Monday, February 29, 2016
Reince, Boehner, and McConnell Broke It, So....
Remember that quote, "If you break it, you buy it"?
Yah.
So Reince, along with Boehner and McConnell, are now within a few months of having broken it, which WILL be the result of a Trump nomination.
Nice work.
You just couldn't assemble the testosterone to take down Obozo and all his works and all his pomps.
Yes, we know that the Chamber of Commerce wanted you to behave that way.
You made your choice. Enjoy.
Yah.
So Reince, along with Boehner and McConnell, are now within a few months of having broken it, which WILL be the result of a Trump nomination.
Nice work.
You just couldn't assemble the testosterone to take down Obozo and all his works and all his pomps.
Yes, we know that the Chamber of Commerce wanted you to behave that way.
You made your choice. Enjoy.
Thursday, February 25, 2016
Trump, the Tin-Pot Dictator Wannabee
Further cementing himself as another Obozo with somewhat different objectives (or so we're told), Trump resorts to threatening political opponents and their mothers.
Donald Trump had some choice words earlier this week for the Ricketts family, who owns the Chicago Cubs, over their contributions to a super PAC that is running ads against him. But Cubs chairman Tom Ricketts said Wednesday his family is simply standing up for their beliefs.
"It's a little surreal when Donald Trump threatens your mom," Ricketts told reporters Wednesday during a press conference at spring training in Mesa, Ariz....
What's that all about?
...Trump, on Monday, said the Chicago-based family "better be careful" after reports emerged that Marlene Ricketts, the wife of top GOP donor Joe Ricketts, who owns the Cubs, had contributed $3 million to Our Principles PAC. The group, led by former Mitt Romney aide Katie Packer, has released ads questioning the Republican presidential front-runner's conservative credentials...
I suppose it's a relief to know that the Tin Pot hasn't yet explicitly threatened force-of-arms, but IRS does have guns, after all.
Donald Trump had some choice words earlier this week for the Ricketts family, who owns the Chicago Cubs, over their contributions to a super PAC that is running ads against him. But Cubs chairman Tom Ricketts said Wednesday his family is simply standing up for their beliefs.
"It's a little surreal when Donald Trump threatens your mom," Ricketts told reporters Wednesday during a press conference at spring training in Mesa, Ariz....
What's that all about?
...Trump, on Monday, said the Chicago-based family "better be careful" after reports emerged that Marlene Ricketts, the wife of top GOP donor Joe Ricketts, who owns the Cubs, had contributed $3 million to Our Principles PAC. The group, led by former Mitt Romney aide Katie Packer, has released ads questioning the Republican presidential front-runner's conservative credentials...
I suppose it's a relief to know that the Tin Pot hasn't yet explicitly threatened force-of-arms, but IRS does have guns, after all.
Preparations Are Underway
Apparently a LOT of people are getting ready for something.
...In 1986, a total of three million firearms were produced. In 2013, it was well over ten million. Pistols (here used to mean semiauto handguns) totaled over four million in 2013 -- so the number of handguns made in that year was greater than total firearms production in 1986. Total gun production doubled, repeat doubled, between 2010 and 2013....
Don't forget the ammo!!
...In 1986, a total of three million firearms were produced. In 2013, it was well over ten million. Pistols (here used to mean semiauto handguns) totaled over four million in 2013 -- so the number of handguns made in that year was greater than total firearms production in 1986. Total gun production doubled, repeat doubled, between 2010 and 2013....
Don't forget the ammo!!
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
The Real Menace? Trump.
I mentioned a while back that Trump is very much like Obama, albeit with a seemingly different agenda. (Then again, Trump might be lying.)
Here's Harsanyi, making the same case, relayed by MoonBattery.
...Just as some Republicans are already warming to the idea of his candidacy, the temptation in Congress to follow Trumpism — a philosophy based on the vagaries of one man — will be strong. Trump’s inclination is never to free Americans from the state (“we’re gonna take care of everybody!”) but rather to do a better job administering the state through great deals and assertive leadership. Or, everything the Founders didn’t want the presidency to be.
So while gridlock will still hold up most issues conservatives do care about, chances are high, considering his long history of supporting big government, that Trump would try and cobble together a populist coalition for polices they hate. This will end up marginalizing ideological conservatism from within the party....
That last sentence will tell you why Trump continues to attack Cruz far more harshly than he does Rubio, Carson, or Hillary. Conservatism is THE enemy--to all of them--so Cruz delenda est.
The solution--for Harsanyi--is this: if Trump is the nominee, vote (R) DOWN-ticket, let HRC win. She'll be in Federal prison before 2 years expire anyway, and she's just as hate-able as Obozo, so she won't get anything done.
I would add only this: BUY. MORE. AMMO.
Here's Harsanyi, making the same case, relayed by MoonBattery.
...Just as some Republicans are already warming to the idea of his candidacy, the temptation in Congress to follow Trumpism — a philosophy based on the vagaries of one man — will be strong. Trump’s inclination is never to free Americans from the state (“we’re gonna take care of everybody!”) but rather to do a better job administering the state through great deals and assertive leadership. Or, everything the Founders didn’t want the presidency to be.
So while gridlock will still hold up most issues conservatives do care about, chances are high, considering his long history of supporting big government, that Trump would try and cobble together a populist coalition for polices they hate. This will end up marginalizing ideological conservatism from within the party....
That last sentence will tell you why Trump continues to attack Cruz far more harshly than he does Rubio, Carson, or Hillary. Conservatism is THE enemy--to all of them--so Cruz delenda est.
The solution--for Harsanyi--is this: if Trump is the nominee, vote (R) DOWN-ticket, let HRC win. She'll be in Federal prison before 2 years expire anyway, and she's just as hate-able as Obozo, so she won't get anything done.
I would add only this: BUY. MORE. AMMO.
Our "Highly Moralistic" President? Not Even Close
We are subject to continuous lectures by the Moralist-in-Chief about damn near everything.
But The Moralist-in-Chief's war morals?
[F]ormer Director of the CIA and NSA, General Michael Hayden, explained that the administration's drone kill list, contrary to the narrative, was not a masterpiece of judicial and Solomonic judgment by president Obama but simply the result of a computer program. “We kill people based on metadata,” Hayden said....
Hayden was not kidding.
Whatever else one may think about warfare, killing thousands of people based on METADATA is wrong. If it's not classified as a war crime, it should be.
Grim notes:
...He kills everyone a computer program thinks even might be associated with terrorism, based on opaque metadata that is not subject to an independent review based on other evidence...
Terrorists are not "state actors," but so long as we are at formally-declared war with terrorists, the rules of war applying to active combatants should apply here.
But The Moralist-in-Chief's war morals?
[F]ormer Director of the CIA and NSA, General Michael Hayden, explained that the administration's drone kill list, contrary to the narrative, was not a masterpiece of judicial and Solomonic judgment by president Obama but simply the result of a computer program. “We kill people based on metadata,” Hayden said....
Hayden was not kidding.
Whatever else one may think about warfare, killing thousands of people based on METADATA is wrong. If it's not classified as a war crime, it should be.
Grim notes:
...He kills everyone a computer program thinks even might be associated with terrorism, based on opaque metadata that is not subject to an independent review based on other evidence...
Terrorists are not "state actors," but so long as we are at formally-declared war with terrorists, the rules of war applying to active combatants should apply here.
Bear Is Angry!
There's a bear in the Church, and since it's Lent, he's a bit hungry. And he's angry, too.
...One man is entirely responsible for the papal logorrhea on airplanes. That is currently Pope Francis. Given the confusion he generates, and his helplessness to resist the lure of microphones, the Bear respectfully invites his Holiness' attention to the example of Ulysses and the sirens...
You know THAT story. Anyhow...
...the Bear will virtually bite the face off of anyone who employs the argument that "it's non-magisterial, it doesn't matter." Yes, the Bear has used that argument himself, but he was wrong. (And he can hardly bite his own face off.)
When the Pope opens his yap, HE IS TEACHING. When Fr. Lombardi follows up with a confirmatory press release, the Church is TEACHING. It is completely foreseeable that people will RELY ON MORAL TEACHINGS THAT COME OUT OF THE POPE'S PIE HOLE. And when one of his commissions comes out with a "non-magisterial" press release to much applause, THE CHURCH IS TEACHING. Don't tell the Bear it's not "magisterial." You think the average Catholic, let alone some reporter, knows the difference between "magisterial" and a magistrate? So, whether it's "magisterial" or not, it does count. Big time....
(There are a couple of Big Time National Blog-O-Yappers that Bear will be having for lunch. One is pictured at the top of the linked post. The other one uses the initial "Z" in his writings.)
The Bear makes a very good point: Communications technology is a LOT better than it was in the 10th Century, or even the 20th Century.
By the way: this puts our Bishops in a crack. We're waiting for them to speak up. Otherwise, I'll suggest that The Bear will have a very large repast forthcoming.
...One man is entirely responsible for the papal logorrhea on airplanes. That is currently Pope Francis. Given the confusion he generates, and his helplessness to resist the lure of microphones, the Bear respectfully invites his Holiness' attention to the example of Ulysses and the sirens...
You know THAT story. Anyhow...
...the Bear will virtually bite the face off of anyone who employs the argument that "it's non-magisterial, it doesn't matter." Yes, the Bear has used that argument himself, but he was wrong. (And he can hardly bite his own face off.)
When the Pope opens his yap, HE IS TEACHING. When Fr. Lombardi follows up with a confirmatory press release, the Church is TEACHING. It is completely foreseeable that people will RELY ON MORAL TEACHINGS THAT COME OUT OF THE POPE'S PIE HOLE. And when one of his commissions comes out with a "non-magisterial" press release to much applause, THE CHURCH IS TEACHING. Don't tell the Bear it's not "magisterial." You think the average Catholic, let alone some reporter, knows the difference between "magisterial" and a magistrate? So, whether it's "magisterial" or not, it does count. Big time....
(There are a couple of Big Time National Blog-O-Yappers that Bear will be having for lunch. One is pictured at the top of the linked post. The other one uses the initial "Z" in his writings.)
The Bear makes a very good point: Communications technology is a LOT better than it was in the 10th Century, or even the 20th Century.
By the way: this puts our Bishops in a crack. We're waiting for them to speak up. Otherwise, I'll suggest that The Bear will have a very large repast forthcoming.
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
More on Apple v. FedGov
We've been Apple-backers since this thing started with the FBI asking for a key. More from a tech-savvy guy can be found here.
...This isn’t a fight over keys to a single device. This is a fight over encryption, which the government doesn’t want any of us to have, ...
Of note is the fact that any device from the 4th generation forward (beginning with 5s) is impossible – IMPOSSIBLE – to decrypt without the actual key, because Apple has moved encryption duties to a separate System On A Chip (SoC) that runs its own OS, is married to the device by UUID, and totally inaccessible.
The phone the FBI is freaking out over is a 5c, not a 5s....
No matter what Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh say, Apple is right. The Feds want a universal back-door key to all Apple phones. If you value your privacy at all, (and I realize that many people do NOT), this is a fight worth fighting.
...This isn’t a fight over keys to a single device. This is a fight over encryption, which the government doesn’t want any of us to have, ...
Of note is the fact that any device from the 4th generation forward (beginning with 5s) is impossible – IMPOSSIBLE – to decrypt without the actual key, because Apple has moved encryption duties to a separate System On A Chip (SoC) that runs its own OS, is married to the device by UUID, and totally inaccessible.
The phone the FBI is freaking out over is a 5c, not a 5s....
No matter what Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh say, Apple is right. The Feds want a universal back-door key to all Apple phones. If you value your privacy at all, (and I realize that many people do NOT), this is a fight worth fighting.
Monday, February 22, 2016
But Even If the "Nuns in the Congo" Story is True....
There is serious dispute over the "nuns in the Congo" story which was referenced by Pp Francis. As it is told, nuns working in the Congo area were allowed to use birth control pills (NOT abortifacient pills, by the way) to prevent conception following a rape.
Prof. Janet Smith is, arguably, this country's foremost moral theologian on issues having to do with sexuality. Here's her analysis of the "Congo nuns" situation. (Smith takes for granted the truth of the story, by the way).
Thus, for a woman to do something to prevent a rapist’s sperm from
uniting with her ovum is a part of justifiable self-defense. Her act has
nothing to do with violating God’s plan for sexuality. She is not choosing to
use contraception to prevent a spousal act of sexual intercourse from achieving
its natural end. She is not refusing to make a complete gift of herself to her
spouse. She is fending off a rapist and
all his physicality. Clearly, her use of ovulation-suppressing hormones is not
an act of contraception....
There is an implication to the way Smith analyzes the story: "Rome" could have simply utilized the above analysis for the nuns who asked--thus "giving permission" under the specific outlined circumstances.
Or, as the legal beagles will say: it's facts and circumstances, folks.
Prof. Janet Smith is, arguably, this country's foremost moral theologian on issues having to do with sexuality. Here's her analysis of the "Congo nuns" situation. (Smith takes for granted the truth of the story, by the way).
....It also confuses many that the officials of the Church many decades
ago permitted nuns in the Congo who were in danger of being raped to take
hormones that prevent ovulation (which is what the “pill” does). In this case
the hormones would be taken with the intent of avoiding a pregnancy, but not a
pregnancy that would be the result of a spousal act of sexual intercourse. They
would not be altering the purpose of a spousal act of sexual intercourse. Rather,
they would be defending themselves against the possible consequences of an act
of rape. Keep in mind that it is justifiable for a woman to inflict great
physical harm, even death, on a man threatening rape. Her act of killing the
rapist is not justified as a “lesser evil” because killing is not a lesser evil
than enduring rape. Rather, her act is an act of just and moral self-defense.
There is an implication to the way Smith analyzes the story: "Rome" could have simply utilized the above analysis for the nuns who asked--thus "giving permission" under the specific outlined circumstances.
Or, as the legal beagles will say: it's facts and circumstances, folks.
Scalia: "Two Words"
No matter who nominates the next Justice of the Supreme Court, two words will define the nominee's judicial philosophy.
Due to the wonders of the internet, you can listen to WLW/Cincinnati
There you can hear a fellow named Bill Cunningham, who had dinner with Scalia--who told him that 'in the end, it all comes down to two words.'
Those two words?
"Who Decides?"
To Scalia, the Constitution's 9th and 10th Amendments are clear guideposts; those Amendments LIMIT the power of the Feds and SCOTUS.
The nominee with the right answer to that two-word question should be confirmed, unless you are foolish enough to think that 5 unelected lawyers in black robes should really run the country.
UPDATE: England gets to answer the very same question, soon.
Due to the wonders of the internet, you can listen to WLW/Cincinnati
There you can hear a fellow named Bill Cunningham, who had dinner with Scalia--who told him that 'in the end, it all comes down to two words.'
Those two words?
"Who Decides?"
To Scalia, the Constitution's 9th and 10th Amendments are clear guideposts; those Amendments LIMIT the power of the Feds and SCOTUS.
The nominee with the right answer to that two-word question should be confirmed, unless you are foolish enough to think that 5 unelected lawyers in black robes should really run the country.
UPDATE: England gets to answer the very same question, soon.
Marco's Attack on ICE
As usual, Marco tells about half the truth.
...Following an exclusive interview with Breitbart News in which Crane detailed how law enforcement was treated “like absolute trash” by Sen. Rubio during his effort to ram the Gang of Eight amnesty bill through the Senate, Rubio took to national television to denounce Crane and his service to his country....
...“He’s not an ICE official. He’s the head of a union,” Rubio declared on Fox News...
Actually, Crane is both. The Earnest Young Man has a truth-problem.
...Following an exclusive interview with Breitbart News in which Crane detailed how law enforcement was treated “like absolute trash” by Sen. Rubio during his effort to ram the Gang of Eight amnesty bill through the Senate, Rubio took to national television to denounce Crane and his service to his country....
...“He’s not an ICE official. He’s the head of a union,” Rubio declared on Fox News...
Actually, Crane is both. The Earnest Young Man has a truth-problem.
Chisholm Needs Some Cheese
Have some extra brie? John Chisholm has a lot of whine.
...The court in July declared the campaign finance investigation into 29 conservative groups and Walker’s campaign unconstitutional and ordered it shut down. In December, the court ruled that the position of the probe’s special prosecutor was invalid since its inception and that his only remaining duties were to inform the people he and his fellow prosecutors spied on and to return the property seized....
So the Attorney General went before the court:
...Schimel argues the defendants in the civil rights case filed by Cindy Archer, a former aide to Gov. Scott Walker, seek to “directly contradict” the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s order requiring the “evidence unlawfully seized by John Doe investigators be kept under seal.”...
And Chisholm began to cry:
...the investigators claim that Schimel has publicly besmirched the reputations of such upstanding “lifelong civil servants,” and they “do not deserve to be the target of the Attorney General’s defamatory attacks.” “It is shameful that law enforcement officers have to fear that their own attorney general will trample on their reputations in the media just to score political points,”...
Quick! Get to the fainting couch!! The nasty man called NAMES!!
Sum & substance:
...The question is: Why should investigators found to have conducted an unconstitutional investigation be allowed to hold on to those records while the citizens they illegally targeted have to continue to wait for the return of what is rightfully theirs?
“One more note: the legal position taken by the John Doe prosecutors and investigators is that the lawful owners of the property in question should be required to use the civil court discovery process to be able to have access to their own property,” the attorney general said....
Note to Chisholm: Wisconsin is not a police state and you aren't Checka. Find a life.
...The court in July declared the campaign finance investigation into 29 conservative groups and Walker’s campaign unconstitutional and ordered it shut down. In December, the court ruled that the position of the probe’s special prosecutor was invalid since its inception and that his only remaining duties were to inform the people he and his fellow prosecutors spied on and to return the property seized....
So the Attorney General went before the court:
...Schimel argues the defendants in the civil rights case filed by Cindy Archer, a former aide to Gov. Scott Walker, seek to “directly contradict” the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s order requiring the “evidence unlawfully seized by John Doe investigators be kept under seal.”...
And Chisholm began to cry:
...the investigators claim that Schimel has publicly besmirched the reputations of such upstanding “lifelong civil servants,” and they “do not deserve to be the target of the Attorney General’s defamatory attacks.” “It is shameful that law enforcement officers have to fear that their own attorney general will trample on their reputations in the media just to score political points,”...
Quick! Get to the fainting couch!! The nasty man called NAMES!!
Sum & substance:
...The question is: Why should investigators found to have conducted an unconstitutional investigation be allowed to hold on to those records while the citizens they illegally targeted have to continue to wait for the return of what is rightfully theirs?
“One more note: the legal position taken by the John Doe prosecutors and investigators is that the lawful owners of the property in question should be required to use the civil court discovery process to be able to have access to their own property,” the attorney general said....
Note to Chisholm: Wisconsin is not a police state and you aren't Checka. Find a life.
Sunday, February 21, 2016
Yup. Pp. Francis Screwed It Up
The current Pope has a bad case of logorrhea--too much talking. So on occasion (more often than not) the current Pope says something the meaning of which is impossible to decipher; or, as on this occasion, flat-out gets it wrong.
Paul VI – the great one! – in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted sisters to use contraceptives for cases of violenze. [sic]
The whole story is here. There are two different instances wherein "the Pope" or "Rome" (note that inconsistency) allegedly allowed nuns who legitimately feared rape to take contraceptives, thus avoiding pregnancy. The first story was about the Congo; the second was about Bosnia.
Cutting to the chase:
...vice-director of the Press Office of the Holy See, Fr. Piero Pennacchini. His words:
“The Holy See never issued texts authorizing women religious to make use of contraceptives, even if they run the risk of being raped”. “I know of no official document by the Holy See on this”.
One final note: a Jesuit priest started this whole thing with the Congo flimflammery; a Franciscan resurrected it regarding Bosnia.
We pray that Pp. Francis give up press conferences for Lent. And for the Easter Season, the season of Pentecost, Ordinary time, Advent, and Christmastide.
Paul VI – the great one! – in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted sisters to use contraceptives for cases of violenze. [sic]
The whole story is here. There are two different instances wherein "the Pope" or "Rome" (note that inconsistency) allegedly allowed nuns who legitimately feared rape to take contraceptives, thus avoiding pregnancy. The first story was about the Congo; the second was about Bosnia.
Cutting to the chase:
...vice-director of the Press Office of the Holy See, Fr. Piero Pennacchini. His words:
“The Holy See never issued texts authorizing women religious to make use of contraceptives, even if they run the risk of being raped”. “I know of no official document by the Holy See on this”.
One final note: a Jesuit priest started this whole thing with the Congo flimflammery; a Franciscan resurrected it regarding Bosnia.
We pray that Pp. Francis give up press conferences for Lent. And for the Easter Season, the season of Pentecost, Ordinary time, Advent, and Christmastide.
Throwdown to Reince & Co.
The Treehouse defends Trump-ism with a barrage of 16" shells.
*Did the GOP secure the border with control of the White House and Congress? NO.
• Did the GOP balance the budget with control of the White House and Congress? NO
• Did the GOP even pass a FY 2016 budget with control of the House and Senate? NO.
• Who gave us a $2.5 Trillion Omnibus Spending Bill in December 2015? The GOP
• Who eliminated, not just raise but eliminated, the debt ceiling? The GOP
• Who gave us the TSA? The GOP
• Who gave us the Patriot Act? The GOP
• Who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage? The GOP
• Who created the precursor of “Common Core” in “Race To the Top”? The GOP
• Who played the race card in Mississippi to re-elect Thad Cochran? The GOP
• Who paid Democrats to vote in the Mississippi primary? The GOP
• Who refused to support Ken Cuccinnelli in Virginia? The GOP
• Who supported Charlie Crist? The GOP
• Who supported Arlen Spector? The GOP
• Who supported Bob Bennett? The GOP
• Who worked against Jim DeMint? The GOP
• Who worked against Rand Paul? The GOP
• Who worked against Ted Cruz? The GOP
• Who worked against Mike Lee? The GOP
• Who worked against Ronald Reagan? The GOP
• Who is working against Donald Trump? The GOP
• Who said “I think we are going to crush [the Tea Party] everywhere.”? The GOP (McConnell)
Well. The question is very clear, indeed. I don't think the answer is "Trump," but there's no doubt that the answer is NOT "Reince, the Chamber of Commerce Lapdog and His Oleagenous Lying Friend McConnell."
HT: ColdFury
*Did the GOP secure the border with control of the White House and Congress? NO.
• Did the GOP balance the budget with control of the White House and Congress? NO
• Did the GOP even pass a FY 2016 budget with control of the House and Senate? NO.
• Who gave us a $2.5 Trillion Omnibus Spending Bill in December 2015? The GOP
• Who eliminated, not just raise but eliminated, the debt ceiling? The GOP
• Who gave us the TSA? The GOP
• Who gave us the Patriot Act? The GOP
• Who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage? The GOP
• Who created the precursor of “Common Core” in “Race To the Top”? The GOP
• Who played the race card in Mississippi to re-elect Thad Cochran? The GOP
• Who paid Democrats to vote in the Mississippi primary? The GOP
• Who refused to support Ken Cuccinnelli in Virginia? The GOP
• Who supported Charlie Crist? The GOP
• Who supported Arlen Spector? The GOP
• Who supported Bob Bennett? The GOP
• Who worked against Jim DeMint? The GOP
• Who worked against Rand Paul? The GOP
• Who worked against Ted Cruz? The GOP
• Who worked against Mike Lee? The GOP
• Who worked against Ronald Reagan? The GOP
• Who is working against Donald Trump? The GOP
• Who said “I think we are going to crush [the Tea Party] everywhere.”? The GOP (McConnell)
Well. The question is very clear, indeed. I don't think the answer is "Trump," but there's no doubt that the answer is NOT "Reince, the Chamber of Commerce Lapdog and His Oleagenous Lying Friend McConnell."
HT: ColdFury
What Really Counts for Cruz?
When one takes the measure of a man, one looks at the man's actions.
...It is thus worth noting, in this context, that on the very day of the highly important South Carolina Republican Presidential primary, only Ted Cruz made it a point to be at Justice Scalia’s funeral this morning....
Not likely that his campaign staffers encouraged that move.
...It is thus worth noting, in this context, that on the very day of the highly important South Carolina Republican Presidential primary, only Ted Cruz made it a point to be at Justice Scalia’s funeral this morning....
Not likely that his campaign staffers encouraged that move.
Saturday, February 20, 2016
Rubio, The Earnest Young Liar
Yes, he speaks from both sides of his lingual abilities. With forked tongue!
Well, DACA is going to have to end at some point. I wouldn't undo it immediately. The reason is that there are already people who have that permission, who are working, who are studying, and I don't think it would be fair to cancel it suddenly.
But I do think it is going to have to end. And, God willing, it's going to end because immigration reform is going to pass. DAPA hasn’t yet taken effect, and I think it has impeded progress on immigration, on immigration reform. And since that program hasn’t taken effect yet, I would cancel it. But DACA, I think it is important; it can't be cancelled suddenly because there are already people who are benefiting from it. But it is going to have to end. It cannot be the permanent policy of the United States. And I don't think that's what they’re asking for, either. I think that everyone prefers immigration reform....
Thus he spake--in Spanish--on Univision.
But his English? Altogether different.
...In English, he only talks about border security and DACA "ending." In Spanish, he says it will have to end at some point to be determined, and also says that won't matter much anyway, because we'll have a permanent legislative amnesty in place by then. (He also speaks of it ending in the third person -- he won't end it. It will just "end" itself, somehow. If we're doing a close parsing.)...
When Ted Cruz called him on it, he called Cruz a 'liar.' Trump-esque, eh?
And when Fox News interviews the Earnest Young Liar, they don't ask the question. Hmmmm.
Well, DACA is going to have to end at some point. I wouldn't undo it immediately. The reason is that there are already people who have that permission, who are working, who are studying, and I don't think it would be fair to cancel it suddenly.
But I do think it is going to have to end. And, God willing, it's going to end because immigration reform is going to pass. DAPA hasn’t yet taken effect, and I think it has impeded progress on immigration, on immigration reform. And since that program hasn’t taken effect yet, I would cancel it. But DACA, I think it is important; it can't be cancelled suddenly because there are already people who are benefiting from it. But it is going to have to end. It cannot be the permanent policy of the United States. And I don't think that's what they’re asking for, either. I think that everyone prefers immigration reform....
Thus he spake--in Spanish--on Univision.
But his English? Altogether different.
...In English, he only talks about border security and DACA "ending." In Spanish, he says it will have to end at some point to be determined, and also says that won't matter much anyway, because we'll have a permanent legislative amnesty in place by then. (He also speaks of it ending in the third person -- he won't end it. It will just "end" itself, somehow. If we're doing a close parsing.)...
When Ted Cruz called him on it, he called Cruz a 'liar.' Trump-esque, eh?
And when Fox News interviews the Earnest Young Liar, they don't ask the question. Hmmmm.
Friday, February 19, 2016
Dole, a Loser to Clinton, Drools Out Spite
Bob Dole, loser, speaking of Cruz:
He’s self-absorbed. He’s got this giant ego. He’s overly ambitious.
That from a guy who needs Viagra and who could not defeat the world's second-most prolific liar.
He’s self-absorbed. He’s got this giant ego. He’s overly ambitious.
That from a guy who needs Viagra and who could not defeat the world's second-most prolific liar.
Sacred Art
Another essay which makes distinctions and has import.
...Church architecture and other sacred arts, says Fr. Lang, are different from “spiritual” art. What is spiritual reflects the personal, individual experience of the artist, but what is sacred must be a means for others to reflect on a revealed, universal truth. As such, the object or goal of the sacred arts is to reveal or teach about something that is a fixed part of the Christian, catholic, apostolic tradition. Ultimately that tradition must be at unity with itself... the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church is founded on one Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. In other words, because sacred art serves public, didactic purpose (as opposed to “spiritual” art), it must be timeless and universal. It’s both a sign and a tool....
Consider music in the church in light of the above.
...Church architecture and other sacred arts, says Fr. Lang, are different from “spiritual” art. What is spiritual reflects the personal, individual experience of the artist, but what is sacred must be a means for others to reflect on a revealed, universal truth. As such, the object or goal of the sacred arts is to reveal or teach about something that is a fixed part of the Christian, catholic, apostolic tradition. Ultimately that tradition must be at unity with itself... the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church is founded on one Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. In other words, because sacred art serves public, didactic purpose (as opposed to “spiritual” art), it must be timeless and universal. It’s both a sign and a tool....
Consider music in the church in light of the above.
The Realities of Catholic Moral Teaching
Whether Pp Francis' remarks are "meaningless" or not (see below post), the realities of Catholic moral teachings remain unchanged, no matter who says what.
...Pope Paul VI, as I understand it, did approve of religious women threatened by rape using contraceptives. It is obvious, though, that such measures were taken in self-defense against criminal acts and, more importantly, would have occurred outside the context of conjugal relations. Avoiding pregnancy under outlaw circumstances is not only ‘not an absolute evil’, it’s not an evil act at all....
...An individual becomes “Christian” by, and only by, (valid) baptism. Donald Trump was apparently baptized Presbyterian, which faith community has valid baptism. Donald Trump is, therefore, as a matter of canon law (c. 204), Christian....
...There is no legitimate “principle” by which a “lesser of two evils” may ever be licitly engaged in. It is fundamental moral theology that even a small evil action may never be licitly engaged in—no matter how much good might seem to result therefrom and no matter how much evil might seem to be avoided thereby. There are, to be sure, principles by which a good or neutral action that has two effects, one good and one evil, might be licitly engaged in under certain circumstances despite the evil effects; and there are principles by which “lesser evils” may be tolerated (not chosen)....
...Abortion (assuming we are talking about doing an action intended to kill a human being prior to birth, and not just suffering ‘abortion’, i.e., miscarriage) is, Francis observed, always evil. Abortion is not, however, “evil” because it is a “crime”. Not all criminal acts are by nature evil and not all evil acts are crimes. Other factors must be considered lest moral principles and legal principles become confused....
...It is important (though some might say it is too late) to distinguish between a Catholic’s stance toward “same-sex unions” and that toward “same-sex marriage”. These are not equivalent terms. Legal recognition of “same-sex unions” might be a good idea, a tolerable idea, or a bad idea, but, per se, “same-sex unions” are things over which reasonable minds (including Catholic minds) may differ; in contrast, Catholics may never approve or support “same-sex marriage”,...
Yes, that was more than "fair use," and there's more at the link. But this is stuff that must be known.
...Pope Paul VI, as I understand it, did approve of religious women threatened by rape using contraceptives. It is obvious, though, that such measures were taken in self-defense against criminal acts and, more importantly, would have occurred outside the context of conjugal relations. Avoiding pregnancy under outlaw circumstances is not only ‘not an absolute evil’, it’s not an evil act at all....
...An individual becomes “Christian” by, and only by, (valid) baptism. Donald Trump was apparently baptized Presbyterian, which faith community has valid baptism. Donald Trump is, therefore, as a matter of canon law (c. 204), Christian....
...There is no legitimate “principle” by which a “lesser of two evils” may ever be licitly engaged in. It is fundamental moral theology that even a small evil action may never be licitly engaged in—no matter how much good might seem to result therefrom and no matter how much evil might seem to be avoided thereby. There are, to be sure, principles by which a good or neutral action that has two effects, one good and one evil, might be licitly engaged in under certain circumstances despite the evil effects; and there are principles by which “lesser evils” may be tolerated (not chosen)....
...Abortion (assuming we are talking about doing an action intended to kill a human being prior to birth, and not just suffering ‘abortion’, i.e., miscarriage) is, Francis observed, always evil. Abortion is not, however, “evil” because it is a “crime”. Not all criminal acts are by nature evil and not all evil acts are crimes. Other factors must be considered lest moral principles and legal principles become confused....
...It is important (though some might say it is too late) to distinguish between a Catholic’s stance toward “same-sex unions” and that toward “same-sex marriage”. These are not equivalent terms. Legal recognition of “same-sex unions” might be a good idea, a tolerable idea, or a bad idea, but, per se, “same-sex unions” are things over which reasonable minds (including Catholic minds) may differ; in contrast, Catholics may never approve or support “same-sex marriage”,...
Yes, that was more than "fair use," and there's more at the link. But this is stuff that must be known.
Well, Well. Mahound Meets "Fr. Z"
A controversial statement from Pp. Francis leads to a Happy Days moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
