On a Possible Revisitation of Atomic August:

I noted the following last year:

Tomorrow starts August and the time of year where not a few Catholic sorts who live in a fantasyland rather than reality will publicly engage in a masturbatory ritual of anachronistically virtue signalling their ignorance about certain long ago war events as a way of trying to appear More Virtuous Than Thou. 

The subject in question is one I have rarely touched on to any degree in recent years for various and sundry reasons except for indirectly, in passing, and ultra briefly as a rule.{1} It was very tiring in years past dealing with theologically bereft, rationally inept, and charitably bankrupt so-called apologists who were tinkling cymbals, seriously in over their heads, and lacking the humility and grace to admit it.

One can only explain to such folks their deficiencies in argument as well as thoroughly vanquish their pathetic offering so many times before realizing that the time is better spent in more fruitful pursuits:{2} the reason in a nutshell why I have more or less ignored this subject for the past decade plus. Well that and to be blunt its just so fucking boring a subject to retread over and over again especially when those who instigate the matter are as a rule so damn dumb on key issues of the subject in general and just as evidently uninterested in authentic dialogue and broadening their simplistic apologetics mentality.{3} However, I did get the germ of an idea a couple of years ago that if I was ever to approach these matters again at some point in the future to do so differently than I previously had. It would basically involve issuing a challenge to those who frankly cannot shut the hell up on this matter.{4}

I will undertake time-willing before the month of August is over a setting forth of the planned challenge in a fairly brief format{5} but at the same time not ignore any significant matter pertaining to it.

But enough on that for now.

Notes:

{1} The only exception to the rule thus far was this lengthy thread from a couple of years ago:

Commemorating a Controversial Anniversary (circa August 17, 2017)

{2} Such as dialoguing with people who are actually open to the discipline of the dialogue and not phonies who talk the talk but cannot walk the walk.

{3} This is one reason why religious apologetics in general has been at such a nadir in the past decade plus.

{4} Despite their manifested ignorance on it being downright Titanic in its overall scope.

{5} Based on past precedent, it is obvious that these folks are not intellectually capable of interacting with detailed expositions on rational and ethical matters.

Points to Ponder:

What happens is, you accumulate a great deal of acquaintances and friendships over the years and you just can't always spend as much time as you would like, not only with your friends and acquaintances, but with your relative. It's very difficult. Sometimes you get a call and, gee, an uncle passed away that you really liked, or a cousin or somebody else. So each day becomes a little more precious then the day that preceded it. [Jamie Farr]

The Mueller Fantasy Comes Crashing Down

This is a devastating take down on those #NeverTrump and #Resistance folks who have been engaging in a fantasy for the past three years.

On Veritatis Splendor, Gaudium et Spes, and Intrinsic Evil:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

Though I have written on this subject before at length, to avoid providing fodder for potential distractions, I am going to write this exposition as a stand alone piece. On the subject of intrinsic evils of certain sorts, I see frequent references to Veritatis Splendor §80 and its citation of Gaudium et Spes §27. Since the primary text involved here is from the former but cites the latter, let us look at the underlying context starting with some considerations about the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes from the Second Vatican Council.

Like all magisterial texts, Gaudium et Spes (GS) is supposed to be interpreted according to general norms of interpretation. The diverse elements contained within that particular document make this obligation even more important than is normally the case -so much so that Gaudium et Spes itself in its first footnote specifically says this. To wit:

The Pastoral Constitution "De Ecclesia in Mundo Huius Temporis" is made up of two parts; yet it constitutes an organic unity. By way of explanation: the constitution is called "pastoral" because, while resting on doctrinal principles, it seeks to express the relation of the Church to the world and modern mankind. The result is that, on the one hand, a pastoral slant is present in the first part, and, on the other hand, a doctrinal slant is present in the second part. In the first part, the Church develops her teaching on man, on the world which is the enveloping context of man's existence, and on man's relations to his fellow men. In part two, the Church gives closer consideration to various aspects of modern life and human society; special consideration is given to those questions and problems which, in this general area, seem to have a greater urgency in our day. As a result in part two the subject matter which is viewed in the light of doctrinal principles is made up of diverse elements. Some elements have a permanent value; others, only a transitory one. Consequently, the constitution must be interpreted according to the general norms of theological interpretation. Interpreters must bear in mind-especially in part two-the changeable circumstances which the subject matter, by its very nature, involves.{1}

If the Constitution in its prefatory footnote{2} says that the first part of the text is presenting a pastoral slant in the first part of the text, then it is what it is.  No pundits, agenda provocateurs, or apologists can change that unless we seek to ascribe to words meanings they do not have. There is no small problem with those who approach magisterial texts with the same lack of discernment as fundamentalists do with the Bible. And with that in mind, let us consider now for a moment Veritatis Splendor §80 and its citation of Gaudium et Spes §27:

Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature "incapable of being ordered" to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed "intrinsically evil" (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object". The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: "Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator".{3}

This quote from Veritatis Splendor (VS) certainly appears to support the reading of this text as certain pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists claim. But one of the general norms of proper theological interpretation is to consider the words in their original context and meaning. A reference to GS in VS cannot make the former statements more authoritative than they already were if there is no manifested intention in the text to actually do so. So that brings us to an important question not even considered by the aforementioned   pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists; namely, what was the intention of the Pope in issuing Veritatis Splendor §80 and what was the intention of the Pope in citing Gaudium et Spes §27 in the text? Let us turn to the encyclical itself for the requisite evidence to be had -all emphasis is mine and all footnotes not relevant to the question removed:

Today, however, it seems necessary to reflect on the whole of the Church's moral teaching, with the precise goal of recalling certain fundamental truths of Catholic doctrine which, in the present circumstances, risk being distorted or denied. In fact, a new situation has come about within the Christian community itself, which has experienced the spread of numerous doubts and objections of a human and psychological, social and cultural, religious and even properly theological nature, with regard to the Church's moral teachings. It is no longer a matter of limited and occasional dissent, but of an overall and systematic calling into question of traditional moral doctrine, on the basis of certain anthropological and ethical presuppositions.

...

Given these circumstances, which still exist, I came to the decision — as I announced in my Apostolic Letter Spiritus Domini, issued on 1 August 1987 on the second centenary of the death of Saint Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori — to write an Encyclical with the aim of treating "more fully and more deeply the issues regarding the very foundations of moral theology", foundations which are being undermined by certain present day tendencies.{4}

Notice the pope making reference to the lack of harmony between the traditional response of the Church and certain theological positions"? This makes it clear that the intention of the encyclical is to be in continuity with the past and show proper harmony. There is no such harmony of Veritatis Splendor §80 with prior teaching when attempting to take such a theologically flawed interpretation of the text. Plus, such a fundamentalist reading of the text as not a few theologically challenged pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists do has its own share of problems. Let us consider one such example right now: the claim of slavery as being intrinsically evil according to a fundamentally flawed reading of Veritatis Splendor §80. This is a problem noted back in 2005 by the late Cardinal Avery Dulles in the following fashion:

In 1863 John Henry Newman penned some fascinating reflections on slavery. A fellow Catholic, William T. Allies, asked him to comment on a lecture he was planning to give, asserting that slavery was intrinsically evil. Newman replied that, although he would like to see slavery eliminated, he could not go so far as to condemn it as intrinsically evil. For if it were, St. Paul would have had to order Philemon, “liberate all your slaves at once.” Newman, as I see it, stood with the whole Catholic tradition. In 1866 the Holy Office, in response to an inquiry from Africa, ruled that although slavery (servitus) was undesirable, it was not per se opposed to natural or divine law.{5}

The reason I cite the above source will hopefully be evident when considering some of what I have written in years past on these and other related themes. To wit: 

The church's position on slavery is often misunderstood. The prohibition was on chattel slavery, not all forms of slavery indiscriminately. This is why the Holy Office in 1866 proclaimed the following: 

"Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons. It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given. The purchaser should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave." [Holy Office: Instruction (circa June 20, 1866)] 

The condemnations of Vatican II of slavery do not contradict this at all but is nothing more than a reaffirmation of the papal condemnations of chattel slavery issued by Pope Gregory XVI in 1839, Pope Pius VII in 1815, Pope Benedict XIV in 1741, Pope Innocent XI in 1686, Pope Urban VIII in 1639, Pope Gregory XIV in 1591, Pope Paul III in 1537, and Pope Eugene IV in 1435. Vatican II did not proclaim any dogmas[...] or give any indication of condemning slavery except in passing so we cannot under general norms of theological interpretation take such a condemnation any further than was previously the case.{6}

By the very general norms of theological interpretation specifically invoked in Gaudium et Spes itself, it is not credible to read the reference in Gaudium et Spes §27 to slavery in the sort of all encompassing universal fashion that most pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists would attempt to do. In just the slavery example alone, it is easy to demonstrate that a fundamentalist reading of Gaudium et Spes §27 as cited in Veritatis Splendor §80 is highly problematical theologically. Why? Because slavery is hardly the only subject that at first glance would be given a blanket condemnation of "intrinsically evil" in VS §80. Furthermore, there is far more documented evidence on the subject of slavery than on virtually any other example cited in the paragraph and despite that factor, the text itself if not read carefully would appear to involve itself in a blatant contradiction of settled church teaching on that matter which would discredit the very veracity of the Church itself. This is why general norms of theological interpretation are so damn important and why the pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists who flatly ignore them in their reams of various and sundry online virtue signalling bloviations frankly do not deserve to be taken seriously.

This is also why rather than go off into the sort of games to which not a few  pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists like to play, I want to at this time propose some questions for the aforementioned folks who would read the subjects touched on in Veritatis Splendor §80 in a fundamentalist fashion to buttress particular pet issues of theirs without concern for accuracy or honesty. Namely:

• Do you believe substandard housing conditions are intrinsically evil?

• Do you believe deportations are intrinsically evil?

Those pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists who would approach Veritatis Splendor §80 in a fundamentalist fashion without concern for general norms of theological interpretation are asked to give a simple "yes" or "no" answer to each question above. I am not interested in any commentary from them. I am not interested in qualifications of any kind from them. Why? Because something that is intrinsically evil does not admit of objective qualifications: that is what the word "intrinsic" means. Ergo, a simple yes or no answer to these questions is in itself sufficient to reply. And its important for the Veritatis Splendor §80 fundamentalists to answer these questions because VS §80 also says this (all emphasis is mine):

Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature "incapable of being ordered" to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed "intrinsically evil" (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object". The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: "Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator".{7}

I trust those who pay particular attention to the bolded parts of the excised paragraph above from Veritatis Splendor §80 can see what problems their fundamentalist hermeneutic leads to interpretation wise. So again, I ask:

• Do you believe substandard housing conditions are intrinsically evil?

• Do you believe deportations are intrinsically evil?

Please give a simple "yes" or "no" answer to each question above. For the record, my answer is no. It is very evident that Veritatis Splendor §80 enunciated a general principle and then sought to give some examples; however, rather than parse the source cited to be theologically exact, it cited the entire passage without qualification. This would appear to be a defect in the text itself as is not irregular where lengthy magisterial texts are concerned and the Vatican has itself admitted this can happen from time to time. Observe:

When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question.{8}

From a straightforward reading of Veritatis Splendor §80, it is evident that in that paragraph there is a deficiency. Namely, the failure to parse the text of Gaudium et Spes §27 to delineate between intrinsic evils and more generally abhorrent or disgraceful actions. While making no attempt at completion, if I was to attempt such a separation myself, I would classify the following items from the lengthy Gaudium et Spes §27 citation in Veritatis Splendor §80 as intrinsic evils: homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, voluntary suicide. The rest while admitting of varying degrees of disgrace{9} do not meet the criteria for being considered intrinsically evil; ergo, a more precise delineation in Veritatis Splendor §80 would have been preferable from a more precise doctrinal or theological point of view. Of course Veritatis Splendor by its own admission{10} did not manifestly intend to do this. This is why it is a theologically flawed reading of the text to attempt to interpret it in this kind of fashion.

I realize this sort of claim will likely enrage certain pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists who seemingly spend much of their waking online lives doing this sort of thing but that is their problem, not those who are interested in what the Church actually teaches and who utilize tools the Church herself has put forward for correctly ascertaining these matters.

So having given my answer to the questions above, I will ask one final time of all pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists to answer these two questions with a simple yes or no answer with no commentary whatsoever:

• Do you believe substandard housing conditions are intrinsically evil?

• Do you believe deportations are intrinsically evil?

For until these questions are answered in the manner requested above, there is no reason to take any pundits, agenda provocateurs, or apologists seriously whenever they regularly virtue signal their presumptive all piousness by kvetching and generally act like a pompous blowhard on discussing these subjects. (Or any that pertain directly or indirectly to them.)


Notes:

{1} Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes Preface Footnote (circa December 7, 1965)

{2} Which must be considered when seeking to interpret the proper sense of the council text.

{3} Pope John Paul II: Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor §80 (circa August 6, 1993)

{4} Pope John Paul II: Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor §4, §5 (circa August 6, 1993)

{5} Cardinal Avery Dulles: From the First Things Article Development or Reversal (circa October 2005)

{6} Excerpt from a Rerum Novarum Post (circa August 21, 2018)

{7} Pope John Paul II: Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendour §80 (circa August 6, 1993)

{8} Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Instruction Donum Veritatis on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, Sections 24 (circa May 24, 1990)

{9} I note this for those who will in the absence of an explicit statement from me on this matter rashly presume that I am somehow claiming that there is nothing ever problematical (actually or at least potentially) in the other areas so listed.

{10} See footnote four.

Federal Judge Dismisses Nick Sandmann’s Lawsuit Against The Washington Post

It is sure nice to know that at this stage of the process, major newspapers can libel minor children and incite mobs against them for being politically incorrect and not face repercussions financial or otherwise. 

Anyone who cannot set aside their political biases and see the problems here are themselves part of the problem.

Briefly...

I have long thought that the impeach President Donald Trump movement was on life support. It sounds as if yesterday Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller himself inadvertently pulled the plug.

Bernie Sanders Campaign Responds To Staffers’ Demand For $15 Minimum Wage By … Cutting Back Hours

Prediction: Bernie and his bots will learn exactly zero about this whole situation in terms of economics!

On Waterboarding:

In over 3300 published posts to this site since its inception nearly seventeen years ago, the post you are reading is the only one ever devoted solely to the subject of waterboarding.{1} Why? Because in my experience, no one wants to discuss this subject without the grossest of oversimplifications to push their particular agenda on it either for or against. It is therefore not a subject I have expended an ounce of energy on for a long time. In fact, I doubt I have said more than a few sentences on the subject in the past ten years including the comments I am typing right now.{2}

One problem that I have noticed over the years is that those who prattle on about it regularly are often unethical in their manner of discussing the subject.{3} I also have no patience for those who play the "waterboarding is a baptism of freedom" crap either and see similar problems in their approach.

And since there are literally no honest brokers on this issue that I have seen thus far; therefore, until there actually is, I will not lift a finger to discuss the matter again in any public context whatsoever and this will be my last statement on the matter for the indefinite future.

Notes:

{1} And only the second posting that even has waterboarding as anything but a remotely ancillary at best subject matter of discussion.

{2} A quick perusal of the archives of this website while writing this post reminded me that it was last discussed in any context back in early 2009 and I cannot recall prior to this current posting saying anything else about it in any written or spoken format (publicly or privately) in the intervening ten plus years.

{3} Despite said folks frequent public posturings on the matter as if they are More Ethical Than Thou.

Is Somalian-born far-left 'squad' member Ilhan Omar 'married to her brother'? Trump makes extraordinary suggestion about one of his Democrat tormentors

In the words of that great western philosopher Edmund Blackadder:

"I smell something fishy, and I’m not talking about the contents of Baldrick’s apple crumble."

Secret Files Tell Romanovs' Final Terror

A Message for "The Squad":

In light of recent controversial Twitter messages from President Trump, revisiting these lyrics seems appropriate...

I hear people talkin' bad,
About the way they have to live here in this country
Harpin' on the wars we fight
And gripin' 'bout the way things oughta be
And I don't mind 'em switchin' sides
And standin' up for things they believe in
But when they're runnin' down our country, man
They're walkin' on the fightin' side of me

They're walkin' on the fightin' side of me
Runnin' down a way of life
Our fightin' men have fought and died to keep
If you don't love it, leave it
Let this song that I'm singin' be a warnin'
When you're runnin' down our country, hoss
You're walkin' on the fightin' side of me

I read about some squirrelly guy
Who claims that he just don't believe in fightin'
And I wonder just how long
The rest of us can count on bein' free
They love our milk and honey
But they preach about some other way of livin'
But when they're runnin' down our country, man
They're walkin' on the fightin' side of me

They're walkin' on the fightin' side of me
Runnin' down the way of life
Our fightin' men have fought and died to keep
If you don't love it, leave it
Let this song that I'm singin' be a warnin'
When you're runnin' down our country, man
You're walkin' on the fightin' side of me

You're walkin' on the fightin' side of me
Runnin' down the way of life
Our fightin' men have fought and died to keep
If you don't love it, leave it
Let this song that I'm singin' be a warnin'
When you're runnin' down our country, hoss
You're walkin' on the fightin' side of me
[Merle Haggard (circa December 1969)]

"One From the Vault" Dept.

The following is a flashback to the archives of this website from 2005...

[W]ith the marxists it is not actual results which are important but instead it is the intentions of the advocates.... I have no patience whatsoever for pseudo-"peacemakers" anymore when it comes to the subject of the current military involvement in the Middle East. These pseudo-"peacemakers" have no proactive plan behind US withdrawal from Iraq and they would not be willing to face up to what would happen in that scenario: because they would claim that their intentions were good.

Remember, there was no shortage of marxists who were masquerading under the masks of "peacemakers" and "social justice advocacy" who celebrated the US withdrawal from Vietnam. However, these very same seditionists never took responsibility for the aftermath. The very same people who (i) protested the war, (ii) tried to paint our soldiers in the worst light possible, and (iii) often were vocal about wanting to see a communist victory in SE Asia managed to get their way...

The United States scaled down military operations in 1972 shortly before the elections. After the elections, there was some continued bombing -particularly over Christmas of 1972 to bring the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table. The war ended in 1973 and the US military presence was absent the country after April of 1973. That is not to say that we were completely gone but the presence that remained there until 1975 was very minimal. It was not until 1975 that it could be said (albeit rather disingenuously) that the US was forced out of the country and that "force" was a result of the curtailing of funding by the congress -certainly not by the North Vietnamese themselves.

Lest there be any misunderstandings, from 1975-1978, there were more people massacred by the communist Vietnamese and Cambodian regimes than killed in any fashion during the period of US involvement from the earliest date we sent in so-called "military advisors" in 1957 to the final vestiges leaving Saigon in 1975. But the more activist of the hippie scumbags who sought to undermine our efforts in Vietnam refuse to face up to the results of what their seditious (if not downright treasonous) actions brought about. Again, results do not matter to marxists much as facts do not matter. All that matters is their intentions - a point which raises another interesting theme to consider.

The marxists --and every promoter of socialism is a defacto marxist in some form or another[...]-- have a notorious double standard from which they operate. Essentially, they judge their own policies not by the uniform and undeniable[...] failure of their policies every time they have been tried. No, with the marxists it is on the intentions behind their policies that they focus on. But they then judge their political enemies -and America is probably first on that list- by the results of their policies. And since America --despite its overall success as a bastion of freedom unlike any nation in history-- is imperfect, then there are always points that can be focused on to America's discredit. But the marxist intentions of a "paradise on earth" are far more idyllic than the even the significant results that America has achieved. For that reason, the results of marxist policies are ignored while the intentions of the marxists are their point of focus.

Now granted, the marxists fabricated a lot of stuff to make things appear even worse than they actually were but that point aside, there is enough in the historical record without fabrications to enable America to always look bad next to the ideal that marxists claim to repine for. And that is the secret essentially to why marxists can lie, cheat, steal, murder, and commit any atrocity and still be held up as icons for the marxist cause ala the near-veneration of predators like Castro, Guevera, Ortega, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Lenin, etc. by not a few who disingenuously claim the mantles of "progressivist" or "peacemakers."

Remember, there was no shortage of marxists who were masquerading under the masks of "peacemakers" and "social justice advocacy" who celebrated the US withdrawal from Vietnam. However, these very same seditionists never took responsibility for the aftermath. The very same people who (i) protested the war, (ii) tried to paint our soldiers in the worst light possible, and (iii) often were vocal about wanting to see a communist victory in SE Asia managed to get their way. They then lie and make stupid statements like the violence ended when the US was forced out of the country and then they wonder why no one familiar with history{2} takes them seriously for a second. Let us clarify what actually happened.

The United States scaled down military operations in 1972 shortly before the elections. After the elections, there was some continued bombing -particularly over Christmas of 1972 to bring the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table. The war ended in 1973 and the US military presence was absent the country after April of 1973. That is not to say that we were completely gone but the presence that remained there until 1975 was very minimal. It was not until 1975 that it could be said (albeit rather disingenuously) that the US was forced out of the country and that "force" was a result of the curtailing of funding by the congress -certainly not by the North Vietnamese themselves. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 17, 2005)]

Believe all women’ makes the ‘Pence rule’ just common sense

Briefly...

I chuckle at those who actually believe Justin Amash is some paragon of principle rather than the obvious opportunistic grandstanding charlatan he is. Take for instance his big announcement of "leaving the Republican Party" on America's Independence Day. Yeah he was not making this all about himself on America's birthday!

And the choice of hill to die on as the Mueller Report which cleared the president of collusion and would not recommend prosecution for obstruction? Again, strong choice there as a "prophet of freedom" where folks like Carter Page actually had their constitutional rights rolled over by the tank of Leviathan government while Amash stood by the whole time as silent as a whore in church. Yeah, big defender of "personal liberty" there!

Then of course there is the tiny matter of Amash trailing badly in primary polls in 2020. I suppose the thought of being embarrassed in a Republican primary had no part in his "Profiles in Courage" decision to suddenly become a supposed "Independent voter." More like he is a Losertarian and always has been a Losertarian but did not have the guts to run as a Losertarian even in an uprising election year like 2010 because he knew even in that kind of favourable electoral climate he would have lost if he did because that is what Losertarians do when running for office under their stupid banner at all times and places lo these past 47 years: they lose and lose badly.

And finally, let us be blunt: yes Amash pulled his stunt because he is mad about Trump. But why is he really so mad? Is it really some "principled stand" or is it that the Amash family took a heap big hit in the pocketbook in their Chinese tool business because of the Trump tariffs? If you think it is the former as opposed to the latter, then in the words of that great western philosopher Roger Waters "ha ha, charade you are!" Just like Justin Amash.

Authorities investigate reports of migrants trying to buy children to enter the U.S.

This throws a monkey wrench into the whole "they are separating children from their parents" public kvetching by those who were as silent as a whore in church when this sort of thing occurred in the previous administration. As a result, I frankly find it impossible to take such folks seriously.

Nonetheless, there is a possible solution for this potential problem: mandatory DNA screening of any child and purported parent. If the DNA match falls within the acceptable range of familial relations to ascertain probable parentage, then no problem. If however there is no such match, that would be a different matter altogether and the party in question could be taken into firmer custody, fingerprinted, deported, and ultimately lose any future right to legally be in the United States.

Briefly...

Pope gives relics of St. Peter to Orthodox patriarch

St. Peter's bones are still buried in his tomb under the high altar of the basilica. Pope Francis giving a few fragments to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew was an unexpected gesture. Beyond that, I have not had long to ponder this to know what I think about it.

If readers were expecting a knee-jerk reaction of defacto anger and public blustering, I am afraid I will have to disappoint.

Hopefully this gesture will help in the growing ties between the Pope and Ecumenical Patriarch and through the prayers of St. Peter will aid in the restoration of full communion between the Churches.

'Mini AOC' Parody Accounts Are Gone Thanks To Lefties Doxxing And Threatening An 8-Year-Old

This could be enough to push a reasonable person who does not like Donald Trump to vote for him just to spite the sort of pieces of shit who would do this!

Points to Ponder:

They can’t win an argument. They can’t win the votes, not in Europe or Asia or South America or here. The liberal elite has failed to provide prosperity for anyone but themselves. The liberal elite has failed to provide peace for anyone but themselves – you don’t see a lot of them in uniform in Whocaresistan fighting the wars Bill Kristol advocated and Joe Biden voted for. The liberal elite provides only a system of interlocking and self-reinforcing grievances in which you, the Normals, are perpetually the oppressors, yet you’re the only ones being oppressed. No one wants that, except the SJWs who find meaning in fussy social media hate-mobs, so they try to jam their garbage ideology down your throat by threatening to kick you off Twitter, or by making it so you lose your job, or by preventing you from going out and eating tacos in peace, or by calling you all sorts of names ending with -ist and -phobe.

These are not the actions of winners. These are the actions of losers who see their power slipping away and will do anything to keep it.

Anything.

Yes, including violence. [Kurt Schlichter]

Al Yankovic
@alyankovic

I am profoundly sad to hear that after 67 years, MAD Magazine is ceasing publication. I can’t begin to describe the impact it had on me as a young kid – it’s pretty much the reason I turned out weird. Goodbye to one of the all-time greatest American institutions. #ThanksMAD

12:20 AM · Jul 4, 2019

For those who did not know, the occasional Dept post titles I used to use regularly on Rerum Novarum and elsewhere over the years{1} was a shameless ripoff from Mad Magazine. I read it occasionally over the years but was never a subscriber. Nonetheless, I am one of those who were influenced by them and will be sad to see them go.

Note:

{1} And still from time to time do.

The Liberal War On You