Honky Cat Biden's Ugly Truth

As today would have been Chris DiSomma's 48th birthday, I wanted to revisit a couple postings in the archives about him from recent years. Without further ado...

Chris DiSomma: A Birthday Commemoration Posting (circa May 23, 2018)

Remembering Chris DiSomma: A Simple Man (circa November 23, 2019)

You are in my thoughts and prayers always my friend. Rest in Peace!

Briefly on "Ending The Fed" and the Gold Standard:

Too many folks who talk about "ending the fed" are not familiar with the frequencies and severities of economic recessions and depressions historically in America in the eras without a central bank. It is one thing to want to reform the fed but abolishing it and going to some free banking scheme...we tried that in this country before and there is a good reason we moved back to a central bank format.

As for the gold standard, it was a joke. It never worked as advertised, it made economic flexibility difficult, it prolonged recessions and depressions, and was frequently torn up and recalibrated to devalue money at various monetarily problematical points and then everyone tried to pretend everything remained kosher. In a nutshell, a gold standard is only as solid as the paper it is written on.

Points to Ponder:

Prayer can be downright arid at times. But it is praying in those moments that can actually be the most meritorious for you and for those whom you pray. Its easy to pray when surrounded by sweetness, consolations, and everything we like...a lot harder when those things are not present. 

On Bayside:

The following is basically a Facebook note in very rough composition form on May 14, 2018 that was not finished for publication ready for various reasons. I decided recently to finish and publish it. My words will be in regular font.

The Church never condemned Bayside, Ryan. The word condemned was never used.

Mel you are engaging in private judgment on this matter. It is not required to use the word "condemned" to condemn an apparition. It suffices for the bishop to (i) call them inauthentic, (ii) theologically problematical, (iii) erroneous on doctrine, (iv) lack moral certitude, (v) discourage publication, dissemination, and distribution of the apparitions. If that does not constitute a condemnation of the content of said apparitions, then you do not know what the concept entails!

The truth is that the bishops of the Dioceses of Brooklyn have done all of these things been very clear as to the status of this "apparition" many times and the current Bishop of Brooklyn just reiterated the stance of his predecessors:

Anyone who can read either the above decision or the one from 1986 and somehow think that the diocesan bishops of Brooklyn (whom I might add are the competent authorities on these matters in their dioceses) did not condemn the apparition are only fooling themselves.

Shawn, will you please verify, for me, that Bishop Mugavero did a Church-ruled investigation?? 

Only when you verify for me that these prophecies from "Our Lady" courtesy of Veronica Leuken were not false prophecies:

Prophecy #1:
“Please, My children, pray for your Holy Father, the Pope. You must not lose him, for the one who comes after him will destroy if he can – he will attempt to destroy Pope John Paul II.” [“Our Lady” of Bayside aka "Our Lady of the Roses", June 18, 1988 from Our Lady of the Roses (Blue Book), p. 108.]

The pope who came after John Paul II was Benedict XVI and far from destroying him actually proclaimed him venerable, beatified him, and before he re-signed was pressing for his canonization.

Prophecy #2:
"Pray for your Vicar (Pope John Paul II). There will be another attempt upon his life." ["Our Lady of the Roses", June,30, 1984]

There were no further attempts on the life of Pope John Paul II after 1981.

Prophecy #3:
"Your Father, in the eternal city of Rome, Pope Paul VI, your Holy Father, is a blessed man, for he carries his cross. Your Holy Father is a blessed man, for he shall be martyred." ["Our Lady", June 18, 1977]

Pope Paul VI died of natural causes in 1978. Furthermore, this "prophecy" contradicts earlier and absurd statements claiming that Pope Paul VI was replaced in 1975 or thereabouts by an imposter pope.

Prophecy #4:
“Within two years or less, there will be a great crash of the market. The whole world’s monetary systems will be paralyzed. That, My child, is why you had to come this evening to the grounds.” [“Our Lady” of Bayside aka "Our Lady of the Roses", June 18, 1988 from Our Lady of the Roses (Blue Book), p. 108.]

There was no great crash of the market within two years or less of June 18, 1988.

Prophecy #5:
“Do not be affrighted, My child; you must see this, for it is important. Within this century this Ball will be sent upon mankind… It is almost too late… a Ball that is fast hurtling towards earth! It will be here within this century, if not sooner.” [“Our Lady” of Bayside aka "Our Lady of the Roses", June 18, 1988 from Our Lady of the Roses (Blue Book), p. 108.]

Where was this Ball of Chastisement prior to the year 2000 (aka the last year within the century of when the above prophecy was uttered)?

I could post more but frankly, even one of these false prophecies is enough to discredit Bayside and Veronica Leuken.

And, how come a former Bishop, in the New York area, told a Nun that The Apparitions were never condemned??

There is a lot of circumstantial statements there. I am privy to a communique from the Secretary To Public Information of the Diocese of Brooklyn who stated frankly that (paraphrased):

"'Bayside' was and is absolutely condemned by Bishop Mugavero and confirmed by the 2 subsequent Bishops. Stay away from it! Yes, it's OK to Pray the Rosary but (DIS)OBEDIENCE is the key word at play here. etc."

And there is of course these words from Bishop Mugavero circa 1986 (reaffirmed by the current diocesan bishop of Brooklyn in March of 2014):

"No credibility can be given to the so-called "apparitions" reported by Veronica Lueken and her followers...Because of my concern for their spiritual welfare, members of Christ's faithful are hereby directed to refrain from participating in the "vigils" and from disseminating any propaganda related to the "Bayside apparitions." They are also discouraged from reading any such literature. Anyone promoting this devotion in any way, be it by participating in the "vigils," organizing pilgrimages, publishing or disseminating the literature related to it, is contributing to the confusion which is being created in the faith of God's people, as well as encouraging them to act against the determinations made by the legitimate pastor of this particular Church (c.212, para. 1)."

I am aware of proponents of this "apparition" who try and claim that the bishop did not use a proper process or something along those lines but even if that claim was true, it would not justify disobedience. If there is a case that the bishop acted contrary to canon law, then the proponents of Bayside should appeal to Rome and in the meantime be obedient to the decision of the diocesan bishop until directed otherwise by Rome. Failing to do that and merely stating on their own authority that the process was flawed and using this pretext to disobey the bishop's directives and to promote these "apparitions" is an attitude that is neither Traditional nor Catholic.

Points to Ponder:

Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace
Where there is hatred, let me sow love
Where there is injury, pardon
Where there is doubt, faith
Where there is despair, hope
Where there is darkness, light
And where there is sadness, joy

O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
To be consoled as to console
To be understood as to understand
To be loved, as to love

For it is in giving that we receive
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned
And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. [St. Francis of Assisi]

Logan Act is the last refuge for the American prosecutorial scoundrel

Briefly...

Watching #NeverTrump folks respond to the complete obliteration of the Russian collusion narrative in the past week by completely ignoring it and moving onto other gripes without pause, reflection, or apology reminds me a lot of what conspiracy theorist douches do when one of their pet hypotheses are demolished. It is a thoroughly disingenuous and unethical way to behave and undermines to no small degree their veracity in general.

Two Special Elections On Tuesday Could Hint At Another Blue Wave In 2020

With the caveats of 538 being among the most accurate political prognosticators out there and special elections being a tough animal to master for many reasons, the purpose of this post is to point out that even the good political predictors out there have their misses and here are two from 538 on CA-25 and WI-7.

"One From the Vault" Dept. on "States' Rights"...

This note was first published in social media on August 26, 2011...

Gotta love pics like these, makes everyone think that the Civil war was all about Slavery.

Of course it was not all about slavery but the latter was a significant  part of the equation. All you need to do to realize this is look at the platform of the Democratic Party in the 1856 and 1860 elections to see the dominance of the slavery theme in that party's view of things.

Since the South separated like sniveling brats after the 1860 election when they did not win, lets look at the platform from 1860 to see what it was that they actually ran on:

Resolved, That we, the Democracy of  the Union in Convention assembled, hereby declare our affirmance of the  resolutions unanimously adopted and declared as a platform of principles  by the Democratic Convention at Cincinnati, in the year 1856, believing  that Democratic principles are unchangeable in their nature, when  applied to the same subject matters; and we recommend, as the only  further resolutions, the following: 

Since the 1860 platform was  mostly that of the 1856 convention with a few addendums, lets look at how many times slavery popped up in the 1856 platform now shall we?

The first part of the platform is basically the Jeffersonian model discredited both in the early Republic as well as by example in how things were generally governed prior to that point in time. The second half of the platform contains these references to slavery:

Resolved,  That we reiterate with renewed energy of purpose the well-considered  declarations of former conventions upon the sectional issue of domestic  slavery, and concerning the reserved rights of the states—

1.  That Congress has no power under the constitution to interfere with or  control the domestic institutions of the several states, and that all  such states are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to  their own affairs not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts  of the Abolitionists or others, made to induce Congress to interfere  with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation  thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous  consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to  diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and  permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend  of our political institutions.

I am sure the slaves were happy about the arrangement. Moving on...

2.  That the foregoing proposition covers and was intended to embrace the  whole subject of slavery agitation in Congress, and therefore the  Democratic party of the Union, standing on this national platform, will  abide by and adhere to a faithful execution of the acts known as the  compromise measures, settled by the Congress of 1850—"the act for  reclaiming fugitives from service or labor" included; which act, being  designed to carry out an express provision of the constitution, can not,  with fidelity thereto, be repealed, or so changed as to destroy or  impair its efficiency.

So first Congress has no authority on the matter and now they claim they will follow the compromise measure from 1850 set forth by that same Congress. To paraphrase the milk campaign: Got hypocrisy?

3. That the Democratic party will  resist all attempts at renewing in Congress, or out of it, the agitation  of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may  be made.

Gee, there is sure a lot of talk about slavery for a party and a group of the country that did not fight to protect slavery is it not? And we are not done yet though...

4. That the Democratic party will  faithfully abide by and uphold the principles laid down in the Kentucky  and Virginia resolutions of 1792 and 1798, and in the report of Mr.  Madison to the Virginia legislature in 1799; that it adopts these  principles as constituting one of the main foundations of its political  creed, and is resolved to carry them out in their obvious meaning and  import. 

Translation: The Democratic Party embraced sedition. Even Madison eventually wised up and recognized how utterly illogical and stupid his involvement in that enterprise was. Jefferson never did except when he was president he expected an even greater fealty to his government than the Washington and Adams administrations{1} demanded of them. Again, got hypocrisy?

And  that we may more distinctly meet the issue on which a sectional party,  subsisting exclusively on slavery agitation, now relies to test the  fidelity of the people, north and south, to the constitution and the  Union— 

For the sake of economy, from that point on in the platform there were three additional numbered resolves, all of which  specifically mentioned slavery or involved slavery and one of the final two resolutions which also dealt with slavery. Geez, more on slavery.  But nah, it had nothing whatsoever to do with the Civil War and only  "ignorant people" would claim otherwise right xxx? ;)  There is more, let us look at the 1860 platform which as I said reaffirmed everything from the 1856 platform with a few more addendums:

2. Inasmuch as  difference of opinion exists in the Democratic party as to the nature  and extent of the powers of a Territorial Legislature, and as to the  powers and duties of Congress, under the Constitution of the United  States, over the institution of slavery within the Territories,

Resolved,  That the Democratic party will abide by the decision of the Supreme  Court of the United States upon these questions of Constitutional Law. 

But in the first part of the 1856 platform, they rejected a central bank which the very same Supreme Court they were now claiming to reverence had declared over forty years previously was constitutional.{2} So they laud the court on Dred Scott but explicitly reject it in areas where the Court  had already settled constitutional questions decades ago. Again, got hypocrisy?

Resolved, That the enactments of the State  Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law,  are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and  revolutionary in their effect.

Yeah, we do'nut want them blacks gettin' all edjucated and free.

But nah, those who talk about slavery being a major factor{3} in what brought about the Civil War, they are the "ignorant ones."

Bottom line: the South had some good  arguments to make on some issues but they chose an absolutely heinous and evil idea around which to pitch the center pole of their ideological tent. Furthermore, they proved after 1865 that all this talk about  respecting the Constitution and respecting the Courts was a bunch of  horse shit. Cases in point: the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments which southern states tried to flout at every turn in various  ways once Reconstruction was over for nearly a century.

Im really sick of people thinking that The Stars and Bars stand for Slavery and Oppression when in fact its quite the Opposite to the Union considering the Union is all for Centralized Big Gov. Interference.

And  I am really sick and tired of "Lost Cause" sorts who make excuses for both the evil of slavery that they propagated prior to the war and the state of third class citizenry they sought to impose on an entire race of people. Thanks to the later segregation numbnuts, the states rights cause was stunted for over half a century while we saw a lot of federal overreach. It is after all kind of hard for a philosophy to be given credence by average people when that exact same philosophy was used to justify retaining slavery prior to 1865 and then regularly used to flout three duly ratified Constitutional amendments and the rights of American citizens after that point for nearly a century.

Notes:

{1} Which he and Madison agitated against back in 1798.

{2} Based on arguments that more than twenty years before that had convinced most of the Founders as well as President Washington. (And which President  Madison later on would come to recognize himself.)

{3} Arguably the most significant factor.

Points to Ponder:

A cigar numbs sorrow and fills the solitary hours with a million gracious images.[George Sand]

It looks like President Obama ordered up phony RussiaGate scandal

So Obama's Administration was "scandal free" they said? Yeah and Jenna Jameson is a virgin!

Strip club owner sues NY Governor over shutdown

Presumably by the Law Office of Glenn Quagmire. (Giggity!)

Papal War? What Papal War?

Briefly...

It seems to me a lot of folks are making the mask wearing thing more complicated than it needs to be. Basically, you need not wear it at home, in your yard, or in your car except when pulling up to a drive in. You also need not wear it when in public when you are not around people or when you are but you can keep a respectable distance away. But going into a store or walking in a crowd is a different situation and the common courtesy of masking there would be appropriate. That need not mean full on mask at all times though.

If I am in public and likely to run into people inside of say ten feet, I keep my black mask on my chin and only pull it over the nose when in close proximity to other folks. Otherwise, the mask is in my pocket.

Seriously folks, this really is not that hard!

Rosenstein-Mueller scope memo: Probe Russia collusion we kinda already know didn’t exist

Exclusive: 1996 court document confirms Tara Reade told of harassment in Biden’s office

More in Brief on Third Parties in General and the American Solidarity Party in Particular:

The following was posted over two months ago to one of the social media platforms and is a continuation of sorts to the overall subject of third parties in American politics. Without further ado...

That is the problem with other parties: unless its a Perot type situation where someone can come into the race with a visible and undeniable chunk of support, it is a fools errand. (And I say this as someone who voted for Perot the first time he ran.) But then I suppose if kids can believe in the fantasy of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, there are some adults that can believe in certain economics fantasies as long as said fantasies unlike communism remain in the realm of make believe and do not hurt other people. (It would not be the first time adults believed in fantasies and I am sure it will not be the last.)

However, I have been known to throw a bone to local third party candidates and declared independents from time to time. (I used to vote for folks like Mike the Mover back in Washington State in years past as well as a smattering of Libertarian, Reform Party, and various proclaimed Independent candidates.) So if there is an ASP local candidate in Westchester County in the Yonkers/Mount Vernon vicinity, I could seem myself voting for them in spite of the distributist nonsense. I could even forgive Carroll of that foolishness if that was the only glaring problem he had as I do like principles such as solidarity and subsidiarity. But the thought that Carroll once supported communist lover Bernie Sanders as recently as four years ago (and not as an idealistic misguided young man but instead as an older fellow) as well as that he buys into that "kids in cages" political propaganda? Sorry, that's three strikes. [Circa 3/7/20]

My father in law Frank Barone passed away yesterday morning. If those who read these words would say a prayer for him and his family, it would be appreciated.

Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon him...May his soul and all the souls of the faithfully departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen

For my father in law Frank Barone I pray...

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
[Dylan Thomas (published 1951)]