What’s Become of The Catholic Church? (by ContraSuggest)

In the wake of the destruction following the reelection of President Obama, and after lengthy discussions with several good friends (solid conservatives all) I now understand the need to address several paramount issues. 

Of foremost importance is the tragic fact that poorly catechized Catholic Americans greatly contributed to Obama’s reelection by voting for him in large numbers (Catholic Hispanics by a much wider margin than white Catholics).  “Liberal Catholics,” whatever their ethnic backgrounds, are able to justify their mistaken, leftist view of Catholic doctrine only with the aid of liberal U.S. priests and bishops, who infest the Church, and shamelessly continue to traffic in heretical pedagogy.  We need clear distinctions here: Catholic doctrine as taught by the Church Magisterium is unerring; leftist apostate priests and bishops violate that doctrine and fail to properly extend it to everyday political issues. 

I intend to illustrate several things here.  First; how the Church came to be riddled with leftist clergy who fill lay people’s heads with all sorts of un-doctrinal falsehoods.  Second; I will dispel, once and for all, the false, pitiable belief that “Jesus was not political; therefore Catholics should not be political either.”  And finally; I’ll show how conservative economic principles are consistent with Catholic doctrine on a specific, issue by issue basis. 

The Tragedy of Vatican II:

One of the great self-inflicted wounds of the Catholic Church, especially in America, was suffered by the misapprehensions surrounding Vatican II.  The intent of the Second Vatican Council (convened in the early 1960s by Pope John XXIII) was for the Church to meet the destructive challenges posed by modernity; instead the Church allowed the excesses of the modern world to shape the Church.  After VII, Catholic liberals moved through the dioceses of Western Europe and America, purging the liturgy of traditional hymns and high-sounding language and seeking to reconcile faith with secular forms of “liberation.”  The same Marxist, counter-cultural forces that invaded the courts, the universities, the media, charitable organizations and all our great cultural institutions, also polluted the instrumentalities of the Catholic Church.  Many of the priests and bishops of today were the counter-cultural hippies of the 1960s.  Fifty years later, the legacy of these changes manifests in a majority of U.S. Catholics voting to reelect a president who is both a poster child for infanticide and an advocate of liberation theology.  The damage done in the U.S. by the Marxist-cartoon-rendering of Vatican II, begat several generations of Catholics who are morally ignorant and insulated against the duties imposed upon them by Catholic doctrine.

Jesus Wasn’t Political- Really?

Contrary to the belief of many uninformed Catholics, sacred scripture tells us that Jesus involved himself deeply in politics!  True, he wanted no part of Roman politics; but he fully immersed himself in Jewish politics.  Jesus’ main antagonists in the New Testament narrative were the Pharisees.  Who were they?  They were scribes or lawyers. But there was no separation between law, politics, and religion in 1^st century Jewish culture.  When the Pharisees repeatedly attacked and challenged Jesus’ proclamation of God’s kingdom, what was our Lord’s reaction?  Did he disengage; did he run; did he claim to be above the debate, withdraw and hide?  Of course not.  Our Lord continually engaged them; took on their rigid propaganda and revealed it for what it truly was.  The Pharisees' beliefs regarding the subjects of ritual purity, table fellowship, tithing, and divorce, were at the same time religious, cultural, and political.  Although Jesus did praise the Pharisees for some things, he clearly rebuked their beliefs on all these counts.  Catholic clergy and lay people need to proudly and vociferously immerse themselves in issues that are both religious and political, if we truly want to emulate the actions of our savior.  Our non-negotiable religious beliefs, such as the sanctity of innocent human life, from conception to natural death, will naturally inform the way we vote.  Bishops or priests that refuse to acknowledge this are aiding and abetting the commission of sin on a massive scale, and should be removed from their sees.  Ignorant pro-abortion Catholics had better stop whining about God not being on anybody’s “side”, and start concerning themselves as to whether or not they are on God’s side. 

Catholic Doctrine vs. Conservative Principle:

Contrary to the belief of the monolithic intelligentsia, conservative principles are compatible with Catholic social teaching.  Here are several solid examples.     

On Welfare Statism:

Simply put, conservatives don’t reject the notion that government is tasked with an economic regulatory and social welfare role.  The question is how do we define those terms and what should that role be?  What governmental actions (or inactions) constitute the reasonable and moral fulfillment of that role within the Catholic framework?  So let’s start by asking ourselves: has the plight of the underprivileged in America been helped or hurt by dooming the inner city poor to cycles of generational dependency on a massive monolithic federal bureaucracy that we’ve euphemistically called the Welfare State?  The poor have obviously been hurt.  Conservatives have stood against the Welfare State; liberal statists have made it a reality.  The establishment of inner city welfare plantations is totally out of line with Catholic teachings on caring for the poor.  There have been numerous sensible, market-based, effective conservative alternatives to the leftist culture of dependency.  However, liberals continue to spin the malicious fairytale, believed by many Catholics that conservatives desire a pitiable, destitute underclass left to fend for themselves.  Leading conservatives have long offered viable alternatives to the bane of leftist welfare statism; proposals that would temporarily care for the downtrodden while providing them with the tools to better their plight.  Many proposals have been public/private faith based efforts.  These myriad proposals, truly helping the indigent as our Catholic faith calls us to do, have been repeatedly rejected by leftists in both major political parties.       

Representative Paul Ryan’s proposed reforms of Medicare are by definition compatible with the precepts of Catholic social teaching.  Absent Ryan’s proposed reforms, Medicare will rapidly go bankrupt, doing untold harm to seniors who depend on that program for their healthcare needs.  Liberals can’t seem to explain how standing idly by as Medicare goes bankrupt is somehow in line with Catholic teaching.  Conservatives don’t oppose poorly performing government welfare programs because they wish to cast the impoverished into the wilderness.  We oppose them because they do great injury, not only to the people they were supposedly designed to help, but to our society as a whole.  As Charles Murray illustrated in his well-researched book, Losing Ground (1984), welfare programs are inimical to the institution of marriage.  Using the typical example of a poor couple, he demonstrated that welfare benefits available to the woman create a disincentive for the couple to stay married, or if living together, to get married.  Marriage, one of the treasured Catholic sacraments, drops the probability of poverty by 82%.  Once again, the liberal solution stands against Catholic teaching while the conservative view stands with it. 

On “Workers’ Rights”:

Conservatives, as advocates of limited, frugal government, stand against levels of public employee compensation that have exceeded that of their private sector counterparts.  The burden of paying out these soaring public employee benefits has pushed dozens of states to the verge of bankruptcy.  Public and private workers are immeasurably hurt by confiscatory taxation and crippling public debt.  Implementation of leftist policies has created a toxic economic atmosphere for all workers; the antithesis of Catholic teaching as laid out in the encyclical of Pope John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, which supports labor rights and rejects socialism. 

The “Evils” of Laissez Faire and The Free Market:

The term laissez faire is repeatedly used by liberals as a buzz word to assail conservatives and show they’re at odds with catholic precepts.  However, general opposition to regulation or interference by the government in economic affairs, and trust in the market, is not socially irresponsible.  Look, for instance at the concept of insurance.  It’s a free-market way of taking care of those suffering life’s vicissitudes.  And there is plenty of market incentive to deal with the unemployed.  Employers deal with the unemployed through markets all the time—by hiring them.  Those who have lost their homes still want a place to live, so property owners want to deal with them by renting to them.  How is this somehow anti-Catholic?  Capitalism and the free market are governed by what Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations, called enlightened self-interest.  This concept held that the larger social good is best served by individuals pursuing private interests.  There is no other country in the world where this principle has been allowed to thrive to a greater extent than in the United States; and, as a result, no other country which is wealthy enough to so compassionately care for it’s poor and downtrodden.  It is ham-handed, ill conceived federal government programs that are truly cruel and incompatible with Catholic teaching.

The Ultimate Evil: Big Corporations!

The conservative view of big corporations is in no need of alteration in order to bring it in line with reason and Catholic social goals.  Profitability of big corporations is essential because that profitability is intertwined with the economic well-being of the average person on the street.  Not only do these corporations employ average working stiffs like us, but our 401K, retirement/pension plans and stock portfolios are invested in those same corporations.  This isn’t the world of 30 years ago when only 3 in 10 average American workers were invested in the stock market.  By 2008 that figure was 8 in 10.  Why would we want to increase punitive regulation and taxation on the very corporate entities that our personal economic interests are inexorably linked to?  This type of silly, demagogic class warfare thinking makes it impossible to have a rational conversation about the validity of our largely free market economic system.  For instance, our media outlets are very quick to depict multi-national corporations that do business in third-world countries as evil and exploitative.  Ignorant Catholics undoubtedly agree.  The fact of the matter is that, on average, third-world workers earn three times as much working for multi-nationals than they could otherwise.  Although those wages pale in comparison to American wages, keep in mind, we’re talking about people who are cursed with the most extreme poverty.  That’s why they line up by the thousands to work for multi-nationals when those companies set up plants in underdeveloped parts of the world.  And they’re better off for it.  Giving job opportunities to utterly destitute people living in the third world is in no way incompatible with Catholic morals.

Final Thoughts:

In closing, I’ll paraphrase former abortion doctor turned Catholic pro-lifer, Bernard Nathanson, “morality isn’t just something that floats around in the air and sticks to us.  Someone has to explain it, someone has to enunciate it, and someone has to fight for it.  For if we don’t; who will?”  Catholics should be at the forefront of that movement; instead we’ve abdicated our responsibility by allowing the leftists to catechize us into imbecility.  In Matthew chapters 16 and 28, Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church and that he would be with His church until the end of the world (or the end of the age- literally until the end of time).  I believe those words without doubt, but am fearful that much damage can be done by Satan to many individual souls before the end of time.  I am acutely aware of my sins and continually beg forgiveness for having committed them, but liberal Catholics had better wake up soon and look at the blood on their hands and the destruction they’ve left in their wake, before it’s too late.

The Late, Great United States of America: A Requiem (by ContraSuggest)

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. 

May a once great nation rest in peace.

America was once a place where liberty reigned, where citizens were free to choose such essential things as how to care for their own physical and spiritual health, and such seemingly mundane things as what kind of light bulbs to screw into our living room lamps.  Celebrated freedoms made possible by an exquisitely designed government; various co-equal branches whose powers were dynamically balanced against one another, which made possible, on an unprecedented scale, happiness, opportunity, and prosperity for the largest number of people ever in human history.  But there was more; the American system also allowed for majority rule while effectively protecting minority rights.  There have been many occasions over the past few hundred years in which we have seen an erosion of these rights and freedoms.  Then came Barack Obama.            

With the reelection of Obama, for the first time in the 21^st Century, slightly more than half of American voters have clearly expressed that they’re perfectly comfortable with our country’s government assuming the role of a failed, European-style socialist democracy.  Slightly less than half of American voters are skeptical, and would at least entertain the notion that America could again be the superlative constitutional, federated-republic that its Founders intended.

But Americans lost their collective institutional memory somewhere along the way.  Tragically, to most Americans, the freedoms that we once shared are like some half-remembered nebulous dream or myth.  When speaking to most Americans about constitutional rights, one might as well be talking about the flying carpets of the Arabian Nights, the centaurs of ancient Greece, or the existence of Shangri-La.  The leftists have effectively wiped clean America’s institutional memory; with catastrophic results.  And so America will continue to repeat the tragic mistakes of her past.  It’s important to keep in mind that Americans have recovered from making very poor electoral choices in the past.  After two terms of the dreaded Woodrow Wilson, voters were wise enough to ameliorate that decision by opting for the prudent, conservative leadership of Presidents Harding and Coolidge.  Only to be taken-in once again by the siren song of Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression; reelecting that statist for an unprecedented three times.  Yet, as a young man, I was privileged to have witnessed the triumphant two-term presidency of the great Ronald Reagan.

We may someday recapture a piece of our former glory, but at least for now, the America I knew in my youth is clearly dead.  It’s a different country now; the demons of selfishness and hedonism have gripped the people by the throat.  We must continue to fight the darkness by kindling the flames of liberty and freedom during these sad, dangerous times; and fervently pray for the Divine Providence that the Founders believed guided our once great nation.    

O my Jesus, forgive us our sins

Save us from the fires of hell

And lead all souls to Heaven

Especially those most in need of thy mercy

Amen

An Assortment of Sound Opinions (by ContraSuggest)

ITEM: Romney TKOs Obama in First Debate

You really have to hand it to Mitt Romney.  It only took him 90 minutes to cut through the Gordian knot of many months worth of distortions and lies put out there by Team Obama.  We’re constantly reminded by the media that presidential debates really aren’t that important in determining how people are going to vote.  Whereas that may be generally true, it’s certainly not so in the case of an election where the polls are as close as they are now.  Romney’s stellar debate performance has improved his standing in the polls, nationally and in the swing states; although this election still seems to be anybody’s game, Romney is now slightly ahead.  Due to his loss in the first fight, President Infanticide will no doubt be stepping it up in his next two encounters with Romney.  Mitt had better be ready, this is for all the marbles, he has to withstand Oblabla’s punches and come back to deliver a knock-out blow.  In the least he must clearly be perceived as having got the better of the president, if not, he will no doubt lose his slight edge in the polls.  Remember, the next presidential debate is scheduled for Tuesday 10/16/2012, don’t miss it (and Mitt, you’d better bring your A game).           

ITEM: Biden Makes a Biden of Himself

It isn’t difficult to make the jump from 2012 Vice Presidential Debate to a Warner Brothers Road Runner/Wile E Coyote cartoon.  Anytime Joe Biden is on the TV screen, we need to suspend our disbelief, for he is the hero of ignoramuses everywhere.  Picture the opening of such an animated adventure, as the camera freezes on each figure with a mock Latin subtitle: Representative Paul Ryan: Ipsum Exceptionalis; Vice President Joseph Biden: Moronus Interuptis, Obnoxio Equus Rearendus.  Just as the pathetic and hapless coyote tries in vain to kill Road Runner using an endless array of gadgets from the fictional Acme Corporation, so did VP Biden try to take out Mr. Ryan with an assortment of phony facts provided him by his hack handlers.  That strategy alone wouldn’t have hurt Ryan much, so it was combined with an even more disingenuous one; Biden was boorish, overbearing, condescending, and downright nasty.  He indecorously interrupted Mr. Ryan no less than 80 times with assorted grunts, huffs, guffaws, groans, derisive laughter and over-talk.  I was actually frightened at one point when the camera was focused on Ryan speaking during one of his turns, whilst off to his right Biden could be heard either transforming into a werewolf or passing a kidney stone.  I doubt very much if our clueless VP helped to endear himself to the precious independents courted by both tickets in this close election.  I suppose we shouldn’t be too surprised by Joe’s unbecoming-of-a-vice-president performance; after all, liberals are all about civil dialog.  Right?

ITEM: Obama: Mr. Consistency?

This past week the great condom president, Barrack Obama, told supporters at a campaign rally, that he can be counted on for his consistency.  With a presidential debate approaching, the subject of which will be foreign policy, I thought it would be instructive to briefly review the president’s consistency on foreign affairs.  Over the past four years, the Obama administration has pursued a dangerous and confused smorgasbord of anti-terror and war initiatives.  The lack of consistency in his approach has sent mixed signals to our allies and communicated weakness to our enemies.  Consistency?  Here’s a quick recap of Obama Administration consistency on foreign policy:

• Taking the position that armed enemy combatants captured on the battlefield should receive full US Constitutional rights, including due process and civilian trials; while at the same time increasing overseas unmanned predator drone strikes against enemy targets; executions without the benefit of due process and fair trials
• When taking office, the 911 Five were on course to be tried by a military tribunal; Obama and Attorney General Holder resolved to instead try them in civilian court; four years later they’re back to being tried in military tribunals 
• When he ran for president in 2008, Obama continuously vowed to close the Guantanimo Bay detention facility; four years later it’s still in operation
• In the early days of the uprisings against the ruling Iranian regime, Obama held that the US shouldn’t meddle in Iran’s internal affairs, then later made public statements of solidarity with the protestors
• In Afghanistan, tried to replicate the successful surge strategy employed by President Bush in Iraq, a strategy that Obama roundly condemned.  Because of the vast differences of the two battlefield landscapes, the strategy that worked in Iraq is failing in Afghanistan, as is evidenced by a resurgent Taliban
• Ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden, who was located and executed through and by the very Bush/Cheney military/intelligence policies that Obama condemned in 2008

ITEM: Two Marriage Turncoats Defeated In NY!

Last year I blogged on the subject of four turncoat Republican senators here in New York. 

·             Mark J. Grisanti (Buffalo) [FINISHED]

·             James S. Alesi (Rochester) 

·             Stephen M. Saland (Hudson Valley)

·             Roy J. McDonald (Albany)  [FINISHED]

These slugs ran for office vowing to their constituents that they would uphold marriage as an institution between one man and one woman.  When Governor Andrew Cuomo decided that he was going to aid in the dismantling of marriage by leading the charge to redefine it, he and like-minded folk with very deep pockets, convinced the four aforementioned Republican senators to change their minds and break their promises.  Only with the votes of these traitors did same sex marriage become law in the Empire State.  The cash that they took for selling-out was supposed to fund their efforts to fend off any primary campaign challenges against them as a result of their sleazy votes.  The thoroughly decent and stalwart folks at the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) vowed to take down the turncoats by funding their primary opponents.  Now for the good news; last month, Saratoga County Clerk, Kathy Marchione, soundly defeated Roy McDonald in the Republican primary in New York’s 43^rd Senate District.  One down. 

Senator James Alesi has mysteriously retired!  What were you afraid of James, were you scared to face the voters of your district after stabbing them in the back?  Guess we’ll never know.  Two down (and good riddance to bad rubbish). 

Steve Saland had a much more difficult than expected primary win against a tough challenger by the name of Neil DiCarlo.  DiCarlo will now run on the Conservative Party line in the general election to further plague Saland’s chances at reelection.  Senator Grisanti will also be challenged by a Conservative Party Candidate in the general, as well as a Democrat.  Only the electoral defeat of these Republican defectors will convince other Republican senators not to betray their constituents.  And the fight goes on.

The Insidious Death-Cult of Barack Obama (by ContraSuggest)

As you’ve all probably noticed, it’s been quite a while since my last post.  For the past several months I have certainly been extremely busy with the job, with my personal research, and a little bit of play thrown in for good measure.  But the real reason for my long layoff from posting has been my complete dismay at the direction of the country.  It’s well known that I am not a fan of Mitt Romney.  When it became evident that he was the Republican nominee, and the only thing standing between America and the cancer that is Barack Obama, I was a little demoralized and decided to take some time off from blogging.  While Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan as his vice presidential running mate did lift my spirits, I continue to be frustrated.           

I am frustrated that no one seems to listen to reason.  I grow tired of making valid points that few will acknowledge.  I grow tired of winning arguments while failing to change hearts and minds.  I grow tired of helplessly observing as America is drawn ever-faster and closer to the nihilistic oblivion that it has incrementally drifted towards for the better part of the past century.  The Obama cancer is hastening that slide.    

Our president has denied the bedrock truths of history and openly trampled on our most sacred, time-tested traditions.  While smiling and joking, he shamelessly unravels the moral and ethical fibers that bind together what little there is left of our country’s timeless founding principles.  Reason is continually turned on its head, as his propaganda ministers gleefully convince us that night is day and day is night.  Religious freedom is now conditional upon his tyrannical and socialistic whims.  We’ve heard all the arguments and all the economic and social statistics that undergird them; many laid out elsewhere in these pages.  We’ve heard them all, ad infinitum.  With the election just about a month away, what is there really left to say at this point?  Whose fault is it that the country is in an economic, social and spiritual freefall?  It is clearly not “Bush’s fault,” nor is it the fault of obstructionist congressional Republicans, nor is it the result of natural disasters, nor is it the result of the acts of foreign governments.  It’s got nothing to do with the New World Order, nor an unfavorable alignment of planetary bodies, nor “man-caused disasters,” nor is much of it the fault of “birthers” or “truthers.”

We can no longer afford to mince words; we can no longer afford to compromise or retreat.  The application of God-given reason allows us to distinguish right from wrong.  Although not every case will be clear-cut, moral absolutes do exist, and we must have the courage to point them out when we see them.  Compromise is sometimes necessary, but in our secular/socialist-leaning culture, the art of compromise has wrongly been elevated to the height of sophistication.  Compromising with someone who is wrong is equivalent to surrendering your principles, and surrendering truth.  If we first have to engage in an ongoing debate to define truth and reason, then let’s get on with it.  But good Christians should never agree to sacrifice their principles on the secular altar of “compromise.” 

There can be no bipartisan compromise on the subject of innocent human life.  Take for instance the indefensible and barbaric partial birth abortion; a hideous procedure that there is no valid medical reason for ever performing.  Partial birth abortion is simply the premeditated, cold-blooded murder of innocents; there are no shades of gray regarding such issues.  As an Illinois state senator, Mr. Obama voted that doctors should not be on hand to treat those few innocent babies who miraculously survive the abortion process.  While engaged in the insane hedonism that has become American culture, an epidemic of moral ignorance has spread among the American people.  We have forgotten how to recognize evil; our largely self-imposed ignorance has allowed evil to thrive, and it is destroying us.  President Obama is a festering social and political cancer on the lungs of our country that is quickly metastasizing.  The only form of chemotherapy available to us to fight the cancer is Mitt Romney.  President Obama must be defeated at the polls in November.  It is the only way to slow America’s decent into the abyss.

The Top 10 Things That “Environmentalists” Will Soon Make Us Do (by ContraSuggest)

10.  Institute “National Hold Your Breath Day”:  You’ll never guess what evil substance human beings release into the atmosphere each time we exhale.  If you’re thinking CO2, give yourself a pat on the back.  Imagine if everyone riding along on Mother Earth were to hold his or her breath for just 10 minutes.  What a difference we could make; write your congressmen and get the ball rolling, this could be the greatest thing since Hootie said, “Give a hoot, don’t pollute!”

9.     Live with Farm Animals/Plant and Grow Trees Indoors:  It’s a known fact that human beings are destroying our beautiful planet.  We crowd animal species right out of their habitats and into extinction; we cut trees down by the millions, decimating Mother Earth’s delicate ecosystem.  Now, the perfect solution: plant redwoods in your living room and take on a gator as your roommate.  Just remember the importance of all those wonderful things that nature provides us with, like: Tsunamis, erupting volcanoes, Bubonic Plague, and poison ivy!  Good ole Mother Earth

8.    Virtual Meat-Eating:  An on-line game in which the player portrays a character that “eats” lots of meat.  This way we can get carnivorous urges out of our systems in cyberspace while at the same time, saving cows and chickens in the real world.  If the statists have their way, we may not be able to eat cows, but soon we’ll be able to marry them

7.    Eat Styrofoam:  Preliminary studies show that although Styrofoam is harmful to our precious planet, it’s non-toxic when ingested by us horrible humans.  Yes, we can use our own bodies to recycle cups and plates!  So the next time you’re at the family barbeque, consider skipping the pie and pudding for desert and eat a Styrofoam plate or cup instead.  Recycle that nasty Styrofoam into harmless poop!

6.    Kill The Whales:  Did you know that plankton helps rid the oceans of that hateful Devil Gas, CO2.  That’s right, but did you also know that whales love to eat plankton?  How can that marvelous plankton continue to do Mother Earth’s work while being devoured by whale?  Easy solution- kill ‘em all (the whales that is)

5.    Compost our Poop:  Composting toilets are all the rave, they recycle pooh-pooh into, well, symmetrical blocks of pooh-pooh.  We’re not sure exactly why, but when you’re helping the environment, who needs an explanation?  Sure your house will smell like a New Jersey land fill, but isn’t a stench that could knock a buzzard off a shit truck from a hundred yards away worth the benefit of saving the environment?  The answer is an inconvenient truth

4.    Make Love to Blow-Up Dolls (or at least use condoms):  By now we all know that humans suck.  There simply needs to be less of us so we stop defiling our pristine planet.  If more people would just exercise their libidinous energies on blow-up love dolls we could reduce our population.  If you can’t manage this, at least use condoms (especially if you’re under the age of eleven).  I mean, abortion is great and all, but we need to do more

3.    Extinguish Burning People with Dirt:  Can anyone guess what substance is in many fire extinguishers?  That’s right, dreaded CO2!  Let’s outlaw these things quick, Mother Earth hangs in the balance.  In the meantime, if someone’s on fire, just throw dirt on ‘em, it’s worth a few layers of skin in order to not release extra CO2 into the atmosphere

2.    Insert Butt-Plugs:  As you know CO2 is the greatest threat to the Earth since Y2K.  Guess what flatulence releases into the atmosphere?  I’ll put it this way: we ain’t fartin’ roses.  So save the environment- assume the position!

1. Kill Ourselves:  Humans are, in the end, just an infestation on this planet, with less of a right to be here than fungus, bacteria, ticks, and lizards.  It’s already OK to kill unborn babies and old people (which shows how sophisticated and advanced we can truly be); at the same time we shouldn’t deter everybody else from making sacrifices for our beautiful planet.  So save the planet; kill yourself!

Environmental Disclosure Statement:

***No trees were harmed in the sending of this message.  However, an extremely large number of electrons were highly inconvenienced***

Pilgrim’s Progress: My Journey Home to the Catholic Church (by ContraSuggest)

Looking back at my life, I don’t think there was ever a time when I learned anything important through conventional means.  As a kid, my grades in school were pretty decent overall, but by the time I crammed my brains out, passed the tests and graduated, I was an exhausted nervous wreck, and my ability to retain knowledge ranked up there with that of a lab rat.  Not until much later did I discover that I was best able to learn only slowly, on my own, through independent study.  As a kid, my inability to retain academic knowledge stood side by side with ignorance of my religious faith.  Furthermore, I thought that anyone who practiced so-called “organized religion” was basically a douche-bag.  Oh how I detested those pushy, self-righteous, over zealous religious lunatics, who were going to convince me that I faced eternal damnation in the pits and bowels of Hell, lest I immediately repent and turn myself over to Christ!  These boobs were able to gain access to my attention through several different means.  The main avenue of access was the television airwaves.  Having spent the better part of my childhood in front of the tube, I received quite a large dose of “televangelism” in between reruns of Star Trek and the Odd Couple.  These televangelist guys, mostly dressed in dark three-piece suits, always seemed to be yelling at the tops of their lungs and foaming at the mouths.  Every now and then they’d work themselves up into such a lather that tears would stream down their faces.  Suffice to say that these various televangelists all seemed like babbling lunatics to me and so, I thought, the most unlikely messengers of Christ that I could conceive.  Another method used by the minions of religious conversion was to set out on Sunday mornings pounding the pavement, going from house to house to spread the word of the Lord.  So while your bacon and eggs were getting cold, these dapperly dressed automatons would take to buzzing around your front porch, quoting scripture, refusing to leave until you agreed to take some of their omnipresent literature for later reading.  I tried everything to keep these religious Amway salesmen away from the house, including keeping all the doors and windows closed, turning on the lawn sprinklers (making sure that they were aimed squarely at the front porch).  I tried letting the dog out with no leash, and some even more radical measures, like telling them (with a straight face) that our family were worshipers of mighty Satan and so could not possibly have any use for Christianity.  Although each method was effective to varying degrees, the situation was always uncomfortable, and those people always managed to piss me off.

I certainly had a lot of frustration and anger towards the world of religion back then, even my own church was not immune from the harshest of my criticisms.  I was raised in a not so devout Roman Catholic family; since I attended public schools, I had to receive religious instruction on Sundays and in the evenings, received my first communion, was confirmed, but attended Mass sporadically.  During my formative years, though I always remained respectful of Jesus Christ, there weren’t many positive things I had to say about the Church.  Mass was too long, boring, and annoying (sit-stand-kneel-repeat), the liturgy incomprehensible (the Catholic missal might as well have been written in Klingon), most churchgoers looked like a bunch of mindless zombies, some parishioners observed various customs while others did not, etc.  As I got older these resentments grew stronger, and learning about the politics and scandals within the Catholic Church (always from secular, anti-Catholic sources, mind you) including infidelities on behalf of some priests, helped to reinforce all my negative feelings.  Taking some crash courses in world history (again, from anti-Catholic sources) I discovered that the Church had been the progenitor of many a bloodbath: the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the improprieties that made the Reformation necessary, just to name a few.  The “proofs” of science seemed to disprove the literalness of many biblical events.  I proceeded to enter a period of great doubt, never questioning the existence of a God, but believing God to be something other than what Christendom claimed Him to be, and thinking Christianity to be nothing more than a quaint and convenient mythology.

As the years wore on I pictured myself to be on a course moving farther and farther away from my Catholic faith.  Who needed organized religion and all the scandal and guilt that went along with it?  The dastardly cartoon image of the Church, viewed through the lens of our destructive secular culture, was a perfect fit with my cynical immaturity.  I had a habit of siding with anyone who had even the slightest beef with the Vatican, imagining the Church to be a cross between the Mafia and the evil M.A.D. organization from the Inspector Gadget cartoons.  I drifted in a nebulous void for years; reading, contemplating, and searching.  I read books and pamphlets on just about every other belief system known to man: Christian Gnosticism, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism, Islam, I Ching, Shinto, Mithraism, Kaballah (aka Jewish Gnosticism), Ceremonial Magic, Wicca, Astrology, and the list of drivel went on and on.  There were few I hadn’t heard of or read something about, but none of them could fill the void that I felt in my heart and in my soul.  I viewed religion as something that you kept tucked away in your pocket, to be taken out as a crutch at funerals, merely to be tucked away afterwards out of embarrassment.  I just couldn’t understand the concept of faith: believing in something with all your heart when most of the salient facts told you otherwise. Taking things “on faith” seemed to me like a fool’s pursuit; I wanted truth, and to me truth meant possessing the cold, hard facts, not some fuzzy, illogical belief in something that I couldn’t perceive with my five senses. 

But things are not always as they seem, as I came to realize that the course leading me away from the Catholic Faith was more akin to that of a boomerang than a bullet.  For so long I assumed the grass to be greener on the other side of the religious fence.  However, when looking at the unmolested historical record, it becomes clear that Catholic Doctrine, although based upon faith, is invariably consistent with reason, history and scientific inquiry (for a thorough exposition on this topic, see my post of 12/26/2011 titled, Merry Christmas and a Defense of the Catholic Faith linked here: http://contrasuggest.blogspot.com/2011/12/merry-christmas-and-defense-of-catholic.html).  Throughout my long period of disillusionment there were two people, both practicing Catholics, who helped to guide me back home.  One was my mother; the other my oldest friend; they were always there as gentle defenders of the faith, sounding boards, and shoulders to cry on in my spiritual frustrations.  They continually showed me a side of Catholicism that was inconsistent with the presumptuousness that I attributed to it.  Never did they dismiss me out of hand, never did they back away from me, and rarely, if ever, did they exhibit the smug sanctimoniousness that I at times engaged in.  They nearly always showed patience and tolerance for my dissenting views of the Church, no matter how harsh and disrespectful those views were.  And in attempting to answer some of my often very tough questions, they taught me, through example, one of the key exponents of faith: never be afraid to say, “I don’t know the answer,” while still maintaining your belief.  Somehow they just knew that I would eventually return, and they made that prognostication without consulting the Psychic Friends Network, a deck of Tarot Cards, or even the much-revered Magic Eight Ball.  Without their prayers and patient support, my journey would certainly have been a longer and harder one.  And, lucky for me, I married a fantastic woman who happened to be on a similar journey, which allowed the two of us to return to the Church together.  I know that I speak for her as well when I say that it feels great to be home.  And so I encourage all cradle Catholics who have drifted from the faith to fairly reexamine the Church; you’ll be pleasantly surprised at what you discover.     

Beyond the Shrouds of Islam (by ContraSuggest)

On several occasions I have been asked to explain my critical views of Islam.  Although I have done so in private letters and communications, I have never posted a blog on the subject.  Since most Americans, and the major media outlets that Americans look to for their information, continually display ignorance about the history and disposition of Islam, I felt it was time to broach the subject here at the OTPE.  Before I begin, there are two things I’d first like to get out of the way.  One, I harbor no ill will towards law abiding Americans who happen to be Muslims.  Two, I do not believe that President Obama is a Muslim.  It’s a shame that I have to state these things up front, but I strongly suspect that I’ll be accused of believing them somewhere down the road.  What you’re going to get here is a fact-based, historical analysis regarding the main problems with Islam, unknown to the average American.  I’ll begin with Islam’s version of Holy Scripture:

Foundational Texts of Islam:

Koran (or Qur’an) (Words of Allah)

Sira (Life of Mohammed)

Hadith (Traditions of Mohammed)

These are the three sources from which all Islamic belief is drawn; although the media only speaks of the Qu’ran, the Sira and Hadith are perhaps more important, for they provide the only context within which the Qu’ran can be properly understood.  Now let’s dive right into the three things that I believe most people don’t know about Islam, but should:

1. In theory and in practice, Islam is more of a socio-political ideology than a religion
2. Islam is the only one of the world’s major “religions” that does not have a version of the Golden Rule
3. Islamic thinking uses a kind of dualistic logic that is alien to our Western thinking

I’ll briefly touch on each of these three points. 

(1) Radical political Islam has existed ever since the 7^th century when predatory Muslim hordes first issued forth from Arabia, unprovoked, in order to conquer a decaying Byzantine world.  The Christian Middle East, Northern Africa, and Western Europe were ferociously invaded and conquered by Muslim armies, 200 years before the first Christian Crusade was launched.  The unrelenting jihad has continued, almost unabated, for 1400 years, claiming nearly 300 million lives.  In any country or province where brutal Muslim law (Sharia) is practiced, it is used as an alternative to other systems of law and other forms of government (which makes its implementation anywhere in the U.S. a serious threat to our secular rule of law and representative government).  Muslim law distinguishes itself from other forms of government to such a degree as to reveal its political nature. 

The great theorist of The Muslim Brotherhood, Sayyid Qutb provided this instructive quote in 1948:

“We only have to look in order to see that our social situation is as bad as it can be.  …we continually cast aside all our own spiritual heritage, all our intellectual endowment, and all the solutions which might well be revealed by a glance at these things; we cast aside our own fundamental principles and doctrines, and we bring in those of democracy, or socialism, or communism.”

^(Source: Quote- Social Justice in Islam, translated by John B. Hardie and Hamid Algar, revised edition, Islamic Publications International, 2000, pg. 19).

If Islam is not a political doctrine then why does Qutb juxtapose it with other forms of government rather than other religions?  He is in effect admitting that Islam is a political doctrine.  Oh, and by the way, political Islam, rather than religious Islam, makes up the largest part of subject matter in Islam’s foundational texts. 

 

(2) Every one of the world’s major religions has some version of the Golden Rule, namely, the concept that one should “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  Every religion, that is, with the exception of Islam.   Over the centuries, the Catholic Church has been the greatest promoter of the natural rights doctrine (outlined and defended by Aquinas and many others); and the United States of America was founded upon that same doctrine.  It holds that all people, regardless of creed, color, national origin or social standing, are equal in the eyes of the creator, and possess unalienable rights upon birth (see the second paragraph of The Declaration of Independence for the most eloquent statement concerning these rights).  In Islam there is a set of rules that applies to believers and another set that applies to unbelievers.  One may not lie, cheat, murder or steal from a fellow Muslim; but doing those things to non-Muslims is not only permissible but encouraged, this is clearly outlined in the Hadith.  Westerners regularly fail to live by the Golden Rule, but it is the standard by which we are judged and the ideal which we aspire to; there simply is no corresponding doctrine or belief in Islam.

(3) When faced with two statements that contradict each another, Western logic informs us that at least one of those statements must be false.  Not so with Islamic dualistic logic.  The Muslim holy books are filled with glaring contradictions that make the Bible look like a Nobel-winning chemistry dissertation, in terms of its consistency.  The Qur’an contains the words of Allah, as told to us by his one and only profit Mohammed.  Since Allah is perfect, everything that he says is the unimpeachable truth.  Therefore, if one sura (chapter) of the Qur’an says that unbelievers should be shown tolerance and left to their own devices; and another sura says that the unbelievers should have their heads and the tips of their fingers cut off; in Islamic thinking, both are considered true!  I expect that the “moderate” Muslims that the media always tells us about choose to adhere to the former sura; Islamic fascists, like Osama bin Laden and Kalid Sheik Mohammed, choose to adhere to the latter.  But there are further twists: firstly, the vast majority of the statements concerning unbelievers in the Muslim holy trilogy are of an intolerant, violent nature; only a small minority of them urge tolerance.  Then there’s the Islamic doctrine of “abrogation.”  The Qur’an’s moderate suras were written in Mecca, before Mohammed and his followers were forced to flee that city; the intolerant suras were written later when Mohammed settled in the city of Medina. The doctrine of abrogation in Islam holds that the later writings take precedence over the earlier writings.  So the harsher, more intolerant suras take precedence over the earlier, more tolerant ones. The sad truth is that there is far more in Muslim holy writings, history, and tradition that inspire the bin Ladens of the world than the Muslim moderates of the world.

Finally, it’s rather clear to see that whatever brutal, regrettable actions have been taken throughout history by some adherents to the world’s non-Muslim religions; with very few exceptions, those actions were in violation of those various religions’ tenets.  The opposite is true of Islam; this is the historically verifiable legacy of jihad.

Fact Sheet: Obama vs. Gingrich on Healthcare (by ContraSuggest)

For years, Newt supported the individual mandate that would require, under penalty of a fine, all citizens to purchase some form of health care insurance.  It was a stupid thing to have advocated, but he has publically admitted that it was a mistake and has since changed his position.  Rick Santorum, who happens to be a very good conservative candidate, greatly exaggerates when he points out that Newt’s former stance on individual mandate would preclude him from effectively critiquing Obamacare.  Newt was one of the leaders in the fight to stop Obamacare’s predecessor: Hillarycare.  The health care proposals put forth by Gingrich in the past have been consistent, with the sole exception of individual mandate; the rest of the measures that he called for were designed to empower the free-market, not the federal government, which is the antithesis of Obamacare.  I have bulleted out the main points below so readers can decide for themselves.  Newt has never supported any of the other disastrous measures that make up Obamacare, such as:

• The creation of at least two-dozen new bureaucratic, taxing and regulating offices, councils, groups, and programs
• Gauging “comparative effectiveness,” which will bring about rationing, ill-health, and in some cases, death
• Trillions of dollars worth of tax increases on nearly every aspect of the health care industry; costs that will either be paid by or passed onto consumers
• A $500 billion cut in Medicare
• Total exclusion of medical malpractice reform
• A legislative pogrom against insurance companies
• Bribes, payoffs and threats to coerce legislators into voting for a bill that the public did not support; dirty machine politics on an order of magnitude that was shocking (even by sleazy Washington standards!)

Gingrich offers these solutions, absent the individual mandate:

• Elimination of waste and fraud that costs taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars per year.  Medicare fraud is largely enabled by the current paper-based system of billing and record keeping; implementation of electronic third-party liability verification and payment would save billions.  Similarly, as 90% of all medical claims are paid by printing paper checks that are delivered by mail, transitioning to electronic payment would save an estimated $11 billion a year       
• Reform the bureaucratic disaster that is the FDA by streamlining the process of approving new drugs and treatments by relying on true scientific applications rather than endless analysis via bureaucratic red tape
• Extending the same favorable tax treatment enjoyed by those covered under employer provided plans to individuals who purchase their own health insurance
• Encourage health plan portability and competition in the free-market by repealing the laws that prevent insurance companies from doing business across state lines
• Allow small businesses to band together and form associations, enabling them to purchase less expensive employee insurance plans
• Give taxpayers access to the healthcare data (not privileged patient information) that their money has allowed the government to compile, allowing them to be better-educated, healthier consumers
• Encourage preventative rather than acute care by reforming the Medicare doctor reimbursement equation.  Currently, doctors only get paid for office visits; not, for instance, counseling patients via phone or e-mail regarding healthy behavior, how to lower their drug costs, or how to comparison cost shop online
• Encourage a private-sector-led best-practice initiative that educates the health care industry regarding documented, evidence-based best practices that work and will promote massive cost savings
• Empower states to better manage their Medicaid programs, because they better understand the health care needs of their citizens than do Washington pols

Moderate Mittsy Wins Florida and Nevada; Gingrich Campaign Floundering (by ContraSuggest)

Newt’s debate performances have clearly had a bearing on his caucus and primary showings.  The cycle is now familiar: low poll numbers, followed by great debate performances are followed by better than expected primary showings.  The same linkage proved to hold in Florida; unfortunately for Gingrich, after winning upwards of ten Republican presidential debates in a row, he finally had two consecutive poor showings just prior to the Sunshine State tally.  Not to mention the fact that Newt was besieged by zillions of dollars worth of negative attack ads.  Moderate Mittsy took it to Gingrich hard during the CNN encounter on 1/26, scoring multiple debating points.  Gingrich seems to be in a weird place right now.  For some reason he thinks he can release media adds ripping Mittsy without having to defend the charges in detail during the course of the debates.  Newt seems to have lost his stomach for the hand-to-hand combat required to back up the anti-Mitt charges put forth in his ads.  He must understand that if he’s going to make scathing criticisms of an opponent, then he needs to get his facts straight and stick to his guns, if not, then keep his trap closed.  He looked exhausted, and lately, less capable of delivering the impassioned, eloquent and forceful anti-liberal-establishment flurries that have electrified debate audiences and gained him the respect and support of Republican primary voters.  My advice to Newt: after Florida and Nevada, take a few days off to recharge your batteries, watch a recording of the CNN debate, like a boxer watches a fight that he’s lost, pinpoint your weaknesses and come to the next debate loaded for bare.  Stop whining about Mttsy’s negative ads and start defending yourself against them.  If you can’t take this kind of pounding, what the hell will you do against Obama’s leftist mafia?  You’d better toughen-up and revert back to the winning strategy you employed in South Carolina before it’s too late!      

Now some advice for Governor Blake Carrington: get a life you big phony!  Were you kidding when you said that your investment in Freddie Mac is not hypocritical, after flaying Newt for accepting paychecks from them?  Oh wait; your zillions are invested in a blind trust, which, of course, makes it all better.  So let me get this straight Thurston, if it was discovered that you were invested in a Guatemalan teen-prostitution ring, you could escape criticism by simply saying your money was in a blind trust?  What a total crock!  If there are certain types of enterprises that a beneficiary does not want to be invested in due to ethical objections, then his money should not be in a truly blind trust.   The point here is that Mittsy’s ethical objections are ad-hoc; his outrage at Newt for earning money from Freddie Mac, manufactured.  By the way Mittsy, contrary to the tortured logic you plied at the CNN debate, holding securities issued by Freddie Mac, means that you’re profiting each time you collect a dividend; I guess you don’t consider it dirty money when it’s lining your golden pockets, you big fraud.  By the way, remember when you said that Teddy Kennedy’s use of blind financial trusts was nothing more than a “ruse.”  Your flip-flopping is absurd, and you are beyond pathetic.  Meanwhile, the executors of your “blind” trust are your buddies over at Bain Capital; I’m sure you have absolutely no idea where any of that money is invested.  Sure.     

Your anti-Newt campaign ads are so unprincipled that you have lured your opponent (to his own discredit) into the mud with you.  One of your ads has the unmitigated gall to call Newt’s emotional stability into question!  Why don’t you just accuse him of spending two days a week in a straight jacket at Belleview hopped-up on Thorazine?  You’re so clueless that when the subject of another depraved ad was brought up during the debate, you questioned whether or not it was one of yours, only to have moderator Wolf Blitzer later embarrass you by confirming that it was.  You are such a putz; if you win this nomination Obamao will destroy you.    

Although I agree with many commentators that the low blows being leveled by both Gingrich and Mittsy are not adding any substance to the dialog, I still assign most of the blame to Mittsy.  It was Newt that resolved himself to only attacking Obama in the early stages of the campaign, running a positive campaign, and even repeatedly praising his opponents.  When this positive strategy of presenting innovative ideas led to higher poll numbers, Mittens and his super PAC nuked Gingrich with millions in negative ads.  On the subject of real substance, Senator Santorum simply kicked Mittsy’s ass up and down the stage when he pointed out that the author of Romneycare could not possibly make an effective case against Obamacare.  There are far more substantive similarities to the two plans then there are differences.  In a general election, the voting public will not be able to make a clear enough distinction between the two, thus greatly strengthening Oblabla’s Achilles’ heel and nullifying any attacks on Mittsy’s part.  Primary voters really need to rethink their support of Moderate Mittens.

Gingrich Wins South Carolina, Defeats the Romney Imperium! (by ContraSuggest)

Despite a massive, mostly dishonest onslaught from all sides, including an ex-wife, primary opponents, super PACs, hostile jabbering media morons, Democrats, and the tofu establishment-wing of the Republican Party, Newt Gingrich has won a decisive victory over moderate Mittsy Romney in the South Carolina Republican Primary.  It’s obvious that Mittsy’s plan to let his mendacious super PAC take Gingrich down, while he coasts to victory sporting a halo, hasn’t worked.  In fact, Newt’s super PAC has given Mittsy a taste of his own medicine.  Media reports say that Mittsy’s campaign has a backlog of dirt it hasn’t yet unleashed on Newt.  I say, bring it on!  Let’s see how tough you are in a bare-knuckle brawl, mano-a-mano with Newt.  Let’s see how your moderate record as Taxachusetts governor stands up to Newt’s conservative congressional record.  Let’s see how your consistency on core conservative issues stands up to Newt’s.  Let’s see how your meager knowledge of history and foreign policy stands up to Newt’s.  Who really has the most to lose in such an exchange?  You do Mittsy.  Let’s stop pussyfooting around and have it out already!  One thing’s for sure, after yesterday’s primary results, you’re not going to be able to marginalize Newt Gingrich. 

By persevering under a withering high-tech media blitz designed to disgrace him and destroy his candidacy, the former House Speaker has proven that he’s tough enough to withstand attacks from the Obama mafia.  C’mon Republicans, stop flirting with the Thurston Howell III-wing of the party and throw your support behind Newt.  An aristocratic, country club Republican will have trouble tacking Obamao to the wall; Newt will skewer him!              

In addition to putting forth innovative, viable solutions, detailed elsewhere in the pages of this blog, Gingrich has taken on the shibboleths of the left by going for the jugular, he has fearlessly and accurately pointed out the following:

• That the Palestinians are an “invented people”
• That no one in the media had the common sense to ask the OWS protestors how they could have a park to protest in if it wasn’t for corporations making profits
• That the U.S. Constitution clearly gives Congress the authority to limit the injunctive powers of the federal judiciary
• That treating captured enemy terrorist combatants like armed robbers is tantamount to surrender in the war against Islamic-fascism
• That Obama is the biggest food stamp president in history
• That despite the criticism of race-baiters, he’ll continue to fight to empower poor people to lift themselves from poverty

These are the words of a man who will use the bully pulpit of the presidency to articulate time-tested, traditional, conservative American values.  He’s also laid out a detailed legislative roadmap that will lessen federal intrusiveness on states, the private sector, and in the lives of individuals.  This is a man who will fight the leftist Matrix tooth and claw, and provide invaluable help to those of us who wish to restore the American Dream.  He has the legislative record of accomplishments; the leadership skills from his time as House Speaker, well-honed oratorical abilities, the value of many lessons learned the hard way from the blunders and mistakes of the past, and now, a stunning victory in South Carolina!  Go Newt!