Brutally Honest

Does being a Christian mean you have to like everyone?

Or that you shouldn't criticize the President of the United States?

LT Horton, who blogs regularly at Look! A black Catholic!, has a post up over at Ignitum Today where she tackles the tyranny of nice:

Recently I posted this. Well, following its publication, I engaged in a conversation with someone very close to me, who did not think it very “Christian” of me to dislike our current POTUS. The following is a letter I wrote to this individual. My intent was never to post this but after much thought and prayer, I realized what I said needed to be heard. I’ve edited the letter to remove this person’s name and any identifiers.

Dear Friend,

I know we disagree on politics. We don’t have to agree on political issues, but since you chose to reprimand me by stating that as a Christian I should not say the things I say about Obama, I must firmly disagree. Respectfully, I must prove that you are wrong in your assertion that being a Christian means you must like everyone.

I once read:

St. Paul writes to Timothy (2 Tim 4:2-4), Proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching. For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine, but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths….

At no place in the Sacred Scriptures does it say: Be nice! However, popular portrayals of Christianity would lead us to think that the first and greatest commandment is niceness.

I was originally going to focus on three things in this letter.

1. Abortion

2. Same-sex marriage

3. Religious freedom

However, I realized that each of these issues is very detailed and therefore to ensure that I can fully relay as much information as possible, I decided to center on one issue; and to be quite honest, all I need is one, to make my point.

...

So, THIS is one of the reasons why as a Christian I MUST speak out against our current president. To sit silently would make me an accomplice. I’m not a lawyer, a politician, or a minister, so my power only comes from my words. Therefore I can only write and speak the Truth; and the Truth is, “Proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching. For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine, but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths…”

Clearly, there's more and yes, it's worthy.

And enlightening.

But not for the faint hearted or the easily offended... especially those of you so easily put off by people who aren't... "nice".

Wimps.

You know who you are.

Clergy for Obama... aren't

At least not as strongly.

Back in 2008, this blog covered the writings of a site called Clergy for Obama, a site that has now gone private (which is revealing in and of itself).  It was chock filled with one religious leftist post after another singing the praises of then Senator Obama and the hope and change he promised to bring the country.

Many of those voices, or certainly voices like those who posted, are apparently not quite as enamored with The Won today.

In 2008, Barack Obama took aim at the “pew gap,” the overwhelming Republican edge among voters who regularly attend church.

The Democratic presidential nominee came nowhere near closing it, but he didn’t have to. He just needed an extra percentage point or two among traditional GOP constituents, and he got it.

The Democratic National Committee is promising a repeat performance in 2012. But some religious leaders and scholars who backed Obama in 2008 are skeptical. They say the Democrats have, through neglect and lack of focus, squandered the substantial gains they made with religious moderates and worry it will hurt Obama in a tight race against Republican Mitt Romney.

The DNC’s faith outreach director, the Rev. Derrick Harkins, said the party has strong relationships with religious groups. But as evidence of their concerns, critics point to the public debate that followed Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage, a decision the president said was based in part on his Christian faith.

No prominent clergyperson was sent out as a surrogate by the administration to explain the religious argument in favor of same-sex relationships. Instead, the main religious voices connected to Obama in the public sphere were the ministers who serve as his personal spiritual advisers and generally oppose gay marriage. Those ministers who were willing to comment — many weren’t — said they were struggling with Obama’s decision.

“I think there is a viable religious left who can be persuaded by a carefully articulated religious argument, but no one is making it,” said Valerie Cooper, a religious studies professor at the University of Virginia and Obama supporter. “I’m concerned that the administration has not followed through on the promise of 2008.”

Cooper recently attended a White House briefing for academics on the work of the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. She and other religious scholars say they understand that pressing issues such as the economy had to be the priority. Still, they argued more could have been done to broaden the party’s tent.

“I get frustrated when I talk to evangelical friends or students and they ask, ‘How can you be a Christian and a Democrat?’” Cooper said.

David Kim, a Connecticut College religious studies professor, helped advise the 2008 campaign when videos of incendiary sermons by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s former Chicago pastor, threatened to derail the nominee. Kim, who attended the briefing with Cooper, described the administration’s faith-based work as “ad hoc” and “with no long-term strategy.”

“I didn’t really get a clear sense of what the mission is,” Kim said.

In 2008, the Obama campaign sought ways to cooperate with religious moderates and conservatives and make them feel more welcome among Democrats. Many political veterans dismissed the idea as quixotic. For the past decade or so, exit polls have found that the more often a voter attends church, the more likely he was to back a conservative candidate, earning the GOP the nickname “God’s Own Party.”

The Obama campaign built grassroots support among religious voters by organizing “faith house parties,” sending Roman Catholic and evangelical surrogates on the campaign trail, and holding faith caucus meetings at the party’s national convention. Cooper remembers a conference call the campaign organized with Democrats who opposed abortion rights and a position paper the campaign circulated from a Catholic theologian about reducing the need for abortion.

According to exit polls, the effort paid off. Obama made gains over the 2004 nominee, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, with voters who attend religious services more than once a week, 43 percent to 35 percent. Obama also won 26 percent of the evangelical vote, compared with 21 percent for Kerry.

“It wasn’t huge, but it was statistically significant,” said John Green, director of the University of Akron’s Bliss Institute for Applied Politics. Religious Democrats began to talk of a new era for the party.

But from 2008 to 2010, when control of Congress was at stake, the DNC cut its faith outreach staffing from more than six people to one part-timer, according to The Washington Post.

The big question is whether or not Religious Leftists will once again fulfill the role of useful idiot.

I suspect many of them will.

This administration is all about fooling the gullible and sadly, religious leftists have proven to be some of the most easily led.

"The mystery must have a solution, the question an answer, the code a key."

Webster Bull is on his 21st day on the Camino de Santiago and he's posted a pearl:

At breakfast I sat with three English-speaking adults: Greg from Portland (OR), whom I met at the albergue in El Burgo Ranero; Marie, a mother of two and grandmother of five from Dieppe, New Brunswick; and "Rick," a very successful Harvard MBA now based in San Francisco who has called Boston and Zurich home and originally hails from Brooklyn. 

Then the morning passed and I took a seat at the same café facing the cathedral. Greg and Marie passed by without stopping, while Rick finally, almost apologetically, asked if he could sit with me again. We passed a companionable hour, he writing in his journal, I drawing a ridiculously amateurish cathedral in mine, one that nevertheless retains a certain mysterious integrity. 

And I told Rick that he had said something at breakfast that stuck with me, as it still does now. 

We were talking about the remarkable coincidences of the Camino, the things that happen that make you think, like my uncanny meeting with Nacho yesterday. At breakfast, Rick had said that these were mysteries, pure and simple, and that it was not necessary to understand mysteries or attribute them to anything. I heard in this statement something quite common here on the Camino: a desire to leave God or anything higher out of the equation. Life is a mystery. What else do I need to know? 

But all morning I wondered: What is a mystery novel without a solution? It is an unthinkable tease. What is a question without an answer? A torment. What is a code without a key? Gibberish. And the world, to my eye and to my heart, is neither tease nor torment, and it certainly isn't gibberish. This world must mean something. 

The mystery must have a solution, the question an answer, the code a key. And not to seek these answers is to be less than human. The heart desires an answer, and yet we sit silently by, allowing the code to remain uncracked. 

That's the condition of so many people today, and it is the reason I choose to believe in God.

If you're not following Mr. Bull as he travels The Way, you're missing out.

Honestly, you are.

Courage, strength, determination...

... from a young man with cerebral palsy who teaches us all a thing or two.

Yea, grab a tissue before watching:

Obama and his willing accomplices in the media are now targeting Cardinal Dolan

No one should deny that The New York Times serves at the behest of Barack Hussein Obama and the leftist ideology they both embrace.

And no one should deny that Cardinal Dolan is the face of the opposition to the HHS Mandate being foisted upon Catholics by this administration.

So this hit piece from the New York Times can't really be surprising.  Cardinal Dolan must be taught to bow to Obama and digging up alleged dirt on him is the Chicago way. The Old Gray Hag is of course willing to do her level best to teach Dolan a lesson, to punish him, to smear and discredit his name.

Will it work?

To the unthinking and those prone to pile on to that which feeds their hatred of the Church, of course.

But to those who care to go deeper, those who see this for what it truly is, the hope is that it won't.

For the latter, I give you first Jimmy Akin who fisks The New York Times piece effectively and who offers up what I consider to be effective counters to the smears.

And then I give you Mark Shea who I think sums things up rather smartly:

There is much dudgeon in the article. There is no dudgeon–none whatsoever–about the fact that exactly the same tactic is used to get rid of pervy public school teachers. This, and the lionization of the Right Sort of Roman makes me rather inclined to think this a specimen of the Times indulging in fake dudgeon because of Dolan’s leadership against the HHS mandate. In short, it’s a hit piece in the service of another agenda.

In the end, the story seems to be that Dolan tried to get rid of bad priests as fast as possible, which used to be a good thing according to the Times. Since the state did not see fit to get rid of them by putting them in jail and the canonical process might for all I know, have cost *more* than this route (has anybody done the calculations?) I don’t think it’s particularly a slam dunk that this was a bad way to go. In the end, the tradeoff is between asking, “Do you want a long expensive process in which the perv remains a priest on the payroll while he games the system endlessly or do you want a short process in which he gets some money and we are rid of him?” I, for one, am not ready to have hysterics about Plan B–at least till I know the cost of the full canonical rigamarole for laicizing a perv.

You pays your money and you makes your choice: is it more important to get rid of the perv swiftly even if it costs you something (that used to be the very sensible demand of the Times, if you recall)? Or do you keep the perv around for months or even years (while it still costs you something and perhaps costs even more than it would cost you to just get rid of him)? I care more about getting rid of the perv fast than I do about money. So even if the long canonical process were cheaper than $20,000 (and I strongly suspect it is not) I think I’d be inclined to favor the fast route. The only drawback is that the perv gets the money. So is it more important to me that the perv not get the dough or that innocents are protected from a perv? I opt for innocents protected over my desire for vengeance.

I suspect this is the first of more attacks to come against Archbishop Dolan, after all, it is the Chicago Way and we know with certainty that Obama is quite the thug-in-chief.

The question is how far will the attacks go?

Time will tell.

In the mean-time, allow me to plug a movie I'm hearing has relevant undertones.

For Greater Glory is playing at theatres near you.  I plan on seeing it this weekend.  I think you should as well.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

"The most disgusting thing I have ever received in the mail"

Ann Althouse is livid... and rightly so:

This is an effort to shame and pressure people about voting, and it is truly despicable. Your vote is private, you have a right not to vote, and anyone who tries to shame and an harass you about it is violating your privacy, and the assumption that I will become active in shaming and pressuring my neighbors is repugnant. 

Not voting is a valid choice. If you don't have a preference in the election, don't vote. If you think no one deserves your vote, don't vote. 

This may be the most disgusting thing I have ever received in the mail.

She posted a screenshot of the offending piece of mail at the link.

A sign of pure desperation in Wisconsin.

I'm no stand alone Mitt Romney fan...

... but since my choice is between him and Obama, I'm willing to become one.

I was most pleased yesterday to see that Mr. Romney ain't no John McCain when it comes to campaigning:

More impressive action from the rebels of the Mitt Romney camp as they opened up a three-front skirmish against forces loyal to the Emperor Hussein yesterday in Boston, Fremont, Calif., and Washington, D.C. 

There was the candidate himself, giving a sharp speech about the crony-capitalistic disaster of Solyndra outside the shuttered headquarters of the green pipe dream itself. At the same time, President Obama was pinned down in the capital, grinding his teeth through some typically solipsistic remarks while his detested predecessor grabbed the spotlight at the unveiling of his official presidential portrait — and  wowed the crowd with some folksy self-deprecation and love for his family.

But the most important engagement of the day was the public heckling of presidential consigliere David Axelrod, including orchestrated chants of “Solyndra, Solyndra.” Never elected to anything, the former Chicago Tribune reporter and city-hall bureau-chief-turned-campaign-consultant made an unforced error in emerging from the shadows, where the general public could get a good look at him. As Charles Krauthammer observed last night:

You’ve got to ask yourself on today’s events: Who is David Axelrod, and who elected him? Who decided he should stand outside the [statehouse] and give a speech? He’s an adviser of the president. He has no stature. I think that looked bad, [his being] drowned out. Why wouldn’t you… have the vice president of the United States speaking… or a surrogate who’s elected?

Good question. Is Obama so short of allies that he’s reduced to having the Mr. Peachum of his administration front for him public? 

...

The Romney camp has already shown itself to be an adept counter-puncher, but now seems to be moving toward a more aggressive, offensive posture. Yesterday was a series of Doolittle Raids, to test the enemy’s reactions.

The real action will come after Labor Day. The Citizens United decision allows the GOP to match and even surpass Obama’s 2008 fund-raising prowess (no wonder he reacted so bitterly to it), which means that the Romney campaign will be able to deploy the big guns further down the line and pound what’s left of Obama’s defenses into rubble. 

If David Axelrod is all Obama’s got, his campaign is in bigger trouble than any of us thought — or hoped.

Might it be so.

The country can not withstand another 4 years of Obamanomics nor can the country's soul survive the man's soullessness.

Go Mr. Romney go... may your campaign be nothing like the McCain campaign of 2008.

Musical Interlude

Posted by tim, The Godless Heathen

Because it's the weekend... and I'm a heathen.

"I can feel a good one coming on..."

Carry on.

 

The contrast is incredible

Watch George W. Bush and his lovely wife at the presser announcing the official hanging of their respective portraits and be warmed by their charm, their humor, their wit, their graciousness, their demeanor, their selflessness.

A tremendous contrast:

"American Catholics: It's the Camino calling. Pick up the phone."

Webster Bull is a Catholic convert who, inspired by the movie The Way, has been walking the Camino de Santiago and is challenging American Catholics to check thee this out and do something about it:

When I began preparing to walk the Camino de Santiago this spring, I expected a mob scene, especially from the USA. How could American Catholics not turn out in record numbers after seeing "The Way," the Emilio Estevez film about the Camino? Well, they haven't. This traditional Catholic pilgrimage has become a hotspot of European cultural tourism—and a terrible missed opportunity for American Catholics. Half the people I have met, though they may say they're not religious, are practically begging to be evangelized. Where are you, Catholic guys and gals? 

I have been walking the Camino with my daughter Marian for nearly three weeks now and am posting about it every day. I have some thoughts about why US Catholics are so poorly represented. (I've met more Korean Catholics than American ones, and more Aussies than Yanks.) And I have some personal experiences that demonstrate what a fertile field this Compostela ("field of stars") can be. 

...

We must not care enough. I mean, about evangelizing. About witnessing openly to our Catholic faith on a 1,000-year-old pilgrimage route that, let's face it, would not exist but for Jesus Christ and his apostle James. Anyone who walks this Camino—atheist, Buddhist, Catholic, deist, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, New Ager, or Taoist (in alphabetical order, of course)—cannot escape a simple fact, no matter what their attitude to the Church or to Christ: They wouldn't be here if not for Him. They might be walking across England, or trekking the Himalayas, but they wouldn't be here. 

He's got much more and I highly recommend you go back and read his posts about his trek thus far and that you take the next step in following him as he completes his trek on The Way.

I've seen the movie myself and loved it so much, I decided to see it again.  I don't usually do that.

It's simply outstanding and it touches something deep within me, something I can't quite express or even understand fully.

The New York Times reviewed the film last year and it's a piece worthy of your time.

God willing, I will walk The Way one day.

God willing.

Sez so much

"Socialist politics are acceptable, but not the politics of a man who stood up and fought socialism"

Rory Cooper at NRO:

Lech Walesa was once a trade-union activist. He was often arrested for speaking his mind against Communist oppression behind the Iron Curtain in Poland and for defying the Soviet Union. He was an electrician who, with no higher education, led one of the most profound freedom movements of the 20th century — Solidarity. He became president of Poland and swept in reforms, pushing the Soviet Union out of his homeland and moving the country toward a free-market economy and individual liberty. And President Obama doesn’t want him to set foot in the White House.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Polish officials requested that Walesa accept the Medal of Freedom on behalf of Jan Karski, a member of the Polish Underground during World War II who was being honored posthumously this week. The request makes sense. Walesa and Karski shared a burning desire to rid Poland of tyrannical subjugation. But President Obama said no.

Administration officials told the Journal that Walesa is too “political.” A man who was arrested by Soviet officials for dissenting against the government for being “political” is being shunned by the United States of America for the same reason 30 years later.

Meanwhile, one of the recipients of the Medal was Dolores Huerta, the honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America. So socialist politics are acceptable, but not the politics of a man who stood up and fought socialism.

Yet it's dumb to call Obama a socialist.

Really?

Undercover gay activist successfully ruins career of Christian psychotherapist

More of the sort of behavior we're all supposed to affirm and tolerate:

Lesley Pilkington, the Christian psychotherapist who was the subject of a “sting” operation by a homosexualist activist, has lost her appeal to the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy.

The BACP has informed her that she will lose her senior accredited status, after she was tricked into providing counseling for unwanted homosexuality at the request of a fake client who was secretly an undercover gay activist.

Pilkington was told that she should not have assumed that her client, Patrick Strudwick, wanted to proceed under a Christian therapeutic approach, despite the fact they had both agreed to do so. She was also told that she should not have taken his claim that he was depressed because of his homosexuality at face value.

The BACP also ruled that Strudwick had been a real client, despite his having admitted that he sought Pilkington’s help only as a pretense to entrap her.

The BACP ruling admitted that “in significant ways [Strudwick] deliberately misled her into believing that he was comfortable and accepting of her approach, such as saying Amen at the end of prayers and making statements such as, ‘I’ve become more religious again recently,’ lulling Mrs. Pilkington into a false sense of security.

“In his persistent questioning he manipulated the content of the sessions to a considerable extent in order to meet his own agenda.”

Strudwick told the homosexualist news service Pink News, “We want to root out therapists and psychiatrists who are practising these techniques and ultimately bring an end to them through exposing them, as well as disrupting their meetings. The ultimate aim was to prevent religious groups from offering ‘counselling’ which aims to change sexual orientation.”

In its initial correspondence with Pilkington, the BACP had called her work to help homosexuals who asked to leave the lifestyle “reckless,” “disrespectful,” “dogmatic” and “unprofessional.” Guidelines issued by professional associations force psychotherapists to “affirm” homosexuality, even if the client does not.

And so cultural decay sinks to a new depth.

First they came for the faithful Christian...

In a culture where marriage can be defined to mean anything...

... then anything can be defined to be a marriage:

A 36-year-old North Dakota woman who married herself in a commitment ceremony last March has now spoken about her self-marriage choice in an interview with Anderson Cooper.

The marriage took place among friends and family who were encouraged to "blow kisses to the world" after she exchanged rings with her "inner groom", My Fox Phoenix reports.

"I feel very empowered, very happy, very joyous ... I want to share that with people, and also the people that were in attendance, it's a form of accountability," Nadien Schweigert told Anderson Cooper.

Schweigert said the ceremony was a celebration of how far she'd come since her painful divorce six years ago that led to her two children to decide to live with her ex-husband.

"Six years ago I would've handled a problem by going out and drinking," she said. "I smoked, I was 50 pounds overweight ... this is just celebrating how far I've come in my life."

We can thank Mr. Shea for this one.  He quotes an expert on the subject:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone,”it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

Crossposted at Wizbang.

Excuses, excuses

Get over them.  Really.  

It's not like your excuse is unique.

Thanks Deacon Greg.

"Every time I sit in the pew I ratify this behavior..."

"... and I'm not going to ratify it anymore."

Those words and more from Anna Quindlen, New York Times columnist and author as she describes why she left the Catholic Church... and Jennifer Fulwiler's wise response: 

Author Anna Quindlen has been in the news lately, promoting a new book called Lots of Candles, Plenty of Cake. She recently spoke with NPR's Terry Gross about a wide range of topics she covers in the book, including her recent decision to leave the Catholic Church. She summarized this decision by telling Gross:

The pedophilia scandals, the church's reaction to them, and their constant obsession with gynecology -- taken together at a certain point, it was probably two or three years ago, I said, 'Enough.' Every time I sit in the pew I ratify this behavior, and I'm not going to ratify it anymore.

I'm sure that Quindlen's words resonated with many. She's a gifted writer, and has undoubtedly put words to what others have thought when they make the decision to leave the Catholic Church. Like Quindlen, many people who abandon their Catholic faith still believe in God and still strive to be good, moral people; they choose to leave because they think that they will find these things they desire -- God, freedom, equality -- outside the walls of the Church. Such a move certainly fits in with popular cultural beliefs. Common wisdom states that the Catholic Church is a corrupt organization that places oppressive, unnecessary rules on its members. The way to find freedom, the thinking goes, is to ditch the institution and create a spirituality and moral code that works for you.

To modern ears, this all sounds right. But is it true?

As someone whose faith journey has gone in the opposite direction, I would encourage Quindlen, as well anyone else who has followed her path or is thinking of following it, to consider the following five questions before abandoning the Catholic faith...

Or, before criticizing the Catholic Church thoughtlessly.

Good stuff, please read it all.

I can tell you why I left Catholicism and why I stayed away for 40 years.

Ignorance.

It's really that simple.

It makes me think of this rather famous and apt Fulton Sheen quote:

"There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church.  ....As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do."

I'm of the strong opinion that Anna Quindlen, and far too many like her, are leaving or criticizing something they think is the Catholic Church... when in reality, it ain't.

Sad.

And ignorant.

Foreign media, doing the job American media ignores

Regular readers will know that this is a repeat of something my guest blogger Locutisprime put up a couple of months or so ago but I thought it worthy of posting again after seeing it elsewhere this morning.

Had this been George W. Bush, you can bet that the MSM would've been all over it but it's their wonder boy so he gets a pass.

I see this and all that comes to mind is that the man's just puttin' in his time, just punchin' the clock.

And there are people out there who continue to think this man deserves a second term.

Seriously?

"If you think that isn't an agony for this child, please think again"

Dr. Anthony Levatino clinically goes through a procedure too many of us would rather ignore, too many of us think is far from a big deal, too many of us think is merely the exercise of a woman's constitutional right to privacy.

I dare you to listen to this entire video and not think about the horrific things that use to take place in Nazi death camps.

I. Dare. You.

H/T to Mr. Archbold at Creative Minority Report who writes in part:

... this is new and pretty darn frightening...

What it is in reality is wicked.  Plain and simple.  Wicked.

And people who defend this are as wicked.

It's as plain and simple.

Obama's efforts to improve foreign relations...

... took a bit of a hit yesterday in Poland:

Poland demanded a “strong and clear response” from the U.S. after President Barack Obama’s mention of a “Polish death camp” while honoring a Pole who told the world about the Holocaust.

“We can’t accept such words in Poland, even if they are spoken by a leader of an allied country,” Prime Minister Donald Tusk told journalists in Warsaw today. “Saying Polish concentration camps is as if there was no German responsibility, no Hitler.”

Since, 2004 Poland has sought clarifications from several news outlets for the use of a phrase “Polish concentration camps” that were run by the Nazis during the country’s occupation in the World War II, according to the Foreign Ministry’s website. The government has convinced publications including the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and the San Francisco Chronicle to stop using the phrase.

“The president misspoke -- he was referring to Nazi death camps in German occupied Poland,” Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the White House National Security Council, said in a statement. “We regret this misstatement.”

The text of Obama’s remarks on the White House website hasn’t been corrected as of today.

“The White House will apologize for this outrageous mistake,” Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski wrote on his Twitter Inc. account. “It’s a shame that such a momentous ceremony has been overshadowed by ignorance and incompetence.”

Ignorance and incompetence is about as accurate as you can get when describing this Presidency.

Was Bush ever similarly charged by a foreign leader?  I'm curious...

Where has my America gone?

To hell in a handbasket:

Aaron Walker (aka Worthing) was arrested today in a Maryland courtroom. Several days ago, convicted bomber and perjurer Brett Kimberlin had obtained a “peace order” against Walker, and today Walker was arrested for violating the order. My information is that the judge claimed that Walker violated the provision against electronic communication with Kimberlin, because Aaron blogged about Kimberlin — thus “inciting” others to contact Kimberlin.

In other words, as best as I can tell, Aaron Walker was arrested today in the United States of America for blogging about a public figure.

...

This is, I had thought, the United States of America. I thought we had freedom of speech here.

It will take a few days to nail down with precision what happened. But if the account I have given here turns out to be correct — if the basis of the arrest today was that Aaron incited others by blogging about a public figure — I want all lovers of the First Amendment to stand tall and ride to Aaron’s defense.

There's much, much more at the link and it all needs to be read and inwardly digested.

We're at a crossroads.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

"No bravo sierra..."

I don't believe I've ever read anything at Captain Dave's place that has anything to do with politics or religion but he's been on my blogroll for a very long time.

Posts like this one make him a regular read for me:

Crossing at 8,200 feet and 190 knots with 35 knots on the tail feathers... Groundspeed about 225 knots.

Uhh... We might have a problem here.

Co-pilot- Wind check, please...

KABQ Tower- zero nine zero at five knots...

Co-pilot- Roger that, we have thirty on the tail over BIBQU

Flaps and gear are extended before TECZA (outer marker or in today's vernacular, glideslope intercept altitude). Slow down to 140 knots indicated over TECZA and finish the landing checklist... Still thirty knots on the tail.

The co-pilot and I discuss the tailwind and decide to continue, thinking it will die out or swing away from the tail before too much longer. A few minutes ago another airliner landed on this runway and there was no mention of a tailwind on final.

1,000 feet...

The wind is shifting left of the tail; component is about 26 knots. Groundspeed is 166 knots plus or minus a few.

500 feet... 

I can feel it coming... Tailwind component is hanging in there at 26-28 knots. Unbelievable! Even if the wind quits before touchdown, the airframe will have a lot of excess energy to shed on the runway. It is a risky maneuver to land with a 20-25 knot package of surplus energy, especially when the crew is tired.

300 feet...

Cursing will not help matters, so I keep a lid on it. Ahead, the runway surface is being illuminated by two electric suns hanging out of our wings; inertial units are still showing 35 knots quartering tailwind... Maybe a 27 knot tail component. The ground is moving under our feet too fast for 140 knots indicated airspeed. My little red "uh-oh" warning light is flashing in the back of my brain... Better pay attention. It has never let me down before.

Me- This isn't gonna work... We are out of here.

Co-Pilot- Yeah, I'm with you. Too much wind...

Thrust levers to max power...

The twin V2500 A-5 engines, already stable at 40%, accept the flood of Jet-A without a moment's hesitation. Acceleration forces mash everyone hard into their seats as I raise the nose, quickly, to 20 degrees above the horizon, then let it settle to 18 degrees.

Raise the flaps one notch for the get-out-of-Dodge maneuver... Positive climb rate and gear up. 

Lord O'Mercy, this thing is getting with the program... Watch the flap speeds el Cap-i-tan!

KABQ Tower- ah... Turn left heading two seven zero and climb to seven thousand five hundred. Too much tail wind?

Co-pilot- Roger that... Never saw less than two five knots on the tail.

Thirty degree left bank, lower the nose, and pull the thrust back to climb power; all at the same time... We are blowing through 1,000 feet above the ground. The indicated airspeed is approaching flap speed limits for the current configuration. I ask the co-pilot to raise them to the next notch and we will keep that... No need to go bombing around the pattern with our hair on fire.

190 knots... Heading 270 degrees... Level at 7,500 feet... Auto-pilot number one ON...

I pick up the PA and talk to the passengers in my 90% perfected Robert Stack Captain's Voice. While I am talking, I notice the right-seat is entering runway 21 into the nav computers and talking to tower. Gotta love this kind of co-pilot; they can read a captain's mind and take care of business without having to be told.

OK... Pax and cabin crew informed. I reach for the checklist and review it for anything I might have forgotten... Nope, looks good.

Tower clears us to reverse course for the visual approach to runway 21 which has no published instrument approach, so instead, Fi-Fi nav created a virtual five mile fix on final and recommends we cross it at 1,500 feet above the ground... Perfect!

More flaps... Slow to 170 knots... Descend to cross the five mile fix 1,500 feet above the ground

Here we go for the second attempt at an ABQ runway....

You want to land with him?

Please do so at the link.

I eat this stuff up.

I watched this video and nearly pooped muh pants

Pardon the bluntness of that title folks but it's what came to mind when I came across this piece this morning.

Not quite three years ago, the wife and I jumped out of a perfectly good airplane as part of an anniversary gift to each other.  Links are here, here and here to that chronicling.  To call that an exhilarating day is to understate something about as understated-ly as you can.  Neither of us at the time had celebrated our 50th birthday and both of us have talked about doing this again.

But after watching this then 80 year old (now 81 year old) experience what she experienced and remembering that my biggest fear was falling out of the harness once in the air, I'm not so sure.  Call me a pollo all you want:

One of the things I most vividly remember about my jump is being under canopy and having my instructor adjust the harness to give us more room between us.  There was this temporary slackness as that room was realized that scared the bejebuz out of me.

Seeing this poor old lady go through that in a much worse way is just flat out scary.

So yes, I had to check my drawers and I'm happy to report that all is well.

"I thought I could make a difference to change our party. It didn’t work"

Jo Ann Nardelli has made a big decision, not one made lightly, not one that is likely to make too many headlines, not one you're likely to hear about from major media outlets:

Nardelli has been the focus of quite the firestorm in Pennsylvania because the thing is that Jo Ann Nardelli isn't just another Democratic committeewoman. She's the president and founder of the Blair County Federation of Democratic Women, she was Vice President of the PA State Women’s Caucus, and was 1st Vice President of the PA State Federation of Democratic Women (she had been in line for the presidency of that organization in 2014). She met with Hillary Clinton,  gave a rosary to Joe Biden, and appeared on the cover of US News and World Report going to Church with then Senate candidate Bob Casey Jr.

Nardelli has always been a pro-life Democrat and felt that there was always room for that position in the party. But she said that for the past few years she's felt that the party was drifting further and further away from her. She said she never shied away from speaking about her Catholic faith or her pro-life views as a Democrat.

She said that for years she hoped that she could change the party from within, make it more in line with traditional values. "I thought I could make a difference to change our party. It didn’t work," she said. "I noticed it that it’s been going more and more to the left. This is not my father’s party. I did not leave the party, the party left me."

In a letter of resignation to the Democratic party, Nardelli cited her Catholic faith.

“I respect all of you and all that I have achieved in the past. Due to personal matters and faith beliefs at this time, it is only fair to resign,” she wrote. “I will miss you all very much as you are all a part of my family; however, it is time to move forward with my life in a direction that is more in line with my faith.”

She announced her decision at a press conference at the courthouse in Hollidaysburg and standing next to her was Monsignor Anthony Little of the local parish of Saint Patrick's in Newry.

She said it started a few weeks ago, ironically as she and her husband were getting ready for Mass and watching Meet the Press when Joe Biden, a Catholic, cited his support for gay marriage.

This shocked her. She said she'd always related to Biden. She said he reminded her of her father. But this announcement shocked her. And then, shortly after, President Obama announced that he'd "evolved" into supporting gay "marriage."

And then as a Democratic committeewoman she received her agenda from the party espousing the same position. "To stand up and agree and sign off on this I couldn’t do it," she said. "So I talked to our priest."

While she didn't say what they talked about, she said Monsignor Little warned her that she would be the focus of much criticism.

His words have proved prophetic. Nardelli said she's heard from people saying she hates gays or that she's a bigot. It got so bad that she started screening her calls. And she didn't know who was calling to say something terrible or something nice to her. She said that even when Republicans call her, she's afraid to pick up simply because she doesn't know them.

"I’ve been a Democrat for over 40 years," she laughed. "I don't know any of the Republicans."

Here's to hoping there are many more who'll follow her lead.  

Do us all the favor of passing this around. You're not going to be hearing much about it on the news.

Won't pass the filters.

'Why do so many reporters insist on misquoting, or ignoring, the actual contents of the “doctrinal assessment” itself?'

That's a rhetorical question... for thinking people:

At the heart of the whole U.S. nuns vs. the Vatican media storm is the April 18th “doctrinal assessment” in which the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith expresses it concerns about the theological orientation expressed by the leadership of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. The report mentions a host of concerns about a decade or two of LCWR educational events, speeches, national conferences, etc.

The document is not hard to find and it is only eight pages long. Click here to read it.

Since this story is going to be around for some time, it’s important to note how many, if not most, mainstream reporters are framing the dispute.

Now, this is a story with two sides and there are articulate voices out there to quote representing the competing points of view. However, the actual Vatican document states many of the basic facts and, to my amazement, major news organizations have consistently been paraphrasing this document to say things that it does not, in fact, say.

That’s a problem. It’s hard to follow a debate when some of the key facts crucial to the contents of the debate have been twisted.

Consider, for example, the top of this new Reuters report, as it appeared in The Chicago Tribune:

(Reuters) — In Washington, D.C., and Toledo, Ohio, in upstate New York and in south Texas, protesters have gathered in recent weeks with a simple message: Let the sisters be.

The vigils in cities across the United States are intended to express solidarity with American Roman Catholic nuns, who are struggling to formulate a response to a sharp rebuke from the Vatican.

The Vatican last month accused the leading organization of U.S. nuns, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, of focusing too much on social-justice issues such as poverty and not enough on abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia. The Vatican also rapped the group for standing by as some nuns publicly challenged U.S. bishops on matters of church doctrine and public policy.

Readers who have followed this story closely will spot all kinds of familiar errors. For example, the story frames the conflict with the whole “let the sisters be” construct, backed with descriptions of the protests (with no factual material about the size of these efforts, other than a later reference to an online petition with 50,000 signatures) that are meant to “express solidarity with American Roman Catholic nuns.”

Yes, way down in the story, there are voices that try to focus on what the Vatican document actually says:

Mary Ann Walsh, a nun who serves as spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said some protesters might have misinterpreted the Vatican’s action. Church officials demanded reform of the nuns’ leadership group, she said, but did not intend to criticize all 57,000 nuns in the United States.

There’s a simple logic behind this argument by Walsh — the Vatican document goes out of its way to focus on the leadership of some of these orders, as opposed to the rank-and-file members of the orders, in general. Thus, here’s the crucial question for the editorial team behind the story: Where are the quotes from the actual document? More on this point in a moment.

However, the most important problem with the top of this story is its paraphrased quotation — or statement of fact — that the nuns are under Vatican attack for “focusing too much on social-justice issues such as poverty and not enough on abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia.” The problem is with the first half of this statement, because the Vatican document simply does not say this. Instead, it praises the nuns for their work with the poor and needy, praises them for their application of the church’s doctrines and teachings in these areas, and then questions why these same teachings have not been applied as rigorously to abortion, marriage, euthanasia, etc.

The critical issue is this: Where are reporters getting the statement that the Vatican thinks the nuns have focused “too much” on poverty and social justice? The document does criticize the leaders of some of these orders for ignoring or undercutting the church on some critical issues, but that is not the same as saying that they have spent too much time on the care of the sick and the needy.

There's more and it's enlightening.

The answer to the title question and the answers to others posed by Mr. Mattingly are pretty clear though Mr. Mattingly seems to dance around them.

Darkness hates the light.

That's pretty much it.  Not PC.  A little too blunt.  But that's it.

Darkness has an agenda and light gets in the way and so light must be attacked.

I'd love for Mr. Mattingly and the good folks at GetReligion to put some meat on those bones.

Can we all stand on Memorial Day to honor the fallen? (UPDATED) (AGAIN)

H/T to Reverend Sensing.

UPDATE:  Apparently, for MSNBC host Chris Hayes, the answer to the title question is that it makes him uncomfortable:

Hayes observed that in much casual conversation about war and fallen soldiers, talk of heroism often comes up, and he doesn’t necessarily think that’s a good thing.

“I feel… uncomfortable, about the word because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that’s fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism, you know, hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers, and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I’m wrong about that.”

Mr. Hayes, it makes me uncomfortable to call you an American.

UPDATE II: Mark Shea finds something fitting, something relevant, something beautiful:

Oh that more Catholics would take their faith as seriously

Many miss Mass for one innocuous reason or another... but not this young lady:

A Umatilla teenager said she was forced to choose between her Catholic faith and serving as a delegate to Florida Girls State, a government-in-action leadership program for teen girls.

"I was shocked. This is basically discrimination," said Margeaux (Mar-go) Graham, 16, a junior at Umatilla High School, who was told that she would not be allowed to attend Sunday Mass while Girls State is hosted June 15-23 at Florida State University in Tallahassee, even though a Catholic cathedral is across the street from FSU.

Graham's mother, Mary, offered to make the trip to escort her daughter to church.

"The girls are not allowed to leave our program for any reason," said Robin Briere, department secretary-treasurer of the American Legion Auxiliary, who noted it would be an insurance liability to allow any of the 300 delegates to leave the premises.

Briere said a non-denominational Sunday service is provided for the delegates.

As a faithful Catholic, Graham said it would be a mortal sin for her not to attend Mass, as it's her religious and moral obligation to attend Mass every single Sunday.

"Missing Mass is not an option," added Jackie Smart, director of religious education at St. Mary of the Lakes Catholic Church in Eustis, where Graham is a parishioner.

"If you're Catholic, you're obliged to gather with your fellow Catholics on Sundays to celebrate Mass and it's not something that we can choose not to participate in, if you're an active Catholic," Smart said. "If you really believe what our faith teaches, there would be no way to keep you from Mass and that's the way Margeaux feels...

"Good for Margeaux for not being afraid to stand up for her faith. There is so much pressure on these young men and women nowadays that it's not cool to embrace your faith, and I think that it's really great that Margeaux is willing to stand up for that. ...She is just a very determined young lady. She has a very strong grasps of her faith and what it means to be a Catholic."

A friend of the Graham family, Carl Ludecke, commander of American Legion Post 21 in Umatilla, called Robin Briere at the state American Legion Auxiliary and proposed the idea of allowing a priest or university chaplain to come to Girls State to celebrate Mass for the Catholic delegates.

"I thought, why not bring in somebody in at the same time as they were doing a service in another room?, Ludecke said, recalling the idea was immediately rejected.

"I was absolutely flabbergasted. I was just trying to get this resolved so everybody could be happy," he said. "We had a screaming match on the telephone and I didn't get anywhere, because I really don't have any jurisdiction to do it."

Briere said this is the first time in her 19 years on staff with Girls State, a privately-funded program, that religion has become an issue.

"We are a non-denominational program and intentionally keep religion out of our program out of respect for the 300 girls that come from many different faiths," she said. "We set aside time on Sunday morning, from our very busy schedule, to allow each girl to honor her faith silently and the girls collectively put a program together to honor all faiths."

The Sunday service is written and executed by the delegates, she said, adding it's something that they enjoy doing.

"The majority of our schools in Girls State are Catholic schools that support our program," Briere said. "And we've never at one time had a Catholic school demand that we have a priest come into our program to celebrate Mass during Girls State."

"I'm just amazed at the uproar over this," added Briere, who also is Catholic by faith. "It's not like she's forced to go to this program and we're denying her religious rights. ... What has surprised me the most, through all of this, was having the Umatilla American Legion commander call and demand that we had to do it."

Briere said she does not feel less of a Catholic when she misses Mass while being involved in leading Girls State.

"I'm doing something good to help our youths," she said of the non-partisan, non-political, non-sectarian program that strives to teach and inculcate in the young women a love of God and country.

And so there you have it.  Ms. Briere can put herself along Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius and other cultural Catholics who deny basic tenets of the faith while "not feeling less of a Catholic".

Sad.

The requirement to attend Mass on Sunday and other holy days of obligation, rooted in the Third Commandment and codified in Church law (cf. Code of Canon Law, canons 1246-48) is a serious obligation for all Catholics. A Catholic who (a) is able to attend Sunday Mass (i.e., who is not impeded by illness, lack of transportation, etc.), (b) knows the seriousness of this requirement, and (c) nonetheless freely chooses to miss Mass, thereby commits a mortal sin (cf. Catechism, no. 2181).

From the Catechism:

The Sunday obligation

2180 The precept of the Church specifies the law of the Lord more precisely: "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass."¹¹⁷ "The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day."¹¹⁸

2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor.¹¹⁹ Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.

2182 Participation in the communal celebration of the Sunday Eucharist is a testimony of belonging and of being faithful to Christ and to his Church. The faithful give witness by this to their communion in faith and charity. Together they testify to God's holiness and their hope of salvation. They strengthen one another under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

2183 "If because of lack of a sacred minister or for other grave cause participation in the celebration of the Eucharist is impossible, it is specially recommended that the faithful take part in the Liturgy of the Word if it is celebrated in the parish church or in another sacred place according to the prescriptions of the diocesan bishop, or engage in prayer for an appropriate amount of time personally or in a family or, as occasion offers, in groups of families."¹²⁰

God bless Margeaux Graham and the example she's setting.  Might she inspire others to take a deeper step.

I can tell you without blinking an eye that attending Mass weekly has become something I want to do, something I can no longer miss, not because Catholicism demands it but because my soul longs for it.

I suspect it's the same for this young lady.  I wish it would be the same for others.

Might more souls long for Christ in the Eucharist.

Media silence on Catholic lawsuits against ObamaCare continues

Yet, this story is getting a lot of attention.  

The lawsuit silence prompts this relevant cartoon from Glenn Foden:

 

Was Trayvon Martin high on a concoction called "Lean" the night he was killed?

Bob Owens is raising the possibility:

I had never heard of “lean” before yesterday, but apparently it is a concoction made from certain prescription cough syrups and a beverage medium, often made more palatable with candy.

One of the recipes for “lean” calls for using Arizona Iced Tea Co.watermelon fruit juice cocktail as the beverage of choice, and Skittles candy… the items found on Trayvon Martin’s body the night he was shot by George Zimmerman.

The Conservative Treehouse has a lengthy post about the recreational drug, it’s effects and side effects, and alleged screen captures of Trayvon Martin’s social media sites discussing his fondness for the concoction.

...

If the story is correct it seems Trayvon’s medical records and the medical examiner’s review of his body will be revisited, to see if he used the drug frequently and in a concentrated enough form to explain his apparent confusion at the convenience store that night, the odd behavior that spurred George Zimmerman to call Sanford police, and the aggression he displayed when he fought with Zimmerman.

I read this to my wife and youngest son and their reaction was that this is a stretch.  And perhap it is.  Especially if you'd never heard of 'Lean' and if you don't read the details of the post put up at The Conservative Treehouse.

If those details are true however, and frankly, they're pretty convincing, then there's yet more evidence that Zimmerman needs to be exonerated.

Read the details yourself and tell us in the comments if you think it's a stretch.

Frankly, after doing so, I can only conclude it's a stretch to think it a stretch.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

The General Electric ad you probably never saw

It harkens back to 2002... and was apparently pulled quickly after the pro-aborts made a fuss... and after watching it, you can understand why they would have a problem:

H/T to Mommy Life who adds:

Over the years, I wrote to G.E.several times to ask what happened to the ad and whether I could buy a copy. They never replied.

Then bootleg copies began appearing on YouTube and the faithful kept resurrecting it.

Thanking God for YouTube - so no one forgets the beauty of one ad, the beauty of life.

Isaac proposes to Amy

This one is sure to go viral and it should.  The joy in Amy's face as it all unfolds, the joy in the faces of the participants, the joy in the entire production, is palpable.

I'll have to confess, this one got to me.  See if it gets to you.  Or maybe I'm just getting a tad too sappy in my old age.

H/T to the Good Deacon.