertarians are the group that is willing to fuse the debauchery and paganism of the Democrat Party with the economic policies of the Republican Party.  Republicans are proud capitalists but this party was founded on something of much greater importance.  If you undermine the moral pillars that birthed the Party of Lincoln, we might as well capitulate to the Marxists because the ensuing immorality will guarantee a void that is always filled by tyranny. 

I must say I have found Steele on a few occasions to be McCain-esque in the sense that he sometimes seems confused about where he should stand on issues.  As I have been writing since January 2009, I feel that Sarah Palin would be perfectly suited for that position.  If she runs for President, there is going to be a schism among conservatives, especially when considering her campaigning for John McCain over J.D. Hayworth.  I understand the trite excuse about her “owing” McCain something…  That is just more of the nonsensical thinking that got us into this debacle.  If anything, Palin should have stayed out of that Senate race in deference to McCain.  To endorse McCain and campaign against the conservative in the race is inexcusable, especially considering his lifelong betrayal of conservative principles (until he learned some conservative rhetoric last campaign).

(This I wrote wrote in my February 15, 2010 column

The Coming GOP Schism and how we can Avoid Self Destruction

“I know there are going to be intense factions within this party no matter what happens between now and 2012. There is a faction right now that can’t move on from the past who are saying “run Sarah run”. I am not one of them. I like Sarah Palin and think she can do a great deal of good for this country, perhaps as Chairman of the GOP but I emphatically do not want her to be our presidential candidate.

We will have factions for Palin, for Huckabee, for Romney, for Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal and perhaps Fred Thompson (not likely). They will split the conservative vote so that we will give the nomination to the candidate we all loathe, the liberal candidate, which we WILL secure by our inability to coalesce. That is the ONLY way John McCain could have won this nomination. The same thing happened with Dole in 1996.”)

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.