More on the Controversial Dubia Subject:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I finished this material some time ago and have been debating with myself as to the best time to post it. I suppose there is no better time than the start of Holy Week, so I have decided to post it today. For those who have not seen the previous note on this subject, I recommend they read it first as it provides both some context as well as material for what is to follow.

To start with, I want to make it clear for any who object to the stance taken in the previous note that its not a requirement of the pope to respond to the four cardinals on their terms and whose “Dubia” is arguably worded in a somewhat disingenuous fashion. The reason I say this is simple: the answers are more complex than simple black and white yes and no answers. To illustrate that point in greater detail, I will touch on each question after posting them in their entirety first. Without further ado, let us get to it!

1. It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?

My response to Question #1:

Question #1 as phrased above involves certain presuppositions and drastically over-simplifies the situations of the divorced and remarried.{1} It cannot for those reasons be answered in a one word yes or no format; therefore, to ask for an answer in that form as the four cardinals do comes off to these eyes as rather questionable viz their motives for reasons I specified in the previous note{2}.

2. After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 79, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?

My response to Question #2: 

Question #2 suffers from the same kind of presuppositional flaws as Question #1 does above. The Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (AL) acknowledges that objective mortal sin is not always in individual circumstances actual mortal sin. How is that a denial of Veritatis Splendor's teaching on the existence of intrinsically grave sins? Simple, its not. But again, that cannot be explained with a simple yes or no answer and the cardinals who issued this “Dubia” should know this as its a pretty fundamental Catholic moral theology issue.

3. After Amoris Laetitia (301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?

My response to Question #3: 

Question #3 is asking if the prohibition against adultery is still in force. Obviously it is. The assumption behind the question from all appearances is that any “objective situation of grave habitual sin” (“Dubia”) must ipso facto involve actual mortal sin. I touched on this in my prior note{3} but again, the attempt with the question to try and force a one word answer is at the very least suspicious.{4}

4. After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 81, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?

My response to Question #4: 

Question #4 proposes a false dichotomy in the form of an argument which strives to make "circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility” incompatible with a condemnation of acts which are objectively intrinsically evil. This is a false dichotomy disingenuously masquerading as a question. Furthermore, it cannot be answered accurately with a single word yes or no so again, the cardinals who pushed this publicly contrary to the manner in which the Magisterium has said such issues should be handled{5} are for that reason at least deserving of a rebuke. I for one consider Pope Francis’ refusal to even acknowledge them on this to be an adequate rebuke but that is neither here nor there. Onto the final question.

5. After Amoris Laetitia (303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 56, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?

My response to Question #5: 

Question #5 is essentially a form of Neo-Feeneyism as it by logical extension treats every objectively grave act as automatically an actual mortal sin. In that sense, it is more or less a rehashing of Question #4. Like its predecessor question, this question involves presuppositions that fly in the face of Magisterial teaching (pre-Francis), the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC){6}, and Doctors of the Church such as St Alphonsis Ligouri and St Thomas Aquinas. And like the prior questions, it cannot be accurately responded to in a one word answer which again, the drafters of the “Dubia” have to have known. We are not talking about ordinary Catholics in the pew here as for them this might not be so evident. No, these are Cardinals of the Roman Church so what is their excuse for either not knowing this or (if they did) disingenuously pretending they did not in issuing this purported “Dubia” to Pope Francis?

In summary, while I have my own issues with some of what Pope Francis has said and done -and even in some minor ways with this Apostolic Exhortation{7}; nonetheless, the Pope’s choosing to leave these four Cardinals hanging by not responding to their "Dubia" is hardly one of them.


Notes:

{1} In essence, the divorced and remarried can go to Confession and then receive Communion if they are striving to live chastely but nonetheless fall into sin of a grave nature. And as often as they continue to strive to live chastely and yet fail, as long as their repentance is sincere, God will forgive them in Confession and they can receive Communion. This is why discretion and the aid of a Confessor on these matters is of no small importance and is emphasized a number of times in AL.

{2} "[I]t is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth" (CDF: Instruction Donum Veritatis). By any objective observation, these Cardinals ran afoul of this Joseph Ratzinger penned and John Paul II approved Instruction by taking their issue public as they did.” [Excerpt from the Facebook Note Very Briefly On the Dubia (circa March 13, 2017) as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa April 9, 2017)]

{3} “The bottom line is this: the principle that every objectively grave act or situation is not automatically mortally sinful is not new.”  [Excerpt from the Facebook Note Very Briefly On the Dubia (circa March 13, 2017) as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa April 9, 2017)]

{4} See footnote two.

{5} "[I]t is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth." [CDF: Instruction Donum Veritatis as cited in the Facebook Note Very Briefly On the Dubia as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa April 9, 2017)]

{6} “The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.” [Excerpt from the Catechism of the Catholic Church Part III, Section I, Chapter I, Article IV The Morality of Human Acts Section 1754 (circa October 11, 1992)]

{7} Sticking only to ecclesial matters here, I do believe that a greater emphasis on repentance and the Sacrament of Reconciliation as well as the importance of regularly receiving it for those who intend to receive Communion at mass would have been a worthwhile inclusion in AL. Also worth including could have been a recommended timeline of reception for folks who intend to continue receiving Communion on at least a weekly basis. (Say once every 3 months at least!) But that’s a subject for another time perhaps.

Very Briefly on the Dubia Subject...

As it is Lent and I am frankly beyond sick and tired of seeing the issue in question here be flogged in the feeds like a proverbial dead horse by the usual suspects, I am posting at this time with a few minor tweaks a note I wrote back in January which has been in draft form until now.{1} My words will be in regular font.

He should as the Roman Pontiff, answer [the] dubia

Why? To start with, the CDF has made it eminently clear in past instructions that "it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth" (CDF: Instruction Donum Veritatis). By any objective observation, these Cardinals ran afoul of this Joseph Ratzinger penned and John Paul II approved Instruction by taking their issue public as they did.

Also, the deliberate obtuseness involved here frankly does not do those prelates any credit. This is not that hard to figure out really and here is a hint: it involves the ethical methodology of casuistry or case based reasoning seeking to resolve moral problems by applying abstract rules to concrete or particular instances. Here is an article on the subject for your consideration:

LINK

The bottom line is this: the principle that every objectively grave act or situation is not automatically mortally sinful is not new. St. Alphonsus Ligouri wrote on this in the seventeenth century, heck St. Thomas Aquinas wrote on it in the thirteenth century. St. John Paul II noted in 1984 that "[c]learly there can occur situations which are very complex and obscure from a psychological viewpoint and which have an influence on the sinner's subjective culpability" (Ap. Ex Reconciliato et Paenitentia). All Pope Francis has done is take that principle and apply it to divorce and remarriage. The argument is not that the latter is not wrong or seriously sinful of course but instead that "[i]t can no longer simply be said that all those living in any ‘irregular situation’ are living in a state of mortal sin" (Ap. Ex. Amoris Laetitia). Discernment of individual cases is needed and that is for penitents and their confessors to do, not those outside the specific situation, be they folks on Facebook, folks who write for periodicals, or even Cardinals of the Church. This is really not all that difficult for those who are not determined to be obtuse about it.

Oh and before anyone gets mad at me, hey I am just "speaking hard truths in love" here folks. Most notably the hard truths that individual situations are not as black and white as many may wish. I realize this frustrates the desire of many folks to play the roles of James and John and ask Jesus if they can call down fire from heaven on all the sinners and heathens but I digress.

Note:

{1} I have a sequel to this note that addresses various objections that were posted when this material was originally posted in comment form a while back. It will be published to this website and elsewhere soon.

As its been a long while since I have published here, it seems appropriate to revisit briefly the subject of comments boxes. I have from day one not been a fan of them, have used them only sparingly in any publishing medium since that time, and have never used them here at Rerum Novarum. Rather than revisit that subject here at any detail, I will simply refer the reader to the last substantial treatment written here about them. After all, for the most part everything I would say now on the subject was already said back then so why invent the wheel anew? Without further ado...

On Reiterating Anew Our Comments Box Policy (circa December 1, 2008)

My second contribution to the Jaded Politics project courtesy of the Musings From Exile webpage{1} can be read HERE.

Note:

{1} I link to the Musings From Exile website version so I do not trigger a trackback to it on the main page. (To ensure that I keep Rerum Novarum separate from that project.)

My third posting to Musings From Exile can be read HERE. In essence it is an old draft of expository musings from Rerum Novarum which was brought up from mothballs, revised slightly, and posted today. The subject is sports related and as the Masters tournament has concluded, it is on the issue of what is required of someone to be considered "Golf's Greatest."

My debut column as posted to Jaded Politics can be read HERE. I link to the Musings From Exile website version so I do not trigger a trackback to it on the main page. (To ensure that I keep Rerum Novarum separate from the other project I am contributing to.) {1}

It may seem odd to try and keep that traffic from this website but when you work on a group project -be it in writing or other endeavours, you need to recognize the rules inherent in the respective projects involved. For that reason, to avoid any possibility of transgressing the latter, all material from Jaded Politics threads will be posted to the Musings From Exile website and shared to Rerum Novarum via the latter, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Note:

{1} I am simply going to note this point in a single footnote to all applicable threads for a while.

Musings From Exile: Introduction and Page Disclaimer

This is the inaugural posting from the Musings From Exile website outlining a little about the project I mentioned earlier that I would be involved with. For those who have questions as to how I view things in the interval since Rerum Novarum was suspended and now, I touch on it briefly there. In short, not much has changed in how I approach issues from my first involvements in online writing to the present but I digress.

Points to Ponder:

For everything there is a season,
And a time for every matter under heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die;
A time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal;
A time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh;
A time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to throw away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
A time to embrace, And a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to seek, and a time to lose;
A time to keep, and a time to throw away;
A time to tear, and a time to sew;
A time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate,
A time for war, and a time for peace.
[Ecclesiastes iii,1-8]

Notification of An Intended Return to Website Publishing:

Though it has been pondered a bit in sundry times and in divers occasions to return to this site, I could not find the motivation to do so apart from one specific circumstance a few years ago.{1} However, the motivation previously lacking has been found now with my planned involvement in an extensive writing project that I may touch on a bit here and there if I feel so inclined to.

While I will mainly be publishing on a new website that I have set up for that purpose{2}, it is also likely that I will resume posting here as well on subjects that will not be germane to the subjects to be written on there. However, upon resuming publication at this humble site, I will not have any set schedule for it as I did in years past where I sought to post at certain self-prescribed intervals of output.

Anyway, that is all for now until further notice.

Notes:

{1} I did subsequent to December of 2009 post revisions to some postings from 2006 which I had a few people tell me were far too polemical in tone and which had needlessly prolonged or otherwise exasperated an old feud. In the interest of seeking to heal wounds, I undertook a rather ambitious project reworking in more amiable tonality four posts which were particularly polemical in tonality and intent. But that is a subject for another time perhaps if ever I decide to revisit it which (quite frankly) is highly doubtful at this point.

{2} As for whether or not I will cross post links or material from that website here or not, I see no reason not to post material from there to this website as well. I have however decided that material composed for this website which are not germane to the specific project guidelines for the new website will not be posted there.

Notification of Suspension:

Unfortunately, Rerum Novarum has been a struggle to maintain with any degree of regularity in recent months.{1} It is now at a point of critical mass on many fronts and there is simply too much more stuff that will be focused on in the coming year. In applying anew and with greater determination on my part the theory of economics of Vilfredo Pareto on which I have written before to the principle of time-management, I am required at this time to suspend the current operative protocols of this humble weblog{2} indefinitely.

What is in the archives will remain there and posts which were planned for the coming months which are in unfinished draft status{3} will remain in the form they are currently in until I am both able as well as willing to get to them again. But as of the present posting, Rerum Novarum is hereby declared to be indefinitely suspended.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Notes:

{1} Actually, it has been this way for a good part of the past year essentially.

{2} The most recent operative protocols of Rerum Novarum were set forth in the following expository musing some time ago:

Reviewing Past Site Intentions, Some Current Tidbits, and Weblogging Policy For the Indefinite Future (circa January 11, 2008)

The aforementioned template will take effect once again should this suspension be lifted in the future and I start blogging again but as it sits now, they are to be considered superseded by what is outlined in this posting until further notice.

{3} Or even posts which are finished awaiting an opportune time or circumstance to occasion their posting.

It's Time to Explode the Myths About the New Deal

History repeats itself today because Dumbocrats do not learn from it. The New Deal prolonged and deepened a recession into a depression that was worse eight years into it than it was when it started and many of FDR's follies are being duplicated by the present administration. I have gone into this before in detail so rather than reinvent the wheel, I will simply put in a footnote the three part series where I did this in late 2006 responding to a rather misinformed individual{1} whose views on this are sadly not uncommon. Such lacunas in knowledge in my mind really make a good argument for home schooling in the more formative years in the absence of either solid charter schools or private education but that is a subject for another time perhaps.

Note:

{1} For a three part exposition on some of the myths of the New Deal that I wrote a few years ago on this humble weblog, see this thread for details:

On Historical Revisionism Surrounding the New Deal -Parts I-III (circa October 28, 2006)

The Tip of the Climategate Iceberg (Wall Street Journal)

Those who wonder why I have over the years to an increasing degree written on the subjects of argumentation fallacies, how to reason and apply logic, how to dialogue, and all that as well as emphasized the principle that logic and reason does not depend on ones academic degrees when disputing with people of various and sundry outlooks, I cannot think of a better illustration of why than the scandal of Climategate. It encapsulates in the magnitude and depth of its corruption by so-called "experts" precisely why I have always and will always take the approach towards issues and pronouncements on matters by so-called "experts" the way I do. And that is the bottom line really.

Obama Asked About Legalized Prostitution to Stimulate the Economy

We already have legalized prostitution in this country President Obama, look at what you and the Democrats are doing to try and get government run healthcare implemented for one such example. Oh and btw, you do not look good in black fishnets Mr. President!!!

Who Wants This Health Care "Reform"?

Someone should remind senators and representatives from Tennessee, Massachussets, Maine (earth to Snowe!!!), and Hawaii (not mentioned in the article but they had one that also went tits up) about the failures of such universal programs in their own states and ask them if they really want that nationally.

Alexander Hamilton, Economic Prophet

I cannot recommend Ron Chernow's book (of which the above article heavily excerpts) more highly for the detail and scope of what it undertakes to cover on one of the "forgotten Founding Fathers."

Points to Ponder:

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

Let’s take a look at social security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, social security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.

Now in our country under our free enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.

But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.

This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your children won’t decide when they’re in school where they will go or what they will do for a living. They will wait for the government to tell them where they will go to work and what they will do.

What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.

Former Representative Halleck of Indiana has said, “When the American people want something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want.”

So write, and if your representative writes back to you and tells you that he or she too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don’t let them get away with it. Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell them that you believe in government economy and fiscal responsibility; that you know governments don’t tax to get the money the need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he is on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say “I have heard from my constituents and this is what they want.”

Write those letters now; call your friends and them to write them. If you don’t, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. [Ronald Reagan (circa 1961)]

Miscellaneous Musings on "ObamaCare":

This was originally written as a footnote for a posting in another publishing medium. Without further ado...

[I]f this health care crap goes through, I will be considered a criminal. Because I am not going to buy health insurance PERIOD unless it is a purely catastrophic-only policy. I do not want health insurance, I do not need it, I take reasonably good care of myself and am improving in this area with each passing year (hence I look younger now than I did ten years ago), I never go to the emergency room for anything, I pay cash every time I go to the doctor, and I do not want to subsidize those who are irresponsible with their own health choices. So if this crap is passed, I will be fined and will not pay that fine which means I will have a misdemeanor on my otherwise spotless record and probably spend time in jail on this. Those who wonder why I rarely comment on this list and am slacking on my blogging in recent months, the reason is I am working through various channels to build coalitions politically to fight this garbage.

And though I have said it for months in other mediums, I have predicted a 40 seat GOP pickup in the House next year (and 6 in the Senate) of which I note here for the record. Unlike a lot of commentators or apologists, if I am wrong on something I will admit to it later to the same extent in which the original comment was made. (In this case, a post-post script of a list posting.)

In the aftermath of the last election, I revised my prediction to be a 41 seat GOP pickup in the House because Owens will not win re-election.

All Falling Down (Victor Davis Hanson)

One problem with knowing history when most people do not is you can see when it is repeating itself and many people do not listen. VDH goes over recent and more ancient history and points to parallels that more people should be aware of. And of course his indictment of Obama's governing is one I would love to see an O-bot respond to but I am not holding my breath!!!

2010 Could Easily Be Disastrous For Democrats

This was originally supposed to be posted in early October but I was unable to finish it until now. Nonetheless, Sean Trende has a good article here on the Kilgore election prediction absurdities. I did not have a chance to write an analysis on Kilgore's article but Trende now makes any effort on my part in that area superfluous. I will accompany this with my own reasons for espousing this for what is going on{1} but here it is in a nutshell: I have been saying since June in various and sundry places{2} that I was predicting a 40/6 seat pickup for the Republicans in 2010.

My 40 seat prediction{3} is a number incidentally that Michael Barone has since come around to viewing as "dark horse possibility" as of late compared to "not a snowballs chance" which was his view only six weeks earlier. Charlie Cook is now saying the odds of 40 in the House picked up is in the "33-50% range" compared to earlier when he was not so bold.{4} Here were my thoughts on this matter as of five weeks ago as expressed elsewhere:

[T]he entire House is up for re-election and there are about 50 seats in districts that went for McCain that are Democratic. Add to that the fact that there are Democratic incumbents in weak districts who have voted for crap and tax and also for this health care boondoggle and also that more seniors vote in off-elections than any other constituency and the seniors are PISSED at Obama and the Dems. The Senate for the demographic alignment issues cannot be taken in this cycle (though 6 seats as I said would be a nice dent into their advantage and solidify a filibuster: out of 34 odd seats up in this cycle that is about as good as it could get) and Obama is not up for re-election for three years at that point. So the anger at these arrogant Democratic majorities running roughshod over the public will have to come out somewhere and my guess is the body of congress where everyone is up for re-election and which is chaired by the highly unpopular Nancy Pelosi (who herself will win with about 73% of the vote in her district and therefore does not have the same fear as many of her colleagues will). I remind you in 1994 there was a 54 seat pickup and the environment now is a lot worse than it was then because the bills people were pissed about back then (assault weapons ban and Clinton's 1993 budget raising taxes) are nothing compared to the ones now (crap and tax passing the House with all but 8 votes from Democrats, the government run- health care that the public does not want and which they have been trying to ram through without anyone being able to read). Despite it all, a 40 seat gain would not match the 54 seat gain from 1994 but it would be enough for them to lose the House. And it may even be worse than that.

People like Kilgore can keep telling themselves it will be nothing because the guys in Jaws did not need a bigger boat either!!!

Notes:

{1} I am not sure if I covered any of this on the weblog offhand and do not have time to look for it if I did.

{2} As far as this weblog goes, see footnote one.

{3} Which since Owens won in NY 23 I have subsequently revised to a 41/6 prediction.

{4} Instead, saying the odds were "less than 25%".

Harry Reid on the Cloture Vote Today (HotAir)

A lot could be said about this but basically: comparing those who do not want to imprison others to Leviathan as "Orwellian" puts the "iron" in "ironic" Senator Reid. Does the "D" after your name stand for "Douchebag", "Dumbshit", or both???

Video: Norah O’Donnell challenges teen Palin admirer to televised debate (Hot Air)

This has to be seen to be believed. I will be posting a thread written about three months ago which follows up on the theme of corruption in journalism but for the moment, this is a case study in how far the msm has degenerated.

Breitbart To AG Eric Holder: Investigate ACORN or We Will Release More Tapes Just Before the Election

Having already written in some detail on the subject of ACORN and corruption in recent months{1} along other matters pertaining to this issue{2}, I want to reiterate something I have said more than once in various and sundry other mediums if not this one:

Hannah Giles, James O'Keefe, and Andrew Breitbart are genuine journalists as well as heroes.

And considering how badly 2010 is already going to be for the Democrats{3}, this news from Andrew Breitbart could very well only compound things beyond even what I have predicted{4} will happen.

Notes:

{1} On ACORN and Corruption (circa October 1, 2009)

{2} On Hannah Giles, ACORN, and the Fourth Amendment (circa October 24, 2009)

{3} I will go over this later today when I have more time and motivation to.

{4} See footnote three.

while watching Red Eye
and catching up a bit here
with haikus and stuff
[Written just now]

To pick up on something I just noted in another posting, I was recently made privy to the fact that someone else has decided to take up the sort of stuff the now defunct Coalition of Fog used to do and run a weblog directed against the idiocies of one Mark Shea. I wish them the best of luck in retaining their sanity as they attempt to navigate the depths of Shea's psyche.

The Coalition For Fog may be gone now but thankfully not from the Internet Archive

when will it begin?
well, depends on what "it" is
Clinton flashback mode
[Written on 11/20/08]

Dallas Police Ticketed 39 Drivers in 3 Years For Not Speaking English

I can sympathize for those who are ticketed and certainly if the cops were not supposed to give tickets for failing to speak English, they should not have. But at the same time, I am SICK AND TIRED of people who come to this country or are here a generation or more who do not assimilate. You can keep your native traditions and language within your family, etc. but in order to vote, in order to drive, in order to receive any benefit whatsoever, you should assimilate and learn the English language. Otherwise get the HELL out of this country!!!

in the midnight hour
thinking of the one I love
and watching Red Eye
[Written just now]

Congressman Says He Now Has ‘About 40 Likeminded Democrats’ Who Will Vote to Kill Health Bill if He Doesn’t Get Floor Vote on Pro-Life Amendment

Though ultimately the above amendment was passed and Nancy Pelosi's proposed health care bill along with it by a narrow margin (220-115), the principles I wrote in another medium retain their validity.

To reiterate them at this time, I do not for a second believe anyone who claims something is "not in the bill" who then votes against amendments to insure that what is "not in the bill" is not later on snuck into said bill either by rider, interpretation, etc.{1} Abortion whatever you think about it is not "health care" and therefore an amendment like this -which insures that any bill passed cannot later be interpreted or applied to allow for abortion- is wholly appropriate. I would personally prefer to see this whole misguided attempt at so-called "health care reform" crumble and burn in toto but if something is going to get through, than the more innocuous and less damaging, the better.

Note:

{1} Such people are unethical hypocritical pieces of garbage and should be shunned by anyone who purports to take reason, logic, and ethics seriously.

On the White Hizzouse Targeting Fox News:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Prefatory Note: This material was originally written to expand further on something written in another publishing medium by a good friend on the subjects noted in the title of this posting. It is posted here slightly revised and sans the original material of interaction but those who want to know the context can review this speech by Senator Lamar Alexander delivered on the Senate floor today to understand the magnitude of the subject at hand. -ISM]

While I watch Fox less than most others of my general outlook who watch it, those who would find nothing wrong with Fox being attacked by a sitting president and his administration in many cases would have crapped their pants if President George W. Bush and his administration had tried similar things with the alphabet channels, CNN, or MSNBC. Apologists of various views often do not follow a simple but important principle that what is right or wrong is right or wrong period, not determined by who does a particular action. The government trying to intimidate or silence the press outside of rare circumstances{1} is wrong PERIOD. It is what happens in police states and banana republics, NOT a society purporting to be a free Republic such as ours which talks about the importance of free speech and democratic rights.

There is a reason that while the mainstream media is dying and the lions share of their papers and publications are dwindling in subscriptions and it is not because of the internet. I say this because similar declines are not only avoided by Fox News but also The Wall Street Journal and Investors Business Daily all of which are increasing in subscribers. The Washington Times saw a decline but roughly less than half a percent which is probably too small to consider any kind of trend. The pattern is that periodicals and networks that do not actually do investigative journalism and do not report the news are losing viewers and readers while those that do these things are increasing.

If anyone needs a case in point to substantiate this assertion, I will go one better and provide you with two:

1) CNN purports to "fact check" the SNL comedy skit mocking President Obama for his two presidential accomplishments (namely "jack" and "squat").

2) The biggest story of corruption in decades was uncovered by Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe in busting ACORN:{2} those two did more investigative journalism on that matter than every news network. And only Fox was willing to give them airtime. The others avoided it as long as they could and when they did report it, they tried to make excuses for ACORN and find ways of shooting the messengers.

Those two alone outline the reason why while I get most of my news from the web when I do turn on a television to watch the news, 95% of the time I turn to Fox News. And the actions by the Obama administration only make me more determined in that choice. Any liberal who would claim to want "free speech" who would NOT defend Fox News from government intrusion and intimidation is a hypocrite and deserves to be exposed as such. (Conversely, any liberal who would go to bat for Fox News against government intrusion and intimidation deserves to be commended for their principled stand.)

Notes:

{1} There are very few of these areas and I am not about to go over them now except to state that the general rule I refer to here does have a few exceptions.

{2} I went over this subject in an expository musing on ACORN and corruption written mostly in mid September but completed and finally posted with last minute updates on October 1, 2009.

Briefly on the Al Cy Young:

The AL Cy Young was given recently to Zach Greinke of Kansas City. The following were my original statements made on October 4, 2009 in another publishing medium as to who should get it this year -later buttressed by additional arguments to sustain my original assertions but here were my original thoughts on the matter which remain unchanged in lieu of the recent news.

CC Sabathia in my mind blew his shot at the Cy Young by failing to win his 20th game in his final start and thus giving some limp to the Yankees going into the playoffs. Zach Greinke by blowing his final start should also lose out on the Cy Young since he had a chance to play spoiler for the Twins' playoff chances and did not get the job done.

King Felix won his 19th game and with an ERA in the 2's with the third fewest walks (after Greinke and Roy Halliday) is therefore is my defacto pick for the Cy Young. In my mind, besides the stats a player should do whatever he can to advance his team so the jury is still out on Verlander in my mind but if he loses today, no Cy Young for him give it to King Felix.

till death do us part
words often spoken but yet
rendered meaningless
[Written on 10/16/08]

The Inevitability Myth

Matthew Continetti is right: the idea that "they will get something done on health care" that is being floated around by pundits of various stripes is playing into a myth. There is nothing in stone saying that they will get anything done and when you look at the magnitude of the hurdles and the various competing and often glaring contradictions in different constituencies, etc., it should be glaringly evident that it will be darn difficult to pass even a severely watered down bill that will make all parties in the House happy{1}, likewise in the Senate. Then said divergent congressional bills would have to be reconciled in a way to make all parties happy and pass both houses before the president could sign and seal the deal. In other words, A LOT to do and quite possibly impossible. Keep your chins up, keep calling congresspeople and senators, and keep fighting folks!!!

Note:

{1} I originally wrote this for another publishing medium in the days before the House voted on Pelosi's bill last Saturday night barely passing it 220-215. Other than the bit footnoted, I stand by the rest of what is noted above.

Berkeley Breathed, drawn back to 'Bloom County' but looking forward | Hero Complex (Los Angeles Times)

Yeah Berke Breathed is mostly a liberal but I gotta admit that I miss Bloom County and am looking forward at some point in the future to getting the five volume anthology of every strip ever drawn.

Al Gore sued by over 30,000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud


The sad thing is, most people are so bereft of the concept of logic and how to use it, so incapable of using their intellectual faculties to discern that they often buy what anyone with a degree on something tells them. I have no degrees in climatology, just a lot of horse sense and I have been saying for years that this is a bunch of cowcrap. For crying out loud, Greenland is a sheet of ice now and 1000 years ago, Eric the Red or Leif Ericcson (cannot offhand recall which) named it "Greenland" because it was green then.

The earth was warmer during the so-called "Dark Ages" than it was in the twentieth century to say nothing of the twenty-first century. Global temperatures between 1940 and 1980 cooled, in the late 1970's many "experts" were saying it would be "another ice age." Then the earth warmed from 1980 to approximately 2000 and they sceamed "global warming oh God the seas will rise." Now things are cooling again and have been since approximately 1999-2000 and they are trying to equivocate on the temperature in order to claim an "emergency" no matter which direction the temperatures go in direct violation of the law of non-contradiction.

CNN Drops to Last Place Among Cable News Networks (The New York Times)

Keep "fact checking" SNL skits CNN, I am sure that will help your ratings!!!

What if George W. Bush had done that? (Politico)

I ask this question all the time whenever I see the msm let Obama slide on something they would have crucified Bush for.

On Hannah Giles, ACORN, and the Fourth Amendment:
(A Dialogue)

This material was written in another publishing medium about five minutes ago. The positional adversary's words will be in dark green font.

So let me get this...everyone in here hates Acorn because they broke the law, but yet are supportive of Hannah even thought she too broke the law?

The colonists also "broke the law" when they threw tea into Boston Harbor. It was once "against the law" for someone to help black slaves become free because they were "property" of other people. Heck, into the twentieth century it was once "against the law" for a black person to drink from a "white drinking fountain." Something is not always moral or ethical simply because it is legal. Law should constitute justice but it is often perverted and used as a pre-text for inflicting evils upon others.

ACORN as an entity that operated in secrecy and yet received tax-payer money was just such a situation of the immoral and unethical who now try to hide behind the thin veneer of "the law." Hannah busted them and God bless her for it. As far as I am concerned, she deserves the Pulitzer Prize in journalism for this and James deserves "documentary filmmaker of the year."{1}

Acorn's lawsuit is based on the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution, so I feel like that is a fairly just claim since I support the US Constitution

Well if you support the Constitution, how about making even an elementary attempt at properly applying it rather than inventing things out of whole cloth as typical "evolving constitution" style nonsense sorts are prone to do. The Fourth Amendment was promulgated as a safeguard of the rights of individuals to provide reasonable privacy from intrusion by the government. Giles and O'Keefe are private citizens and not the government so this suit should be thrown out as the joke that it is. The key word is "should."

I also do not know how she took on this big corrupt firm on her own, CNN published articles about Acorn employees being tried nearly a year before Hannah's "breaking" story.

For election fraud sure. The corruption of ACORN goes far beyond that though. And the msm had stories on ACORN that they spiked during the 2008 election season because they did not want to make the "ObaMessiah" look bad. Furthermore, the depth of ACORN's rotted nature was not touched on by any media source prior to Hannah's expose.

Note:

{1} For some expository musings that I wrote on the subject of ACORN and corruption, see this weblog posting from earlier in the year:

On ACORN and Corruption (circa October 1, 2009)

Excerpts From Literature/Writings:

[Prefatory Note: For some insights into why I chose the particular material below for posting under this heading when it technically does not belong here, please see this previous posting for details as well as my thoughts on the material below. -ISM]

At last I was granted permission to come to Washington and bring my friend Yellow Bull and our interpreter with me. I am glad I came. I have shaken hands with a good many friends, but there are some things I want to know which no one seems able to explain. I cannot understand how the Government sends a man out to fight us, as it did General Miles, and then breaks his word. Such a government has something wrong about it. I cannot understand why so many chiefs are allowed to talk so many different ways, and promise so many different things. I have seen the Great Father Chief [President Hayes]; the Next Great Chief [Secretary of the Interior]; the Commissioner Chief; the Law Chief; and many other law chiefs [Congressmen] and they all say they are my friends, and that I shall have justice, but while all their mouths talk right I do not understand why nothing is done for my people. I have heard talk and talk but nothing is done. Good words do not last long unless they amount to something. Words do not pay for my dead people. They do not pay for my country now overrun by white men. They do not protect my father's grave. They do not pay for my horses and cattle. Good words do not give me back my children. Good words will not make good the promise of your war chief, General Miles. Good words will not give my people a home where they can live in peace and take care of themselves.

I am tired of talk that comes to nothing. It makes my heart sick when I remember all the good words and all the broken promises. There has been too much talking by men who had no right to talk. Too many misinterpretations have been made; too many misunderstandings have come up between the white men and the Indians. If the white man wants to live in peace with the Indian he can live in peace. There need be no trouble. Treat all men alike. Give them the same laws. Give them all an even chance to live and grow. All men were made by the same Great Spirit Chief. They are all brothers. The earth is the mother of all people, and all people should have equal rights upon it. You might as well expect all rivers to run backward as that any man who was born a free man should be contented penned up and denied liberty to go where he pleases. If you tie a horse to a stake, do you expect he will grow fat? If you pen an Indian up on a small spot of earth and compel him to stay there, he will not be contented nor will he grow and prosper. I have asked some of the Great White Chiefs where they get their authority to say to the Indian that he shall stay in one place, while he sees white men going where they please. They cannot tell me.

I only ask of the Government to be treated as all other men are treated. If I cannot go to my own home, let me have a home in a country where my people will not die so fast. I would like to go to Bitter Root Valley. There my people would be happy; where they are now they are dying. Three have died since I left my camp to come to Washington.

When I think of our condition, my heart is heavy. I see men of my own race treated as outlaws and driven from country to country, or shot down like animals.

I know that my race must change. We cannot hold our own with the white men as we are. We only ask an even chance to live as other men live. We ask to be recognized as men. We ask that the same law shall work alike on all men. If an Indian breaks the law, punish him by the law. If a white man breaks the law, punish him also.

Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade where I choose, free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to talk, think and act for myself -- and I will obey every law or submit to the penalty.

Whenever the white man treats the Indian as they treat each other then we shall have no more wars. We shall be all alike -- brothers of one father and mother, with one sky above us and one country around us and one government for all. Then the Great Spirit Chief who rules above will smile upon this land and send rain to wash out the bloody spots made by brothers' hands upon the face of the earth. For this time the Indian race is waiting and praying. I hope no more groans of wounded men and women will ever go to the ear of the Great Spirit Chief above, and that all people may be one people.

Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekht has spoken for his people. [Chief Joseph: From a Speech Delivered in Washington DC (circa 1879)]

Miscellaneous Musings:

The category to which the next post of material is to be classified is one that is usually confined to selections strictly speaking that fit the title so given but as this is my blog, I can allow in special circumstances for some leeway and as this is my birthday today, I am going to allow even more leeway still. Technically, this does not fit the category of classification but I believe the speech to be quoted from here speaks to the heart of any person who is of goodwill who sees injustices being perpetrated.

Though I am a staunch advocate and defender of this great country of ours, I am at the same time aware of the line from America the Beautiful which goes "America, America, God mend thy every flaw." And one of the latter flaws was the way in which the nation treated the Indians they had conquered in wars. As a believer in fighting for what one believes in, I also believe that when battle ceases, an important part of ethics is keeping the words to which one promises themselves. And this area of keeping the promises one makes is one of the areas where America in its leaders insofar as the treatment of the Native American tribes did not live up to the ideals espoused in its founding.

In speaking on this issue I want to be clear that I am not speaking of those tribes which continued hostilities or otherwise sought to inflict damage on the settlers or people of various states or territories. No, I speak of tribes such as the Nez Perce and the warrior Chief Joseph who when the end of the road had come in their struggle against the United States surrendered in a most noble way and was made promises by this nation which its leaders did not keep. And bearing that failing in mind, the next post will contain excerpts from Chief Joseph in a speech he delivered two years after his surrender in Washington DC when he came to the capital to seek justice and recompense in areas to which he had been promised. The basic principles he outlines in that speech are timeless and applicable to people of all times and places; ergo it seems fitting to set them forth for our own contemplation which the next post to this humble weblog will endeavour to do.

wish time would stand still
on the morrow advancing
one year more I'll be
[Written on 10/20/08]

Lawyer Orly Taitz tries patience of federal court

Those who wonder why I give virtually no time at all to this subject{1}, the article above explains some of the reasons albeit indirectly.

Note

{1} These are the only two postings I am aware of on this subject prior to the present one (posted in order of oldest to most recently):

On How To Approach the Presidential Election Results of 2008 and Analyzing the Political Trends for 2008 and Beyond (circa December 9, 2008)

Clarifying A Previous Point (circa February 25, 2009)

Washington is Nuts (Tony Blankley)

Yes Tony, they are.

Don't blame Limbaugh for our faults (LZ Granderson)

This thread is a solid read overall and the general principles it outlines apply to all communities, not just the black community.

Senate Finance Committee

Back on October 6th, I went complete William Jennings Bryan "Cross of Gold" speech-like{1} on the switchboard operator of the Senate Finance Committee. She told me the Baucus bill was put online Friday and gave me the link above but I have to update my Java software to get the health care bill link to open correctly apparently. I want to point y'all to it and ask why (if what she says is true) did I have to learn this from calling them and not from the news -ANY news program. And posting it Friday night right before the weekend??? Tell me that was not their attempt to jam it through today hoping no one would find out about it!!!

Note:

{1} In terms of the passion in which I set forth my view on this matter via the telephone.

He Won But For What?

I am not one of those alarmists who see sinister machinations behind every news story or end times gibberish under every acorn but I am not gonna lie: when I saw this article and realized that I agreed with Jennifer Loven of all people on something, I thought I might be making out on the horizon the first of the four apocalypse horses ;-)

Sunday and Wednesday
Two milestones in my life
Different yet the same
[Written just now]

The Sunday in the above haiku refers to yesterday.

Liberals Lay Off Obama

For those who wonder who could be claiming in lieu of the fact that President Obama has done NOTHING that he is "doing a great job" or has "done something", here is an example from The Daily Beast. Try to not be drinking anything when you read it though.

And yes folks, being "on your way" to doing something is now considered actually doing something by this crowd. The 10,000 point Dow level is considered significant to these same people who did not blink when the Dow under President Bush topped 14,000 in late 2007.

Furthermore, he is actually claiming the stimulus has been "slowing the nation's descent", and considering it an accomplishment that "a universal health care bill’s passage through Senate Committee." Celebrating a bill making it out of committee??? Boy these folks do not realize how they wear their desperation on their sleeves.

Inflation and Deficits

Dr. Walter E. Williams explains the connection between inflation and deficits in the link above.

celebrate dear friend
for you only live one time
try to make it count
[Written on February 4, 2008]

On Obama, Government Run Health Care, and "Waterloo":
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Preface: This was originally drafted in late July, completed before the August congressional recess, and posted in a slightly different form to another publishing medium on September 1, 2009. -ISM]

There has been an analogy in the past month that has been growing rapidly to describe President Obama's health care proposal; namely, that the health care plan he and congress are attempting to shove through before the summer recess will be "Obama's Waterloo." To my knowledge, the first to specifically refer to the health care plan by this label was former Clinton Administration strategist Dick Morris in an article he wrote in June for his website which was published in a variety of outlets including The Hill and Human Events. I find it interesting that Morris' column was published a day before the historical event itself began.{1} Not long after that, we have Senator JimDeMint who presumably read Morris' column in June who last week had this to say about Obamacare:

“If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”

Before readers think this is just the Republicans playing politics here, they need to consider what the term Waterloo means so a little history lesson is in order here. Though the French Revolution of 1789 (comparable to the American Revolution of 1776 only in a facile way{2}) followed the usual pattern of chaos, mob rule, and execution of "dissenters", the Corsican General Napoleon in the midst of the Rein of Terror and general chaos defeated the armies of coalition nations opposing France twice: once in 1793 and again in 1798. He later took over France itself in a coup in 1799.

Napoleon amassed powers and got rid of distant French projects that took a toll on the military and the treasury -the struggles with the Haitian revolution{3} and the First Rule of African Warfare{4} prompting him to sell off Louisiana to the United States in 1803 being a prevalent one in American eyes.{4} He then had himself crowned as Emperor in 1804. During the first decade of the nineteenth century and in keeping with the First Rule of French Warfare{5}, Napoleon was able to conquer continental Europe and installed in various countries family members and friends to "rule" them who were answerable to him.{6} In three subsequent attempts by coalitions of nations to defeat France in war on land, Napoleon was victorious. He had by 1811 extended the French Empire throughout continental Europe and even into Norway.

While it is true that Napoleon had had some setbacks in expanding power to the extent he wanted to{7} it was the 1812 Russia campaign which was a turning point in Napoleon's successes since his army was subjected to a Russian approach known as a "scorched earth" retreat which destroyed all the available food sources for the invading French forces. The end result was Napoleon was victorious on the rare occasions when he engaged the Russians but failed to get Czar Nicholas I to abdicate when he captured Moscow. Upon leaving his troops to go back to Paris, there were a variety of factors that broke down his remaining forces including starvation, demoralization, loss of supply horses and supplies, and a breakdown of his troop discipline. Throw in attacks from the Russians and loss of a few battles upon retreating{8} and the tide clearly had turned for Napoleon.

Napoleon was not finished yet however. When he returned to Paris, he had about one tenth of the number of troops he had when he had set off for Moscow. Various nations in seeing the vulnerability seized on his military's weakened condition to launch a sixth united offensive against him. But Napoleon was still able to inflict a series of defeats against his foes until a vastly superior force beat him at Leipzig in October of 1813 -one of the worst defeats of his career. He rebounded with a barrage of victories in the Six Days Campaign despite being outnumbered by opposing forces about 5:1 but was ultimately unable to stop the multi-national opposition forces from capturing Paris. Not long after, unable to count on his generals for support, Napoleon abdicated.

But Napoleon was not done yet and though exiled to Elba in 1814, he would escape the following year and regain his throne. However, this time with an army of 200,000 he decided to go on the offense against his foes and on June 18, 1815 met the British Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington and the Prussian Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher at Wellington. Here is how Wikipedia explained the event:

Napoleon's forces fought the allies, led by Wellington and Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher, at the Battle of Waterloo on 18 June 1815. Wellington's army withstood repeated attacks by the French and drove them from the field while the Prussians arrived in force and broke through Napoleon's right flank. The French army left the battlefield in disorder, which allowed Coalition forces to enter France and restore Louis XVIII to the French throne. Off the port of Rochefort, Charente -Maritime, after consideration of an escape to the United States, Napoleon formally demanded political asylum from the British Captain Frederick Maitland on HMS Bellerophon on 15 July 1815.

Historically, Waterloo was the final breaking point of Napoleon: a massive defeat that ended not only his rule of France but also his threat to again have power. He was exiled to St. Helena not long afterward and died there six years later.

How does this have relevance to the current situation??? Well, for one thing like Napoleon the president has sought to fight on a lot of fronts ala what happened with the invasion of Russia and this makes him vulnerable to a sustained assault on any major issue if conservatives and Republicans can stop jumping on every little red-herring side issue and focus fully on an issue like health care.{9} Second, the president is resorting to courting the radicals of his party's fringe and abandoning the moderate and more conservative Democrats who will have to face stiff challenges in next year's election which is the military equivalent of going up against opposition seriously outnumbered. Third, it is evident that there is chaos in the House and Senate in putting together and a public approval of the health-care plan at less than 50% and falling as I write this which mirrors the confusion Napoleon's troops had at Waterloo.

Now obviously all analogies fall short to some extent but when understood in the context of a rousing defeat so bad that the party suffering it never recovers from, the health care issue indeed could be the Waterloo of this president. Your host for one certainly interested in doing what he can to facilitate that occurrence because what is involved here is such an egregious violation of our God-given fundamental rights but enough on this matter for now. The real fight will take place when congress is in their districts for summer recess, at the town halls, and when they return from recess so recognizing the key physiological principle of intensity and duration{10} requires us to rest on this matter now and prepare to go at it full force for the fall battle ahead both on this matter and also on crap and tax cap and trade.

Notes:

{1} June 18, 1815.

{2} The American Revolution is the only revolution in history that resulted in a government that provided its citizens with more freedom instead of less. The French Revolution was standard for revolutions in that it resulted in creating anarchy which was followed by dictatorship.

{3} The Haitian Revolution started in 1791 during the French Revolution and continued until 1804.

{4} There were financial as well as tactical reasons for this on the part of Napoleon. On the American front though, it represented a doubling of territory. It also represented President Thomas Jefferson contradicting his previous "strict constructionist" reading -an unworkable method of approaching the Constitution that I have written on before and which I might add was not a view of the Constitution that was shared by most of the Founders including George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin to name several notable figures. (As well as the James Madison of the pre-1790 and post-1815 period.) Therefore, in the interest of being consistent I view Ron Paul and his supporters and anyone else who think that if it is not explicitly in the Constitution something cannot be done should in the interest of being consistent campaign to return those territories to the French and declare the Louisiana Purchase as unconstitutional. Otherwise, there is no reason to take them seriously on their babblings about what is and is not supposedly "constitutional."

{4} First Rule of African Warfare: We can always beat the French. [LINK]

{5} First Rule of French Warfare: France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman. [LINK]

{6} One might even say these people represented Napoleon's "Czars" if they really want to parallel in the nations of nineteenth century Europe what President Obama has done with various parts of the American government and economy with his appointed "czars" who only answer to him.

{7} Including a tactical defeat at the Battle of Asbern-Essling in 1809 which was quickly avenged at the Battle of Wagram.

{8} Including the Battle of Krasnoi and the disaster that was the Battle of Berezina.

{9} Or as I noted in a post election analysis thread back in December when outlining how we can most efficaciously combat the majority party in the two years to come and beyond:

With an incoming Democratic president and a Democratic majority in both houses of the Congress, a lot of issues are going to be pushed -many of them ones that we who did not vote for President Obama and the Democrats do not agree with. The problem is, if we run all over the map and oppose simply to be opposing, that will achieve nothing constructive. And furthermore, it is naive to think that everything they attempt to do we will be able to stop so that also needs to be taken into account. Basically, we need to decide in how we go about this first of all, what we will fight tooth and nail for: what are the issues which we absolutely must stand up and hold the line on without an iota of compromise. From there, the rest can be categorized into basically (i) things we want to try and force the Democrats on record supporting so we can make election issues on them in 2010, (ii) things of a less significant nature we actually think can be accomplished despite the Democrats having control of the government, (iii) things we need to put out there for the future which we know will not succeed in the soon-to-be present but nonetheless are points of reference for the future of a positive nature. In other words, we need to strategerize here and not play the same bullshit of those who opposed the outgoing Bush administration on everything and anything simply because they hated President Bush, thought he was Hitler, or whatever. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 11, 2008)]

{10} [Y]our host does not go all out with intense political focus all the time [because] it is physiologically not possible to operate at high intensity for duration; ergo the best way to approach geopolitical stuff is with short bursts of intensity in brief periods with a degree of infrequency. Other than that, focusing elsewhere or addressing these issues with greater frequency but much less duration is the approach to be taken. Notice I am not saying do nothing, only that it is imperative to avoid burnout physiologically to recognize that intensity and duration are two sides of the same coin and cannot be realized at one and the same time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 7, 2006)]

The Agony of Obama's Defeat

When Politico is talking about "the agony of Obama's defeat", you know there is "big trouble in little China" on this matter folks!!!

The Olympics, Obama, and the Permanent Campaign

Jay Cost summarizes well a key reason why I am optimistic about the upcoming 09 governors races as well as the elections of '10 and '12.

Points to Ponder:

[T]hose who have comments boxes are capable of manipulating the content there to suit their own agenda including banning people who raise strong enough arguments against the "prevailing orthodoxy" at a given weblog. You would be surprised at how often those who laud their "willingness to interact with others" will put censors on their comments boxes that would make the monitors at Pravda in the days of the old Soviet Union blush and as we do not believe in unnecessary censorship, that means we would inexorably leave out there potentially a variety of assertions that our lack of time to respond to would give the unintended perception of being "unanswerable" by us. Those are the main reasons for our refusal to use comments boxes in a nutshell. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 1, 2008)]

Firestorm threatens to engulf Blanche Lincoln (Politico)

Senator Blanche Lincoln whatever else one wants to say about her was the only Democrat on Senator Max Baucus' Senate Finance Committee to vote for Senator Jim Bunning's amendment which would have prevented the attempt to jam Baucus' proposals through without being seen or even read. Those of you who want to call and scream at the Democrats on that committee for being a bunch of unethical f##king cowards who preach "transparency" yet do the exact opposite (in classic 1984 fashion I might add), kindly spare Ms. Lincoln from your wrath. She (unlike the other twelve Democrats on that committee) did the right thing ethically and in principle and for this she deserves to be commended.

On Recent Funerals and Suspending My "No More Funerals" Stance of Recent Years:

I attended another funeral yesterday eleven days ago -my twenty-first in the last nine and a half years.{1} This was despite the fact that I decided to take a "no more funerals" approach to things after attending my Aunt Cecilia's funeral in the second part of 2006. At that point, I had attended twenty funerals in six and a half years and simply could not deal with it anymore. And that was not even all the family, friends, etc. who died in that span of time. But I had to suspend my stand for Jerry Dykstra, a good friend of my fathers and whose eldest son I played soccer with for six of the eight years I played in years past.{2}

I knew Jerry for nearly thirty years and was able to see him in the final weeks when he was getting to the point to where his cancer was becoming unbearable. But he always had a smile on his face, always was of good cheer, and continued to drink two rusty nails a night until recent months.{3} He was a good man and will be missed -most of all by his family of course and I told his sons if they wanted to talk about it to feel free to give me a call. No sooner did I get back than I heard from my mother that my Uncle Don passed away earlier that same day so if his funeral is in the Seattle area,{4} I will again suspend my "no more funerals" policy and go to that one.

I have known Uncle Don{5} literally all my life. I am sure he held me in his arms at least once when I was still in diapers: I note that to give an idea of how far back this connection goes. He was also a good and decent man. I had not seen either Uncle Don or his wife my Aunt Sheila{6} in probably three or four years -I think the last time was at their son Paul's wedding in 2004. But unlike in the case of Jerry of whom we knew was going to have less than a year,{7} Don's death came completely out of the blue unexpected. Jerry died three months shy of his seventy-first birthday, Don two months shy of his sixty-first birthday.

Prayers for both of them would be most appreciated.

Eternal rest grant unto their souls oh Lord and let thy Perpetual Light shine upon them. May they rest in peace. May the souls of Jerry Dykstra and Don Hellstrom along with the souls of all the faithfully departed, through the Mercy of God rest in peace. Amen.

Notes:

{1} In that span of time, I lost thirty-five persons either close family, relatives, close friends, etc.

{2} I covered the subjects of funerals in general around that time and also on the subject of Aunt Ceil in another thread. Here they are for those who are interested:

On Prayer Requests (circa October 3, 2006)

More on Cecilia Flynn (circa October 5, 2006)

{3} Jerry and my father used to drink rusty nails together and after my father died, Jerry would drink two a night: one for him and one for my dad. That was his story anyway and he stuck to it until for health reasons he could not.

{4} It is most likely going to be in Wenatchee, Washington though.

[Update: It was held in East Wenatchee and I did not attend due to the distance. -ISM]

{5} Basically an honourific title: Don was married to Sheila my dad's adopted sister. (It was her mom Jenny whose death in March of 2000 started this long chain of passings but I digress.)

{6} I am sure my dad figured this out years back but when I was a teenager, I had a crush on my Aunt Sheila.

{7} And most likely he was slated to live for less than six months.

journalism died
last year to be reborn by
Giles and O'Keefe
[Written just now]

On ACORN and Corruption:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I originally was going to post this as a minor posting back around September tenth but was not able to get around to it until now and since the original draft, a lot has developed on this subject so I want to go over it all here. Let us start with the original material of this posting which was to be led off with this link:

Exposed! ACORN Gets Its Nuts Cracked: Teenage Prostitutes, Money Laundering and Tax Fraud (Doug Giles)

Originally I was going to say that the mainstream media would not cover this of course any more than they covered the 11 ACORN persons arrested for voter registration fraud in Florida earlier in the month{1} (one of whom registered "Paul Newman" to vote incidentally enough) or the fact that ACORN is under investigation in twelve states for voter fraud. But bear this in mind: if ACORN was in any way connected with a prominent Republican, the msm would be all over this. Once again though, President Obama's connections with this organization from his community organizing days will likely be ignored.

To get the gist of the story, read the link above because what Hannah Giles (posing as a prostitute) and James O'Keefe (a film maker posing as a pimp) did in the Baltimore branch of ACORN was duplicated in a variety of other ACORN offices. ACORN fired the two employees involved in the sting in Baltimore and also two more who were involved in a similar sting in the ACORN Washington DC office. You can read more on the DC matter here.

Now the rest of the media other than Fox they were as silent as a whore in church initially. But then there was a sting in Brooklyn, New York upon which employees from ACORN there were fired and the Brooklyn DA will pursue investigating ACORN perhaps even under RICO statutes. Then we have the Census Bureau stripping ACORN of participation in the 2010 census, another video emerging out of San Diego, California and another one in San Bernadino where a woman is on camera talking about killing her husband along with the usual prostitution stuff.

ACORN kept trying to play it down and has threatened to go after the film makers but they also fired all their employees involved in the various offices where Giles and O'Keefe caught them on camera giving advice on various ways of breaking the law from advice on opening a house of prostitution to tax evasion to smuggling underage illegal immigrants from El Salvador to work in the house of prostitution, etc. Yet despite all of this (and this is not all there is), ACORN has the aucadity to accuse Giles and O'Keefe of immoral conduct when all they did was trap ACORN's employees on camera endorsing some of the worst kind of filth imaginable!!!

Meanwhile, the Senate voted 83-7 to defund ACORN on September 15th with the House following suit on Thursday with a 345-78 vote.{2} All of this happened not because of the mainstream media but instead in spite of them because other than Fox News, they were all very late to this story and it is not as if they were ignorant of ACORN being a corrupt organization.

There is a reason why your host has for years sought as much as possible to get news from sources other than the mainstream media which is frankly little different (at all) than a state-run media. If anything has made this irreversibly clear, it is the media's woeful performance in the past week in covering stories from the Van Jones resignation to the 912 march to the ACORN scandals: all of which put the Obama administration in bad light. And this means the depths of disgrace to which the mainstream media sunk last year are depths to which they remain.

Notes:

{1} And over 40 since July of this year.

{2} ACORN's Enablers