SUNLIT UPLANDS

Pope Francis is Right to be Cautious about Distributing Communion

2013-05-17T10:41:00.005-04:00

From the Catholic Herald (UK)
By Francis Phillis

Pope Francis celebrates the Eucharist during Mass at the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome Photo:CNS

In his blog for May 9, the veteran Italian commentator, Sandro Magister, explains why Pope Francis doesn’t give Communion when he is celebrating Mass, except in rare cases. Although the Holy Father has given no explicit explanation himself of why he has chosen this course, Magister points out that “there is one page in a book he published in 2010 that allows one to infer the motives at the origin of this practice.” In the book, the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires refers to parishioners “who have killed… indirectly, with improper management of capital, paying unjust wages…We know that they pass themselves off as Catholics but practice indecent behaviour of which they do not repent. For this reason, on some occasions I do not give Communion, I stay back and let assistants do it because I do not want these persons to approach me for a photo.”

Bergoglio continued: “One may also deny Communion to a known sinner who has not repented” but acknowledged that “it is very difficult to prove these things.” He added, “Receiving Communion means receiving the body of the Lord, with the awareness of forming a community. But if a man, rather than uniting the people of God, has devastated the lives of many persons, he cannot receive Communion. It would be a total contradiction.” He described such behaviour as “spiritual hypocrisy” and “leading a double life.”

Magister comments that the Holy Father might sense the same danger, now that he is Pope, and so “for this reason, he would be adopting the same prudential conduct.” The then Archbishop used the example of economic malpractice, but as Magister comments, the same principle applies to “public support for pro-abortion laws on the part of politicians who profess themselves to be Catholic.” He also points out that on March 19, for the inaugural Mass of Pope Francis’s pontificate, Vice- President Joe Biden and Leader of the Democrats, Nancy Pelosi, both publicly pro-abortion and both Catholic, were present “and both received Communion” – but not from the hands of the Pope “who was seated behind the altar.”

In a further commentary on this principle, CFNews for May 12 has an item about the Republic of Ireland. It seems that Cardinal Sean Brady has stated that the Irish bishops have not considered barring politicians who vote to legalise abortion from receiving Communion. This is currently a pressing concern in the Republic, as on April 30 the coalition government introduced a “Protection of Life during Pregnancy” bill which would allow doctors to abort a child in cases where the mother’s life is threatened – including if she threatens suicide, a very wide and loose provision. According to Cardinal Brady – clearly picking his words carefully – politicians “would have to follow their own conscience” and that among the bishops “there would be a great reluctance to politicize the Eucharist.”

What on earth can he mean by this? Surely receiving Communion signifies being in communion with your fellow communicants within the ecclesial community? And if you are out of communion on a matter as fundamental as the right to life, surely you have chosen to cut yourself off from the community of fellow worshippers? Father Ray Blake, a popular blogger, quoted in the same CFNews item above, writes of the “hypocrisy and cant” of many ecclesiastics, adding that Cardinal Brady “wishes to strip the Eucharist of any meaning of Communion, or morality, and render it a meaningless symbol.” He commented, “What Brady seems to be suggesting is that there should be no connection with morality and belief.”

Former Pope Benedict XVI would seem to agree with Fr Ray Blake rather than with Cardinal Brady. In a letter of 2004 to the US bishops, entitled “Worthiness to receive Holy Communion”, the then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that when politicians continue to have “formal cooperation” with abortion, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” to him. No problems here with scruples about “politicization” I note.

See in this light, and to avoid all possible scandal, Pope Francis’s behaviour seems entirely prudent.

Maxine Waters: ‘Obama Has Put In Place’ Secret Database With ‘Everything On Everyone’

2013-05-16T10:03:00.000-04:00

"The President has put in place an organization with the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life," Representative Maxine Waters told Roland Martin on Monday. "That's going to be very, very powerful," Waters said. "That database will have information about everything on every individual on ways that it's never been done before and whoever runs for President on the Democratic ticket has to deal with that. They're going to go down with that database and the concerns of those people because they can't get around it. And he's [President Obama] been very smart. It's very powerful what he's leaving in place."

In related stories (Don't Say We Didn't Warn You):

Social Security Administration to Purchase 174 Thousand Rounds of Hollow Point Bullets

DHS Preparing For Civil War In The US?

Change You'd Better Believe In: Obama Regime Purchases 2,700 Light-Armored Tanks to Go With Their 1.6 Billion Bullet Stockpile

Bombshell: FEMA Camps Confirmed

Obamanation Readies FEMA Detention Camps

Staffing Up the FEMA Detention Camps

Obama Seizes Control Over All Food, Farms, Livestock, Farm Equipment, Fertilizer and Food Production Across America

Democrats Attempt to Silence Unfriendly Bloggers

Obama Is Said to Consider Preventive Detention Plan

More Royal Designations Restored in Canada

2013-05-15T18:00:00.000-04:00


Queen Elizabeth inspects the Canadian Forces Ceremonial Guard with the parliament building as a backdrop during the Canada Day celebrations in 2010.

Canada has restored the "Royal" designation for five of the country's Army corps. As we reported several years ago, our friend and fellow blogger, Gregory Benton, along with Michael Smith led a successful campaign to restore the prefix "Royal" to Canada's Navy and Air Force. Their national campaign received support from the Office of the Prime Minister. These latest restorations of historical names, however, came from soldiers and officers within the Army itself.

From The Monarchist

The announcement of the restoration of historical names for Canadian Army corps on 19 April 2013 was the next logical step in the phased approach begun in August 2011, when the historical name of the Canadian Army was restored, along with the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force.

It is quite apparent that our victorious campaign is still paying huge dividends in terms of the continuing impact it will have on all other regiments and corps that unfortunately lost their identity back in the 1960s because of the misguided attempt to purge ourselves of our British (i.e., Canadian) heritage and traditions.

It is especially gratifying that these most recent changes were requested by soldiers and officers in the army itself. The earlier restorations have created a natural momentum for other reinstatements, and it is only fair that if others are going to get back their identity, the same be afforded to all.

“Our country continues to ask a great deal of our soldiers. Our government is committed to honouring their actions, heritage and sacrifices,” said Minister MacKay. “Restoring these historic identities is an important way of reconnecting today’s men and women in uniform with the proud history and traditions they carry with them as members of the Canadian Army.”

The historical designations of the following corps have been restored:

Royal Canadian Armoured Corps;

The Corps of Royal Canadian Engineers;

Royal Canadian Corps of Signals;

Royal Canadian Infantry Corps; and

The Corps of Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers.

These and other heritage changes are being phased in over the next year as Canada and its military prepares to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the First World War and the 75th anniversary of the Second World War.

For more background information on these restorations, you can find it here.

The Light Breaks Through: One Day's Revelations About America's Enemy Occupiers

2013-05-14T17:15:00.000-04:00

We have been ridiculed for our characterization of Obama and his regime as "illegitimate," "thugs," and "criminals," but a glance of one day's headlines makes clear what we have always believed; we were restrained in our characterizations of this traitorous, outlaw regime.

May 13, a date pregnant with meaning for many of us, saw the light of truth pierce the darkness in extraordinary ways. There were revelations about the IRS being used as a political weapon with that federal agency spying on TEA Party members and a vast array of conservative organizations. It has since been revealed that the IRS office targeting and harassing conservative organizations, also gave a left-wing organization of journalists nine confidential applications for tax-exempt status that had been submitted by conservative groups.

Yesterday also saw revelations that the Obama Justice Department secretly obtained two months of phone records for Associated Press journalists and singled out those who asked tough questions for special harassment by the IRS. Any one of these revelations would be enough to bring down governments in many parliamentary democracies, as they would have here in the days when the United States Constitution was the revered law of the land.

Yesterday also saw the murder conviction of Kermit Gosnell, one of thousands of mass-murderers throughout America. Indeed, revelations about what transpired in Gosnell's "clinic" were so shocking and abhorrent to most Americans, Obama went before Planned Parenhood during Gosnell's trial to boost morale and invoked God's blessings on Gosnell's fellow killers. But these are only one day's revelations about the sewer that is the Obama regime.

In recent weeks, we have seen unravel 8 months of lies about the murder of 4 Americans in Benghazi, and while the former Secretary of State asks "what does it matter," there is still so much that does matter yet to be exposed.

Eric Holder instigated gun-running to Mexican drug cartels, and there have also been a host of fraudulent birth certificates and a fake social security number to hide the fact that Obama came to the United States as a foreign exchange student and is, therefore, ineligible for the presidency of the United States.

Americans have also seen nationally orchestrated efforts to undermine democratic processes through voter fraud carried out by an array of Obama-allied, Alinsky front groups.

Contempt for Congress and the separation of powers has been a hallmark of Obama's governing style. He has literally and unconstitutionally bypassed the legislative process through the promulgation of hundreds of Executive Orders.

Americans have seen their tax dollars given in the billions to Islamist jihadists who are at war with the United States, bomb and burn Christian churches, murder Christian clergy, and would not hesitate to decapitate any of us who have been forced to fund their barbarism. But why should the stewards of the American tax dollars care? Being a tax-cheat seems to be a prerequisite for service in the Obama regime.

Obama's arrogance is so over-the-top, that on a day when most politicians would be in crisis mode, Obama took a break from the links to attend yet another fundraiser with entertainment glitterati in New York.

These outrages just scratch the surface. America is an occupied country, led by a committed band of Marxist revolutionaries who hate everything about America's spiritual and philosophical foundations and all that this country once stood for in the world.

Unless the United States Congress has been so infiltrated by dark and perverted souls who share Obama's vision, they will quickly begin impeachment proceedings and begin the process of returning America to her Constitutional foundations. The articles of impeachment should number in the hundreds. That this criminal thug ever sought "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” would be laughable were not the consequences so tragic for America and the whole world.

The Heretic at Heritage

2013-05-14T10:24:00.001-04:00

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Jason Richwine, the young conservative scholar who co-authored the Heritage Foundation report on the long-term costs of the amnesty bill backed by the “Gang of Eight,” is gone from Heritage.

He was purged after The Washington Post unearthed his doctoral dissertation at the JFK School of Government.

Richwine’s thesis:

IQ tests fairly measure mental ability. The average IQ of immigrants is well below that of white Americans. This difference in IQ is likely to persist through several generations.

And the potential consequences of this?

“A lack of socioeconomic assimilation among low IQ immigrant groups, more underclass behavior, less social trust and an increase in the proportion of unskilled workers in the American labor market.”

Richwine defended his 166-page thesis before Harvard’s George Borjas, Richard Zeckhauser and Christopher Jencks, who once edited The New Republic. But while his thesis was acceptable at Harvard — it earned Richwine a Ph.D. — it has scandalized the Potomac priesthood.

Our elites appear unanimous: Richwine’s view that intelligence is not equally distributed among ethnic and racial groups, and is partly inherited, is rankest heresy. Yet no one seems to want to prove him wrong.

Consider Richwine’s contention that differences in mental ability exist and seem to persist among racial and ethnic groups.

In The Wall Street Journal last month, Warren Kozak noted that 28,000 students in America’s citadel of diversity, New York City, took the eighth-grade exam to enter Stuyvesant, the Bronx School of Science and Brooklyn Tech, the city’s most elite high schools. Students are admitted solely on their entrance test scores.

Of the 830 students who will be entering Stuyvesant as freshmen this fall, 1 percent are black, 3 percent are Hispanic, 21 percent are white — and 75 percent are Asian.

Now, blacks and Hispanics far outnumber Asians in New York. But at Stuyvesant, Asians will outnumber blacks and Hispanics together 19-to-1.

Is this the result of racially biased tests at Stuyvesant?

At Berkeley, crown jewel of the California university system, Hispanics, 40 percent of California’s population and an even larger share of California’s young, are 12 percent of the freshman class. Asians, outnumbered almost 3-to-1 by Hispanics in California, have almost four times as many slots as Hispanics in the freshman class. Another example of racial bias?

The 2009 Programme for International Student Assessment, PISA, which measures the academic ability of 15-year-olds worldwide, found the U.S.A. falling to 17th in reading, 23rd in science, 31st in math.

Yet, Spain aside, not one Hispanic nation, from which a plurality of our immigrants come, was among the top 40 in reading, science or math.

But these folks are going to come here and make us No. 1 again?

Is there greater “underclass behavior” among Hispanics?

The crime rate among Hispanics is about three times that of white Americans, while the Asian crime rate is about a third that of whites.

Among white folks, the recent illegitimacy rate was 28 percent; among Hispanics, 53 percent. According to one study a few years back, Hispanics were 19 times as likely as whites to join gangs.

What about Richwine’s point regarding “social trust”?

Six years ago, in “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the 21st Century,” Robert Putnam, author of “Bowling Alone,” wrote that after 30,000 interviews he found that ethnic and racial diversity can be devastating to communities and destructive of community values.

In racially mixed communities, Putnam wrote, not only do people not trust strangers, they do not even trust their own kind.

“People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down,’ that is, to pull in like a turtle … (to) withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.”

With the immigration bill granting amnesty to 12 million illegals, an open door to their dependents and a million new immigrants each year, almost all from the Third World, America in 2040 is going to look like Los Angeles today. Yet, it was in L.A. that Putnam found social capital at its most depleted and exhausted.

If Richwine is right, America in 2040 will be a country with whites and Asians dominating the professions, and 100 million Hispanics concentrated in semiskilled work and manual labor.

The issues Richwine raises go to the question of whether we shall survive as one nation and one people.

If our huge bloc of Hispanics, already America’s largest minority at 53 million, is fed by constant new immigration, but fails for a couple of generations to reach the middle-class status that Irish, Germans, Jews, Italians and Poles attained after two generations, what becomes of our “indivisible” nation?

Rather than face this question, better to purge and silence the Harvard extremist who dared to raise it.

Immortal Words Uttered 73 Years Ago: Churchill’s “Blood, Toil, Tears, and Sweat”

2013-05-13T18:13:00.000-04:00

From The Water's Edge

By James M. Lindsay

Former British prime minister Winston Churchill is featured on a new banknote alongside his famous declaration "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat" (Bank of England/Courtesy Reuters).

You finally land the job you have long coveted. But many of your colleagues dislike you, and the task you have been given may be undoable. That’s the situation that Winston Churchill found himself in seventy-three years ago today. He responded with a speech that is regarded as one of the greatest ever delivered in the English language—and one that helped rally his country at one of its darkest moments.

Churchill was offered the prime ministership on May 10, 1940. His predecessor, Neville Chamberlain, had resigned after it became clear that he had lost the confidence of his fellow Conservative Party members. Chamberlain had championed the appeasement policy that was supposed to preserve peace in Europe. It had the opposite effect, emboldening rather than satisfying Adolf Hitler.

Churchill had been a biting critic of Chamberlain’s appeasement policy, even though he too was a Conservative. Churchill’s unrelenting criticism had angered many of his fellow Tories. They were not celebrating his elevation to prime minister; some privately expected (and perhaps hoped) to see him fail.

But Churchill’s domestic political difficulties paled in comparison to Britain’s foreign policy problems. The so-called Phony War that had prevailed in Europe since Germany invaded Poland the previous September had ended in April. Denmark and Norway had fallen to the Nazis. On May 10 the German army invaded France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.

Faced with this peril, Churchill addressed Parliament for the first time as prime minister on May 13. He spoke for just five minutes. His speech included these riveting lines:

I would say to the House as I said to ministers who have joined this government, I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and suffering.

You ask, what is our policy? I say it is to wage war by land, sea, and air. War with all our might and with all the strength God has given us, and to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs – Victory in spite of all terrors – Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.

Let that be realized. No survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge, the impulse of the ages, that mankind shall move forward toward his goal.

If Hollywood had staged the scene, Churchill’s defiant words would have been met with thunderous applause. But life seldom follows Hollywood scripts. Few MPs clapped. Many of Churchill’s fellow Tories grumbled. They still preferred Chamberlain.

No one outside of Parliament heard the speech live; BBC reports merely summarized it. Churchill’s first radio address to the nation would not come until May 19. It would take days for word of the speech to seep out into the broader public. A version of the speech was eventually recorded for broadcast. Disagreement exists as to whether Churchill recorded the speech himself. Some experts argue that Norman Shelley, a BBC actor, taped the speech because Churchill was too busy to do it himself.

Historians note that the line about “blood, toil, tears, and sweat” wasn’t entirely original. Churchill likely took it from Giuseppe Garibaldi, the nineteenth century Italian revolutionary who once rallied his troops by saying he could only offer them “hunger, forced marches, battles and death.” But genius often lies in borrowing from the past and reinventing it for today. That gift may be why Churchill remains the only politician ever to win the Nobel Prize in Literature.

Churchill’s promise that he could offer only “blood, toil, tears, and sweat” was sadly accurate. As he was speaking, the German army was crossing the River Meuse into Sedan. France fell just six weeks later. With the United States still clinging to its neutrality, Britain was left to battle Nazi Germany alone. In the Battle of Britain that lasted throughout the summer of 1940, the Luftwaffe devastated many British cities. Blood and tears flowed freely.

But Britain survived its darkest hour, in good part because of Churchill’s determination. So it is fitting that last month the Bank of England announced that the “blood, toil, tears and sweat” quote will appear alongside the portrait of Winston Churchill on Britain’s new five pound notes.

Cameron Calls Britain's Relationship with the EU "Unacceptable"

2013-05-13T18:00:00.000-04:00

"Britons never will be slaves," but does David Cameron have the moral strength and vision to be a great liberator?

It is amazing what a thrashing by the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) in recent by-elections has done to clear David Cameron's thinking on the question of whether Britain will continue to subjugate herself to tyrannical and unelected European bureaucrats. The Prime Minister has called the status quo "unacceptable" and is committed to an in/out referendum on EU membership before the end of 2017.

The Great Gatsby Tells Us the World is an Empty Place Without Faith

2013-05-13T09:43:00.000-04:00

Leonardo di Caprio plays Gatsby in Baz Luhrmann's new film

Are you getting ready for The Great Gatsby, the latest film adaptation of F Scott Fitzgerald’s novel, which has already opened in America and which will open on this side of the pond next week? I myself have prepared by re-reading the book, and will most certainly be seeing the film when it arrives.

Why the excitement?

First of all, the director is Baz Luhrmann, whose Romeo + Juliet was so astonishing. Second, the cast is stellar. There is the relative newcomer Carey Mulligan, along with Leonardo di Caprio and Tobey Maguire, both of whom are first-class actors. Third, the book is, to use an overworn word which in this case is the only word that will do, iconic.

Fitzgerald is not that great a writer, and fans will probably not forgive me for saying that his other books are duds. But in Gatsby he manages to convey the atmosphere of the time; very few writers ever do this; Waugh is one, but Fitzgerald’s evocation of the lives of the rich and the less rich in the roaring Twenties (the events in the novel are set in the summer of 1922) probably creates our impression of the time as much as it describes it.

Read more at Catholic Herald >>

Father Rutler: The Holy Spirit

2013-05-12T13:17:00.000-04:00

A weekly column by Father George Rutler.

Following Pentecost, the Apostles discussed whether someone had to become a Jew to be a Christian. It seems an odd problem for us today, but everything was new then, and even the term “Christian” was not used until a significant number of believers had been baptized in Antioch, a city in Turkey near the modern city of Antakya. Christ (the name is a Greek form of “Messiah”) sent his followers out to convert “all nations,” and he promised that the Holy Spirit would show them what to do.

After the Holy Spirit came down on the Apostles at Pentecost, the prime question of Judaic observance was debated. Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem and consulted with the other Apostles. This was a hint of how the Church was to resolve matters in great Councils. Given the stolid temperament and vivid personalities of the Apostles, the term “debated” might be an understatement. But they remembered that the Risen Lord had promised that his “Paraclete” would guide them. Only rarely does ancient Greek use that term, as when the orator Demosthenes used it for a sort of legal advocate, and not necessarily an ethical one at that. But Christ makes it mean the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. How the Apostles were helped by this divine Helper is not said, but they sent their decision to the scattered Christians, beginning with the words “It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us.”

To claim private guidance from the Holy Spirit that departs from what has inspired the collective agreement of the successors of the Apostles, would be to confuse personal opinion with divine truth. But the Holy Spirit does help us in the ways of truth every day. Sometimes he even works through children: “. . . and a little child shall lead them” (Isaiah 11:6). The birth of a child may convert a parent to more intense faith, or a child's First Communion may inspire a young father to return to Confession. The Holy Spirit works through encounters that are often unnoticed. Yogi Berra, not to be underestimated as a philosopher, said, “Some things are just too coincidental to be a coincidence.”

Our Lord requires of us only “meekness” to be helped by the Holy Spirit. The spiritually “meek” are not milquetoasts, or spineless wimps. The Greek praus for “meek” means controlled strength, a suppleness like that of an athlete. Without praus, a surfer would stand stiff and soon fall off the surfboard, and a boxer would be knocked out with the first punch without agile footwork. God calls the arrogant, who will not bend their opinions to his truth, a “stiff-necked people” (Exodus 32:9). Arrogance, as the opposite of meekness, is spiritual arthritis. Get rid of that moral stiffness, and then “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you” (John 14:26).

On This Day, O Beautiful Mother

2013-05-12T12:21:00.001-04:00

A very happy Mother's Day to all mothers, including spiritual mothers. May God richly bless you for countless acts of love.

The State Opening of Parliament 2013

2013-05-11T00:48:00.000-04:00

Confederate Memorial Day in South Carolina: A Tribute to the Honored Dead

2013-05-10T00:00:00.000-04:00

"The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form."

~ President Jefferson Davis, C.S.A.

The Death of Giulio Andreotti, the Political Giant Who Went to Mass Every Day, Marks a Milestone in European Hisory

2013-05-08T18:00:00.000-04:00

Andreotti, who has died aged 94, was nicknamed the ‘Eternal One’ of Italian politics. He was the opposite of bunga-bunga loving Berlusconi

By Father Alexander Lucie-Smith

Giulio Andreotti, right, would 'never tell you what he was thinking' (Photo: PA)

The death of Giulio Andreotti, at the age of 94, marks a milestone in Italian, indeed European, history. Andreotti dominated Italian politics for decades, and was nicknamed l’eterno, the “Eternal One”. With its plethora of parties and its endless revolving door governments, Italy’s first republic seemed terribly unstable, but this was all smoke and mirrors: every one of those governments, up until 1992, contained Andreotti, either as Prime Minister (a post he held seven times) or in some senior position, or else several members of il corrente Andreottiano, his faction of the Christian Democrat party, which was nicknamed the gens Julia, the Julian clan. By happy coincidence, Andreotti’s wife was called Livia, a name all fans of Robert Graves will be familiar with.

Read more at Catholic Herald >>

So Very Proud of Our Congressman, Trey Gowdy, As He Peels Away 8 Months of Lies from the Obama Regime

2013-05-08T14:50:00.002-04:00

Live Streaming Video of Congressional Hearings into Benghazi Murders and Cover-Up

2013-05-08T12:04:00.000-04:00

Live video from your iPhone using Ustream

Huckabee: Benghazi Scandal Will Cost Obama His Presidency

2013-05-07T18:30:00.000-04:00

Yes, Hillary, it makes a big difference, and if the Benghazi scandal and coverup can rid this country of the illegitimate devil occupying the presidency, along with his comrades, then at least those murdered will not have died in vain.

Governor Mike Huckabee

Influential Republicans are setting their sights on toppling the Obama administration as evidence of a cover-up over the assault on the Benghazi consulate gets stronger.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is now openly talking about impeachment, saying he does not believe Barack Obama will survive the remaining 3½ years of his presidency.

“When a president lies to the American people and is part of a cover-up, he cannot continue to govern,” Huckabee said on his radio show Monday.

“As the facts come out, I think we're going to see something startling. And before it's over, I don't think this president will finish his term unless somehow they can delay it in Congress past the next 3½ years.”

Huckabee isn't alone in his belief that Obama could be toppled. The pressure is growing just as Congressional hearings on the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks that left four Americans dead are due to start on Wednesday.

Read more at Newsmax >>

Who Are the War Criminals in Syria?

2013-05-07T18:00:00.000-04:00

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Last week, several polls came out assessing U.S. public opinion on intervention in Syria.

According to the Huffington Post poll, Americans oppose U.S. air strikes on Syria by 3-to-1. They oppose sending arms to the rebels by 4-to-1. They oppose putting U.S. ground troops into Syria by 14-to-1. Democrats, Republicans and independents are all against getting involved in that civil war that has produced 1.2 million refugees and 70,000 dead.

A CBS/New York Times poll found that by 62-to-24 Americans want to stay out of the Syrian war. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that by 61-to-10 Americans oppose any U.S. intervention.

But the numbers shift when the public is asked if it would make a difference if the Syrian regime used poison gas. In that case, opposition to U.S. intervention drops to 44-to-27 in Reuters/Ipsos.

Yet on the Sunday talk shows and cable news, the hawks are over-represented. To have a senator call for arming the rebels and U.S. air strikes is a better ratings "get" than to have on a senator who wants to stay out of the war.

In that same CBS poll, however, the 10 percent of all Americans who say they follow the Syrian situation closely were evenly divided, 47-to-48, on whether to intervene.

The portrait of America that emerges is of a nation not overly interested in what is going on in Syria, but which overwhelmingly wants to stay out of the war.

But it is also a nation whose foreign policy elites are far more interventionist and far more supportive of sending weapons to the rebels and using U.S. air power. From these polls, it is hard not to escape the conclusion that the Beltway elites who shape U.S. foreign policy no longer represent the manifest will of Middle America.

America has not gone isolationist, but has become anti-interventionist. This country does not want its soldiers sent into any more misbegotten adventures like Iraq and Afghanistan, and does not see any vital national interest in who comes out on top in Syria.

But who is speaking up for that great silent majority? Who in the U.S. Senate is on national TV standing up to the interventionists?

Who in the Republican Party is calling out the McCainiacs?

Another story that came out this weekend, smothered by news of Israeli air strikes on Syrian military installations and missile depots, might cool elite enthusiasm -- and kill any public desire to intervene.

"Syrian Rebels May Have Used Sarin Gas," ran the headline in Monday's New York Times. Datelined Geneva, the story began:

"United Nations human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical workers indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said Sunday."

The U.N. commission has found no evidence that the Syrian army used chemical weapons. But Carla Del Ponte, a former Swiss attorney general and a commission member, stated:

"Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals, and according to their report of last week, which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated.

"This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels."

In short, the war criminals may be the people on whose behalf we are supposed to intervene. And if it was the rebels who used sarin gas, and not the forces of President Bashar Assad, more than a few questions arise that need answering.

For just two weeks ago, the White House informed Congress:

"Our intelligence community does assess, with varying degrees of confidence, that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically, the chemical agent sarin."

A clamor then arose demanding Obama make good on his threat that the Syrian regime's use of poison gas would cross a "red line" and be a "game changer," calling forth "enormous consequences."

If the Syrian military did not use sarin, but the rebels did, who in the U.S. intelligence community blew this one? From whom did U.S. agencies get their evidence that sarin had been used by Damascus? Were we almost suckered by someone's latest lies about weapons of mass destruction into fighting yet another unnecessary war?

When allegations of the Syrian government's use of sarin arose, many in Congress, especially in the Republican Party, denounced Obama for fecklessness in backing off of his "red line" threat.

It now appears that Obama may have saved us from a strategic disaster by not plunging ahead with military action. And the question should be put to the war hawks:

If Assad's use of sarin should call forth U.S. air strikes, ought not the use of sarin by the rebels, if confirmed, cause this country to wash its hands of those war criminals?

What Does a Typical Priest Look Like?

2013-05-06T18:00:00.000-04:00

Most are from traditional Catholic families are not afraid of traditional devotions, according to a new survey

By Francis Phillips

Seminarians in New York. A new study paints an interesting picture of the type of men joining the priesthood CNS

There was an interesting article on Catholic World News for 2nd May. The headline caught my eye: “Typical new priest: 32-year-old cradle Catholic who prays Rosary, takes part in Eucharistic adoration.” Reading down I saw this was a survey of 366 out of 497 men to be ordained in the US this year. The headline itself was uplifting: these are mature men who emerge from Catholic families and who are not embarrassed to take part in traditional devotions. Thank God for them.

There were other significant features to the survey: the overwhelming number (81%) has two Catholic parents; 20% have five or more siblings, 10% have four siblings and 22% have three siblings. 4% have been home-schooled – at a time when less than 2% of US children are educated at home. This – admittedly small – survey indicates that having two Catholic parents undoubtedly makes it easier to develop a vocation. Both Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis had Catholic fathers and mothers with a strong faith, who thus provided a balanced influence on their sons’ vocations. Again, larger families tend to produce more vocations than smaller ones. Perhaps this is because there are fewer material distractions in larger families, alongside greater opportunities for service? As it happens, I personally know of three priestly vocations from homeschooling families in the US. Again, such families tend to be large, counter-cultural and with a strong Catholic ethos.

Read more at the Catholic Herald >>

Father Rutler: The Cause of Our Joy

2013-05-05T00:00:00.000-04:00

A weekly column by Father George Rutler.

Saint Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) was a man of many parts: scholar, mystic, poet, traveler, diplomat, debater, cardinal and even something of a scientist, as is evident in his exchanges with Galileo. He had the fine title of Professor of Controversial Theology at the Roman College, but that is a poor translation of what is known as “apologetics,” which means explaining something to doubters. His correspondence with the English king, James I, is a good example of how to do this and is a model for explaining the mystery of the Catholic Church to those in our worldly culture who imagine the Church to be just a human institution, and a regressive one at that.

The saint lists some fifteen “marks” of the Church’s supernatural character. One of these is the “unhappy end” of those who fight against her. History is littered with the detritus of figures great and small who took arms, physical and moral, against the Church. Some of the most notorious are embalmed and, ironically, on display in the lands they ruined, while the tomb of Christ is empty. Bellarmine did not gloat over this. His was not the happiness which Ambrose Bierce defined in his Devil's Dictionary of 1911 as “an agreeable sensation arising from contemplating the misery of another.” The saint spent his life trying to save the Church's enemies from an unhappy end. He wanted others to share in that other mark of the Church: the “temporal peace and earthly happiness of those who live by the Church’s teaching and defend her interests.” In his method of explaining the Church, Bellarmine sounds like Blessed Teresa of Calcutta who said, “People are often unreasonable and self-centered. Forgive them anyway. If you find happiness, people may be jealous. Be happy anyway.”

In the “pursuit of happiness” — which even our Declaration of Independence names as a natural right — the Church is not a casual option. Christ is the source and goal of true happiness. Pope Francis recently said, “No one comes to Christ without the Church.” Christ is the Bridegroom, and the Church is his Bride. To want Christ without the Church is like the corrupting conceit of cohabitation before marriage. Just as bulimia is an eating disorder, so conjugal life outside matrimony is a love disorder. The joy promised by our Lord is through, and not despite, full union with the Church which is his body.

The month of May especially celebrates Christ's mother as the Mother of the Church, a title used by Saint Ambrose and conferred officially by the Second Vatican Council. As Blessed John Paul II preached: “Mary embraces each and every one in the Church, and embraces each and every one through the Church.” All the sorrows of a perplexed world turn to joy through the mystery of the Church for the same reason hers did: “The Lord has risen as he promised.”

David Wigram - Ave Maria - Bach / Gounod

Charles C. Johnson: What Calvin Coolidge Teaches Us Today

2013-05-04T10:54:00.001-04:00

This address is part of the Kirby Center Lecture series and was presented in Washington, D. C. on April 19, 2013. Mr. Johnson is the author of Why Coolidge Matters: Leadership Lessons from America's Most Underrated President.

‘Gay Marriage’ or Religious Freedom: You Can’t Have Both

2013-05-04T09:59:00.003-04:00

While we wait until June to find out how the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in its two "gay marriage" cases, perhaps it will add a little energy to our prayers to understand that the judges in black will be making a stark choice: The choice is either "gay marriage" or religious freedom, but not both.

If the court, in settling Hollingsworth v. Perry, affirms the desire of the minority to extend the sexual revolution to same-sex "marriage," then it will be a violation of the Constitution (specifically the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment) to claim that homosexual activity and hence homosexual "marriage" are wrong.

Note that both aspects are mentioned. If the law affirms "gay marriage" as a guaranteed right, it implicitly demands that all citizens likewise affirm homosexual activity of any and every kind.

In affirming same-sex "marriage" as a protected right, the Supreme Court will not just be making law — which is itself a violation of the separation of powers — it will be remaking morality.

To be more exact, it will be acting as an instrument of the ongoing (and now, nearly complete) sexual revolution against the Judeo-Christian understanding of sexuality and marriage.

And, to be even more exact, the court will be establishing secular liberalism ever more firmly as our state religion, the worldview that defines what is good and evil, and therefore defines what is legal and illegal.

Unfortunately, that is nothing new.

Read more at National Catholic Register >>

Archdiocese of Newark: One Resignation Submitted, One Still Needed

2013-05-03T01:36:00.000-04:00

A Bad Shepherd: Archbishop John J. Myers

Archbishop John J. Myers probably thinks he's off the hook with the (forced?) resignation of Father Michael Fugee. But as with another arrogant, corrupt American churchman, Cardinal Law, Myers is going to find it impossible to appear in public or say Mass in his own cathedral. He's also going to find that Catholic school enrollments will drop and Sunday collections will dry up. If he has any shred of decency, he will submit the resignation that the overwhelming number of Catholics in New Jersey and throughout the United States are demanding.

You've wreaked ruin and destruction, Archbishop. For God's sake, GO!

Call the Archdiocese of Newark and let Myers know what you think: 973-497-4000.

His spokesman, James Goodness, can be E-mailed at: goodneja@rcan.org

The Pope's representative to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, can be reached at 202-333-7121.

Priest at center of Newark Archdiocese scandal quits ministry

The Roman Catholic priest at the center of a public furor enveloping Newark Archbishop John J. Myers has resigned from ministry, a spokesman for the archdiocese said tonight.

The Rev. Michael Fugee, who attended youth retreats and heard confessions from minors in defiance of a lifetime ban on such behavior, submitted his request to leave ministry this afternoon, said the spokesman, Jim Goodness. Myers promptly accepted the resignation, Goodness said.

Fugee, 52, remains a priest but no longer has authority to say Mass, perform sacramental work or represent himself as an active priest, Goodness said. It was not immediately clear if Fugee or Myers would petition the Vatican to remove him from the priesthood altogether, a process known as laicization.

Asked if Myers had requested that Fugee step aside, Goodness said, “I only know that he offered to leave ministry and the archbishop accepted.”

Under terms of a 2007 agreement with the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office, Fugee is not permitted to have unsupervised contact with children, minister to children or hold any position in which children are involved.

Read more at the Star-Ledger >>

New Jersey Legislators Demand Archbishop's Resignation; Call Myers' Behavior "Sickening"

2013-05-01T14:26:00.000-04:00

"And see if there are any vacant basilicas in Rome where I can hideout like Cardinal Law"

Greeting the deepest crisis of his 12-year tenure with silence, Newark Archbishop John J. Myers faced new calls for his resignation yesterday from two New Jersey lawmakers, who blasted him for allowing a priest to minister to children despite a lifetime ban on such interaction.

Sen. Joseph Vitale (D-Middlesex) and Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle (D-Bergen) said the archbishop has displayed "arrogance" and a lack of common sense over his handling of the Rev. Michael Fugee, 52, who admitted fondling a 14-year-boy in 2001.

Under the terms of a binding agreement with authorities six years later, Fugee and the archdiocese vowed the priest would not work in any position involving children.

Yet for the past several years, Fugee has attended youth retreats, heard confessions from minors in private rooms and traveled to Canada with children from a Monmouth County parish, The Star-Ledger reported earlier this week.

"Enough is enough," said Vitale, who has pushed for laws that aid victims of sexual abuse. "Based on everything that’s happened, not just in New Jersey but around the country and the world, you have to follow the spirit of the law, and they have not done that in this case. Zero tolerance is zero tolerance."

Read more at the Star-Ledger >>

God Made A Dog

2013-05-01T08:00:00.000-04:00

Mark Sanford And Elizabeth Colbert-Busch Face Off In South Carolina Congressional Debate

2013-04-30T20:32:00.000-04:00

Republican Mark Sanford and Democrat Elizabeth Colbert-Busch met at The Citadel in Charleston last night for their first and only debate before the special election for South Carolina’s first congressional district. The latest polls show Colbert-Busch with a 9 point lead over Sanford.