TomRoeser.com ::

Personal Asides: Burris Won't Run; Kennedy and Mark Kirk Likely Will-Will McKenna?...On First Looking Into Chapman's Palin.

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:34:00 CST

Burris.

Phil Ponce over at WTTW... the ever-bland living liberal clich� anchor who could read a bulletin on the end of the world with a non-comprehending smile ... said last night on Chicago Tonight that Roland Burris will not run for reelection. Not so, Phil: He won't run for ELECTION. Remember? He was never elected. CUT! TAKE TWO!

That means that media-contrived liberal charisma factory will snag another candidacy on which to apply pancake makeup and rouge from the perilously dwindling number of Kennedys who had avoided politics heretofore... number 8 of Bobby and Ethel's 11... i.e. Christopher George, 46. who runs his family's former fiefdom, the Merchandise Mart. It's not Chris' fault or Ethel's fault but sadly he resembles his mother toothy countenance, not unlike Eleanor Roosevelt's, rather than his father's movie-star good looks-but he has the cultivated shaggy haircut, is properly thin and perhaps with training he can remember to jab a left hand in his jacket pocket while the right gesticulates dramatically ala Pop and Uncle John. If we had only a slightly objective media we wouldn't have to worry about CGK's dramatization but as it stands, no.

With luck, CGK should make short work of the Dems' media-protected hoax "reformer," Alexi Giannoulis, the state treasurer, funder in private life from papa's bank to some Outfit big-wigs.

On the Republican side which media are less interested in, it could be that Rep. Mark Kirk has the nomination all to himself... but were I advising Andy McKenna, I would advise him to go for it and zero in on Kirk's record which includes responsibility for giving us the House-passed cap and trade bill which Obama himself acknowledges will send our electricity rates "skyrocketing." I think McKenna could knock him off and at least make a pitch for conservatism straight up with Kennedy. McKenna would inestimably help the Republican ticket by running for the post, tidying up a largely do-nothing record he compiled as state chairman.

On First Looking Into Chapman's Palin.

When John Keats wrote "On First Looking into Chapman's Homer," he was so enthusiastic that what had always been translated in blank verse was now accomplished in rhyme and so he extolled it in sonnet of iambic pentameter. But the Chapman was George. Our Chapman is Steve, a refugee from the liberal New Republic to the Trib who pretends to be a Deep Thinker but is just another clunker along with Garrison Keillor, both inexplicably appearing each week on the editorial page. Not just a refugee but a liberal mole, Chapman portrays himself as a libertarian but he always manages to strike a blow for the Left with his Op Eds-a sly hoax with which the Trib is complicit.

Last night the effete snob Chapman was on with the self-same Ponce to render his latest column on Sarah Palin to the deadly monotony that is public TV liberalism where all guests echo the same ruminations and Ponce looks as though they have given him some fresh insight. It was the burden of Chapman's Op Ed that Sarah Palin whom he defiles was a heroine of the Right because she is a looker-whereas poor Harriet Mier was scorned by them because she was not. Now I ask you honestly, was this vapid thought worth contemplating, then writing, then reproducing it at partial public taxpayers' expense? Of course it is to both Trib and `TTW because Chapman ridicules Palin. See how much good the drumbeat of ridiculing the Right has done the Trib?

To falsify his point, Chapman invents facts and of course no one either in the Trib or on Ponce's show challenged him. Mistaken fact 1: "... her bungling performance in the 2008 presidential campaign." The fact is that if there was one bungler on the Republican ticket it was John McCain and that until Palin entered the race it seemed the GOP was going nowhere, having lost its base to ennui. Palin not only electrified the base but in 46 days enabled the ticket, running at a disadvantage with an unpopular war and a recession, to finish only four points under the Trib's and Chapman's wunderkind, Barack Obama. Palin debated a 36-year veteran of the U. S. Senate and came off if not the victor, at least equal.

Chapman then goes on the sarcastic to say as do all liberals "no matter how badly she performs." That's the same kind of non-rational, no statistics-needed short-hand that has contrived to make Obama a deep-thinker, Reagan an amiable dunce. the Kennedys all intellectuals and Michael Jackson a civil rights leader. As governor, Palin cleaned up Juneau and concluded negotiations for a pipeline that had been hanging uncompleted for decades-all in less than one term while adding heft to the national ticket.

The Tribune is running out of gas and money for good reason. It stands for utterly nothing-barring John Kass-otherwise nothing except phony sophistication for which it will die deservedly since it has nothing to say.

Personal Asides: Many of Us Were Wrong About Lisa-but Not the Opportunity Facing the Republican Party Now.

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 08:32:00 CST

Lisa.

So I was wrong about Lisa running for the Senate. Not the first time. But I was in interesting company-Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel and the entire Chicago White House contingent among them. The only one I met who had it right was Jim Nalepa-and part of his prediction remains unfulfilled. He said correctly when we had lunch earlier this week that Lisa wouldn't run either for governor or Senator but for reelection. Then he added that in the future she will run for only one thing more: the Illinois Supreme Court where she will spend her time waiting to later to be named to the U. S. Supremes.

I personally don't fathom why Lisa Madigan is so popular. I would think that Joe Birkett would be able to make good headway against her by pointing out how derelict she has been as a prosecutor, turning a blind eye to her party's corruption. The only reason people think she's formidable is that the media have told us so. Baloney.

There is a good chance... maybe even an excellent one... that with Ms. Madigan out of the way, a Republican can beat Pat Quinn in 2010. I think that can happen. And as I said here earlier, I personally believe the best Republican for the task is State Sen. Kirk Dillard. I was at his announcement yesterday. We went first to the prayer breakfast at his Oak Brook church at 8 a.m. and then to his formal announcement in next-door Hinsdale. To my mind he is superbly equipped to be the next governor.

The door is open now for Chris Kennedy to run for the U. S. Senate to oppose the incumbent, Roland Burris. I have the feeling that the era when Kennedys have a claim on any office they seek has ended. I know and like Chris but he's not the re-embodiment of his father, Bobby, nor of his Uncle John. It appears that the Illinois Republican Chairman Andy McKenna, Jr. was preparing to run for the post and was in Washington talking with the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee when Lisa made her announcement... which led Rep. Mark Kirk to hint strongly that he will announce. The NRSC bluntly favors Kirk because he is better known but the vote he cast on Cap `n Trade in the House will make it difficult for him since so much of the Republican base is on the other side. Much has been made about Kirk being able to appeal to independents and Democrats which is roughly true-but in order to win one must also hold his party's base.

This much is sure: Mark Kirk ought to hope that he gets no meaningful opposition in the Republican primary-because an acceptable conservative making an issue of Cap `n Trade might well knock him off before he has a chance to face Chris Kennedy. That candidate might be McKenna notwithstanding he is unexciting, bland and colorless albeit conservative. But I doubt McKenna would do it.

The shakeup in the political kaleidoscope should warrant a re-capitulation of the Republican ticket. Let's say the nominee for Senate is Mark Kirk. I would say the following would be a good state ticket: Kirk Dillard for governor; either Kathy Salvi or Demetra DeMonte (Pekin) for lieutenant governor (DeMonte is the Republican National Commiteewoman for Illinois and has been a stunningly effective GOP grassroots organizer); Joe Birkett for AG; Eric Wallace for Secretary of State; Adam Andrzjewski for Comptroller; Dan Rutherford for Treasurer. For president of the Cook county board: This will surprise you but I mean it. Judy Baar Topinka, the former state treasurer (her slogan could be: Topinka-Why Not?).

Personal Aside: The Michael Jackson Media Bash-Decadence Unlimited... Robert McNamara Carried the Seeds of His Defeat Within Him.

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 08:52:00 CST

Decadence Unlimited.

I'm the last guy to downgrade America but I'll make an exception now that I find that 50% more Americans, dazzled with the nonstop coverage, watched the garish funeral of the little pervert and accused child molester Michael Jackson than watched the last presidential inaugural. This is pure and simple decadence of America led rightly to the plaintive cry of one Martha Gillis yesterday who asked "Where was the coverage of my nephew or the other soldiers who died that week?" Her nephew, Lt. Brian Bradshaw, 24, died in Kheyl, Afghanistan of wounds suffered when a IED [improvised explosive device] exploded near his vehicle. He was assigned to the 1st Batalion, 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment, 4th Airborne Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division in Fort Richardson Alaska-one of 13 young soldiers to die in Afghanistan since Jackson's death on June 25.

"He was a search-and-rescue volunteer, an altar boy, a camp counselor," she wrote. "He carried the hopes and dreams of his parents willingly on his shoulders. What more than that did Michael Jackson do or represent that earned him memorial `shrines' while this soldier's death goes unheralded?" The only media outlets that covered Lt. Bradshaw's death was in his hometown of Steilacoom, Washington and those where he was stationed before his deployment last March.

The deaths of seven U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan on Monday received just 1/20th of the network television news coverage that went to Jackson according to the Media Research Center.

Disgusting. The combination of degenerated media hype for marketing dollars and the voyeuristic nature of our decadent society threatens the survival of our country with maudlin exercises like Jackson's. Also watching the shoving, pushing and hauling of the tinsel celebrities... the phony weeping of Brooke Shields... the attempt to make the dead one-who whitened his face in order to lose his blackness-a civil rights hero... plus the scuffling of two phony ministers trying to preside, Jesse Jackson and his disgraceful imitator-shadow, Al Sharpton... I had to run to the bathroom to avoid a vomit.

McNamara: The Failure to Understand Natural Law.

Robert McNamara, JFK's secretary of defense who died yesterday at 93, was a symbol of this age. Brilliant, cerebral, a master of numbers he had everything but moral courage. He carried the great imperfections of this relativistic age. Unconcerned with philosophical commitment, he reckoned that the Vietnam War could be won with technological expertise rather than moral commitment. When his technological expertise failed to justify his slide-rule conclusions and the war continued in contradiction to his numbers, he gave up and became a weeping, guilt-ridden wreck of a man-an embarrassment, really but a testimonial of spiritual emptiness.

With the World Bank presidency, he made the same mistake. He calculated that poverty could be eradicated as a technological problem whereas poverty is, often, a residual carryover of a combination of human factors including on occasion moral and spiritual problems. These were factors McNamara the human computer couldn't deal with since he was a calculating machine not much more. At his essence, McNamara was a symbol of the end of the Enlightenment which had gained so much influence in the 18th century, a series of calculated conclusions that rejected religion and spirituality and sought to replace these with so-called "reason."

Reading McNamara's statement and his last book, it is clear to me that he denied the power of reason to know objective truth. In the tradition of natural law, all law involves the will of the lawgiver who ordains it but the essence of law is reason. In Enlightenment law, law is an exercise of will. Disregarding the issue of justice involved in the Vietnam War, McNamara sought instead to make administration of the war as an exercise of his will. Were he to have reoriented his thinking, he could possibly have carried the war through to victory-as did George W. Bush by employing the Surge that turned the tide of the Iraq War when others who were his intellectual superiors gave up. So it's not just being bright and cerebral. It's cherishing the power of reason to know objective truth.

Personal Aside: Thoughts While Shaving-Doug Kmiec, For Malta? .

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:28:00 CST

Doug Kmiec.

Doug Kmiec, the former top conservative Catholic advocate for pro-life when he served in Ronald Reagan's and George H. W. Bush's Office of Legal Council in the Justice Department, has been appointed Ambassador to the Republic of Malta by President Barack Obama... a keen disappointment to Kmiec since he had sought the post of ambassador to the Vatican. The Catholic News Agency quoted Vatican sources as saying that Kmiec had been turned down since his view on human embryonic stem cell manufacture was antithetical to that of the Vatican. The Republic of Malta is a stretch of several islands in the Mediterranean with population of more than 400,000.

To earn this honorific, Kmiec... whom I knew well... had to do amazing contortions which departed from his longtime advocacy of pro-life. A steadfast opponent of abortion, he failed to be appointed to the federal bench during the terms of the two conservative presidents he served. He was Dean of Law at Pepperdine University in California during the administration of Bill Clinton and returned to the Justice Department under George W. Bush where he was again disappointed with no judicial appointment. He varied his law professorship with a volunteer post as adviser on pro-life matters to former Michigan Governor Mitt Romney. When Romney lost the presidential nomination in 2008 to Sen. John McCain, Kmiec did a reverse switch and entered the fray as a supporter of Barack Obama.

He wrote and spoke in support of Obama's position on abortion which was a direct contradiction to the views he had in the Reagan and Bush administrations and as an adviser to Romney. Once he was denied communion by a priest who felt Kmiec's support of Obama was tantamount to his being in the state of mortal sin-a refusal which Kmiec merchandised on National Public Radio and with the Washington Post, which pictured him as a martyr for his conscience. He assailed a number of Catholic bishops who stressed the pro-life position... including the then archbishop of Saint Louis, Raymond Burke, one of the nation's foremost experts on canon law... for "seeking to intimidate" Catholics on the issue.

Kmiec's appointment to Malta brings to mind Act II, Scene 9 of the play "A Man for All Seasons" where in the Hall of Westminster, the jury is considering the death penalty for Sir Thomas More for High Treason for purportedly denying the King his rightful title of Supreme Head of the Church of England. Master Secretary Thomas Cromwell reads the charges and calls as his witness Richard Rich. Rich testifies that he went to the Tower of London where Sir Thomas More was being held to remove his books. Rich testified that More told him that parliament did not have the right to make Henry VIII head of the church. Sir Thomas More is asked to make a statement. He says he is on trail not for what he said but for what is in his heart and says that if men do not listen to their hearts, soon their hearts disappear.

As Rich begins to withdraw, Sir Thomas asks to see the new chain Rich is wearing. It is the chain designating that Rich is Attorney General for Wales. More then comments softly how little Rich's soul cost-attorney general for Wales. "For Wales?" he asks.

Douglas Kmiec. All this for what? Denying a birthright.

For Malta?

Personal Aside: Gov. Palin Figures It Out-More Worthwhile Influencing America for Good Via Media than Politics... The Growing Sophistry of "The Economist"... the Minnesota "Recount" Debacle... How Dare the Vatican Discipline Nuns! Says Feminist Marin... Dan Proft....

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 08:09:00 CST

Palin.

The surprise resignation by Gov. Sarah Palin makes clear that she is not doing it as an artifice to run for the presidency. Her family is suffering from the strain of the unwarranted abuse dished out by the liberal Democratic media. For Palin to continue as governor would place the family is continued strain... which could conceivably affect her marriage and her relationship with her husband and kids. For this she is to be congratulated: all too many public officials in the national limelight subordinate their family to the incredible sacrifice of seeking high political office. As we have seen, Palin is one official who imparts more than lip-service about family values. She believes family is most important, even at a time when she clearly leads the polls in popularity with the Republican base and was until last Friday that party's front-runner for the presidency. Congratulations to her.

It must be remembered that she has become an important spokesman for traditional values and it is likely that she will continue as such-likely in the media and in a prominent role. That could very well lead to a return to politics in the future. It is hard to forget that she is very young: only 45. She could well be a factor as a spokesman not just in 2012 when she will be 47 but in 2016 when she will be 52, in 2020 when she will be 56-even in 2024 when she will be 60: an average age for those seeking the presidency. Granted, she has to devote deep study on the issues; were she to run for national office again she can't get away with clich�s but has to crack the books and come up with substantive answers. But she's up for it. At any rate, she realizes this: the media is where it's at these days.

One Rush Limbaugh is worth 50 conservative pols. One Sean Hannity worth 25; one Glenn Beck 20; one Charles Krauthammer worth more than all of them together in intellectual heft if not in audience. With all the attention paid to candidates for office including conservative ones, it is wise to remember that many of them... not all... are bottom-feeders. When she gets into the media Palin will be a greater influencer for good than she was as governor.

The idea that she is doing this because she fears a shoe will drop that will embody a scandal is not credible. So far she has been exonerated in 12 bogus "ethics scandals" that has been lodged against her. I'm sure other attempts will be made to sully her name but they will be as unsuccessful.

The last ditch smear the Democratic National Committee has made-the announcement Friday that she is breaking her pledge to the voters of Alaska by stepping down-has a point. I personally would have adviser her to serve out her term... but this minor point will not matter much if and when she decides to return to the political arena in 2016 at age 52. Her decision evokes the statement of Richard Nixon when he lost the California governorship in 1962 that "you won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore." But Palin's decision to leave the governorship to attend to her family needs is less... far less... damaging than Nixon's bad tempered concession statement, (that of a surly poor loser which Nixon truly was; he was even a poor winner). And look... with all his warts... he resurrected to run for and be elected president in 1968 and reelected by a landslide-and in history will be regarded favorably as one who opened the intermediary to China, taking advantage of the Sino-Soviet split, and thus turned an important key in the Cold War. This will overshadow by far the Watergate "scandal" which forced his removal-not for what he did but for what in his anguish he SAID.

In a sense, Palin's base is very like Nixon's without his disadvantages. No matter what happened to him politically, Nixon was cherished by a solid phalanx of conservatives as the patriot who sent Alger Hiss to jail: and all the hatred of Nixon in the world by the media and liberals had no effect of dissuading them. Palin's supporters are the same. They love her for the enemies she has made... essentially those who were self-shamed for her joyfully assuming the true moral choice of having a Down Syndrome baby when legalized abortion would have enabled her evading that central moral responsibility.

For that reason, Palin is a hero to social conservatives. Frankly when I hear from our liberal Democratic friends the phrase "drag on the ticket" I wonder whom they're referring to-Palin or John McCain. Palin added zest, excitement and verve to the ticket; she brought in a solid Republican base that had been wary of John McCain. I think her interview with Katie Couric was marginal compared to the showboat flopping on-stage that her running-mate did... and couldn't pull off... by adjourning his campaign for a time to solve the economic crisis-which he didn't. The fact that they lost by only four points in a campaign beset with severe economic recession and an unpopular war was incredible: and most of the credit I give, frankly, to Sarah Palin.

For this feat and for her indomitable courage and will, Sarah Palin will continue to be regarded as topmost among conservative leaders. I wish her well and look forward to see her reemergence as a media star. Later... who knows... she may return to politics when her family is older and the David Lettermans, Jon Stewarts and Jay Lenos are relegated to the cultural dustbin where they belong. But for her politics is not necessary. She belongs before the cameras and microphones-now and possibly for the remainder of her life.

Her stepping down leaves Mitt Romney as the heir to the presidential nomination. She could be an ideal running-mate in 2012 but don't count on it. She's better off waiting even longer in the future.

The Economist.

There is no doubt that The Economist has been a major oracle of content in publishing-but recently it has taken am evasive, sly, unhistorical and all-too-careful position on the issues... too concerned with pleasing the liberal establishment and less, far less, on being courageous. Already pro-abort and pro-gay rights, it assumes a wise-guy attitude to please the drawing-room without being very honest in its analysis of the issues: almost as if it wishes to please both sides, liberal and conservative. There are many recent evidences: one that gave FDR credit for ending the Depression... a fashionable view with liberals..but which has been widely disproven when one looks at the facts-the unemployment rate particularly, showing that it took the rearmament program leading up to World War II to overcome the economic slog.

The latest manipulation has to do with the Honduran coup. This week's Economist "leader" (editorial) wants it both ways-"Lousy president, terrible precedent." Its subhead says "Manuel Zelaya should be restored to power. He should also be forced to respect the constitution." Huh? Ordered to respect the constitution? Well, isn't that nifty! That's like recommending terrorists to desist and respect Israel. Not going to happen. The facts of the Honduran coup argue that what The Economist wants cannot be done.

Granted that it was awkward to send President Zelaya to exile at dawn, let's consider what he was doing when he was hustled out the door in his pajamas. He was rushing ahead with a referendum to demand a constitutional revision that would allow him to seek a second four-year term-despite the fact that the Honduran courts and AG warned that he would face prosecution if he carried it out. Zelaya not only did not heed these legal injunctions but tried to conduct a coup himself against orderly processes-rounding up a crowd to distribute ballots imported from Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, Zelaya's patron. In essence it was the scheme of Chavez to get his buddy reelected unconstitutionally and join the anti-U. S. bloc.

These things being said, President Obama made a wrong call by publicly supporting the return of Zelaya. He should have been as quiet and nonjudgmental on the issue as he was originally-originally, that is-on the Iranian street protests. America doesn't have to be in the forefront of everything. He should have hoped-in Honduras as in Iran-that the forces of freedom win... in Iran's case the street demonstrators, in Honduras the forces of Roberto Micheletti which deposed Zelaya. Beyond that: he should have shut up. That's what Coolidge would have done.

What should have happened, of course, was: Honduras should have impeached Zelaya and convicted him for violating the law. But that begs the question of The Economist's advice: get Zelaya to return and make him respect the constitution. Utter nonsense and impossible to execute as well.

Until recently I admired The Economist because it was a realistic journal. What is behind its often foolish "leaders"? Who knows? Too much accommodationism. I like its content but I may drop my subscription.

The Minnesota Debacle.

Minnesota was home to me in my early formative years-and I returned here to the city of my birth after an interregnum as result of a recount in which we were beaten for reelection by 91 votes out of 1,250,000 cast. But while the election was hair-split close, there was no case of vote fraud. Not so with the "election" of Al Franken who appropriately gained fame as a clown. On election night Franken trailed the incumbent, Republican Norm Coleman by 725 votes. Then after a recount, it was Coleman still ahead by 215. At that point the election was decided not by counting but by shrewd political conspiratorial advocacy.

The Franken people argued and won in behalf of absentee ballots that they charged had been wrongly disqualified. Coleman's lawyers wanted a uniform standard by which counties should evaluate the disqualified ballots. But the courts were disinclined to overrule decisions by the canvassing board no matter how arbitrary. It is on this legal decision that the election turned. Proceeding to use subjective standards adopted by the pro-Franken counties canvassing, the DFL finally cobbled together 312 votes ahead while the Coleman people concentrated on arguing the legalities. The same Democratic tactics were used in the state of Washington for governor in 2004 after Republican Dino Rossi was ahead on election night. The result in both states: legal argumentation won the election rather than vote counting.

How Dare the Vatican Discipline Nuns!

Fresh from last week's column where she suggested that the spirit of Joseph Cardinal Bernardin... who wanted to fudge Catholic moral absolutes... permeate Barack Obama's meeting with Pope Benedict XVI, Carol Marin who carries the mien of a Sister Superior herself equipped with grade school wooden ruler with which to spank her students, asks how dare the Vatican try to discipline nuns to follow its theology. It is par for the course for Marin who is buddy-buddy with some `60s liberal nuns who hate male autocracy, free-lance with feminism and challenge timeless precepts on the male priesthood, contraception and abortion. That's exactly what Marin is. Wrap it up with a plea for unbounded funds for social programs and that's Marin's New Age Catholicism.

Marin rose from TV anchor to Joan of Arc status with a Bernardin-like flourish of the media. When NBC was moving to fire her because her numbers were sagging, she discovered that her station's program chief was about to slip in raucous TV talk show host Jerry Springer, a former Cincinnati mayor, for a brief commentary on her evening news. Knowing she was being phased out anyhow, Marin raised the roof about cheapening the news and left under her own power: a magnum opus. A beautiful finesse: a Saint Joan of Arc, quitting in self-martyrdom all in behalf of quality broadcasting, wincing as the flames rise higher on the wood pile. I'm frankly in admiration of how Marin finessed it and how she landed a short-lived anchor job at CBS, then returned to NBC as its "political editor," rounding up a political commentary at the post-John Callaway "Chicago Week in Review" and following up after the demise of Steve Neal with a political column at the "Sun-Times."

The `60s liberal is now lecturing her church... at least I think it's still her church... on how socially conscious it should become using Bernardin... who occupied an all-but Kim Philby mole in the backwater of a mistakenly dubbed "Spirit of Vatican II" and who was serenaded at his funeral by the "Gay Men's Chorus"... as a come-on.

Proft Extraordinarily Able in Debate.

A final thought: Dan Proft who was my guest last night on WLS-AM is extraordinarily able in debate-as he showed in verbal fisticuffs with another excellent debater, Eugene Mullins, spokesman for Todd Stroger. Proft has skills in front of a microphone which I haven't seen in a candidate on either side of the aisle since the debut of Hubert Humphrey in 1948 which I witnessed. And that is really saying something.

Personal Aside: Chicago's Murderous Crime Tally Should-but Probably Won't-Doom its Chance for the 2016 Olympics.

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:24:00 CST

Reason: A City of Bastards.

Last weekend... just an average Chicago Friday to Sunday in the summer... six men were shot dead in one 24-hour period plus the critical wounding of a 9-year-old who was merely out walking with his family. In 2008 Chicago's murder rate was double that of U. S. soldiers killed in Iraq, 509 homicides which rose over the preceding year by 15%.

This appalling lawlessness should write finis to Irish Catholic, pro-abort Mayor Richard M. Daley's grandiose plan to snare the Olympics' summer games for 2016-but probably won't. Why not? Here's why.

The slab-faced largely pro-abort white, black and Latino Catholic Democratic warriors, jowly business titans and black for-rent ministers of the gospel plus one demagogic white rogue priest are following their master's order. All have risen above principle to please him. In the old machine days, the word would go out that with Chicago being the murder capital of the U. S. the machine would decide it'd probably be smart for the city to drop its bid for the Olympics-lest international focus would draw even greater attention to its lawlessness. Not any more. Why not?

No more machine in its classic sense. It's successor is an unthinking organism with no political sagacity: just desire for more nourishment: in other words a Squid.

The 78-year-old one-party government is run no longer by a definable machine. A machine has parts with complex gears and inner-mechanisms which requires perspicacity and dexterity to run. This current metamorphosis has, through cell growth, produced an unthinking invertebrate which doesn't think but grows, breathes, perspires and feeds like a gigantic amoeba-like alien.

Which I call The Squid. And it needs nourishment: contracts, jobs and political contributions as payback in Illinois' (now the U.S.'s) pay to play politics. In short, The Squid needs the Olympics..

The Squid.

The Squid like all other cephalopods has a nominal head-Daley for now-but runs on its own apart from him: business, churches (with significant Catholic affiliation), unions, blue chip law firms, universities, "civic" organizations, editorial boards, liberal interest groups, members in good standing or sub-rosa of the Outfit. It's mindless, with bilateral symmetry, numerous arms and tentacles arranged in pairs, advanced eyes common to vertebrates. It is covered in chromatophores which enable The Squid to change color to match its surroundings, making it sometimes invisible. While Daley occupies the head, he's a figurehead and is no more important than its other parts including The Squid's eight arms and two tentacles. The Squid is driven by fins which move not thoughtfully but in response to stimuli and sees through eyes on either side of its head, each of which contains a hard lens enabling it to spot prey. It cruises along encrusted with hundreds of suckers attached called taxpayers, seeking to draw nourishment (called city services) from the large systemic heart that pumps blood through the body.

The Squid carries a giant ink sac with which it clouds itself to frustrate investigation by the feds, squirting obfuscation also at mainline journalism to confuse it. But confusing liberal mainline Chicago journalists isn't very strenuous as they want to be fooled. The only media that can penetrate the inky substance are "new media"-blogs and electronic coverage by non-professional but angry self-taught citizen reporters on Internet newspapers such as the one I run.

If The Squid makes a sound at all, it's the word "gimme." Meaning gimmie more jobs, construction contracts, big lawyers' fees, p. r. fees and phony philanthropic contributions, state and federal grants to support huge excavations, park constructions, stadiums, swimming pools, running tracks and auditorium complexes needed to feed The Squid. But the spurting crime wave that is uncontrolled is The Squid's biggest enemy as it may dampen the enthusiasm for the International Olympic Committee. But to fight this The Squid has powerful forces on its side. One is the Chicagoan who is president of the United States. Another is my ex-neighbor a few blocks down in my suburb-the secretary of state of the United States.

The old crusaders in the 11th century fought, marched and killed to free the Holy Places from those called by our long unused history books "the Mohammedans"--and marched under the banner "God wills it; God wills it!" The Squid just belches "gimme-gimme" and everybody hops to its feeding... the Daleys (Richard, John, Bill, Michael et al), the two Madigans (father the Illinois House Speaker, step-daughter the Illinois Attorney General who might become the next governor), the clout-heavy law firms, the editorial boards, the religious hierarchy, ministers, black deacons, storefront preachers. And the Obama people who are in Washington but want to return (Rahm Emanuel, Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod among them).

Near the beak of The Squid is a muscular hydrostat which provides the money suction spigot that goes swooooosh! and inhales money. He is Irish Catholic Patrick Ryan, 70, chairman of The Squid's Olympic committee, a billionaire who founded a small insurance agency in 1964 and built it into Aon, the world's largest insurance and reinsurance intermediary and global leader of what it calls "human capital consulting."

While attending an Olympic parley in Switzerland, Daley and Ryan agreed city taxpayers will pick up the bill if the Games here produce revenue losses. This without an okay from the city council. The tally already includes a $450 million "rainy day fund," $375 million in cancellation insurance, an additional $500 million in insurance coverage (as I earlier said Ryan is in the insurance business), a state guarantee of $250 million (even though the state is $7 billion in the red)... to which will be added a "last resort" $500 million of taxpayer money from city taxpayers.

This was prompted by near heart-stopping panic in Switzerland. Daley and Ryan were told they had to match what other cities are doing-notably Tokyo which placed 1st), Madrid 2nd and Rio de Janeiro 4th among which Chicago took 3rd place and no time remained to ask the city council with the two major domos overseas. The city council is grumbling and probing but will probably go along as it always has. Both the overweight, puffing, unhealthy looking moguls, Daley and Ryan, are waiting for the final decision to come next Oct. 2 in an announcement from Copenhagen, Denmark.

Uncontrollable Murder Rate.

The Squid won't admit it... and consequently the mainline media don't either... but the one thing that could sink the Olympics for Chicago is the city's staggering murder rate. Thirty-six public school kids were gunned down so far this year. CNN's Anderson Cooper spent one whole day reporting on our crime wave. How to fight it? The Squid belches up an answer which is popular with all liberals but which hasn't ever worked: more gun control.

Old man Daley, Richard II's father, led Chicago's machine... before The Squid... and he was a man of much tougher mien. When lawlessness threatened to decimate his city... with the riots after Martin Luther King's death and the demonstrations during the 1968 Democratic convention... he told the police to "shoot to kill, shoot to maim." The rioters knew the Old Man meant business and although the boys in blue were called inhumane beasts by the liberals, the fomenters ceased and desisted. Peace was restored and Chicago avoided becoming another Detroit.

But Richard M. Daley is a very small chip off the old block when it comes to courage. He is a liberal squish. Which means when murders occur, the Daley chief of police (a Boy Scout-like, compassionate ex-FBI agent, a body-builder who never walked a beat) shakes his head and goes tsk-tsk-tsk... and afterward marches with neighborhood residents carrying placards reading "End the Violence." I have never been a great fan of Rudy Giuliani but when he was mayor of New York... despite all his failings... he became idolized by whites as a tough law-and-order mayor. Last year when he was in town, I asked him his impression of Richard M. Daley's record on crime and murder.

He told me not to quote him directly... and I didn't since I was holding a drink not a pad and paper.., but his response went something like this: There's one thing you must do if you want to cut down homicides-and it is this: You have to back the cops. When the ACLU comes around and tries to persecute them... and I mean persecute... you gotta stand up for the cops. The police respect that and will bust their [scatological term] for you and the crime goes down. My observation is that there is a kind of ACLU mentality dominant in his city hall. . You know why: liberals feel any action the police take is "brutality." If you stand with the goo-goos the cops will know it and sit on their hands. Well I didn't and we cleaned up New York. Depends on what is more important to you, make friends with the goo-goo's or get things done for the city.

It was significant that he used the Chicago word "goo-goo." "Goo-goo's" is a time-worn Chicago derogatory reference to liberals-anti-death penalty, soft-on-criminals people who believe murderers are victims of bad environment. Young Daley has gone to bed with the goo-goo's. He rides in gay rights parades, endorses gay marriage, espouses abortion rights: indistinguishable from the Left. Unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayres got approved for his job as Distinguished,,,get that: Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar at the University of Illinois-Chicago because he was recommended by Daley. Ayres' wife, unrepentant terrorist Bernardine Dohrn was hired as Associate Professor of Law and director of the Children and Family Justice Center at Northwestern with Daley's approval. Romancing the Left got Daley easy victories in 1989, `91, `95, `99 and `07.

Liberal Mantra: "Gun Control."

Richard M. Daley and the goo-goo's response to the horrendous murders in Chicago isn't to use the cops to crack down on the areas of the killings, the South and West Sides where the gangs are. No-no. The cracking of heads would offend minorities... blacks, Hispanics... as well as the entire corpus of the liberal community: gays, feminists, trans-genders, Hyde Park intellectuals, theorists, sociologists, the editorial boards, the TV broadcasting people. So they have adopted the mantra of gun confiscation.

When you support "gun control" in Chicago where goo-goo's reign, you offend no one. It's a safe villain No matter that Chicago has one of the most stringent gun-control legislation in the country. Of course this hasn't done a thing to end the gang shootings and murders but it is something for liberals to talk about. And say we need more of. And still more of. And much more of.

The number one point man for gun control is the Catholic priest Fr. Michael Pfleger about whom I written many times. He's white, 60 years old this year, blond-haired, a brilliant rabble-rouser who has adopted black hip-hop talk (known as ebonics) which he delivers from pulpits in stentorian tirades in his Auburn-Gresham church. Pfleger has cowed the tremblingly waffling archdiocese (which isn't a very difficult job) into thinking it will be perceived as racist by the media if it requires Pfleger to respect pastoral term limits that applies to everyone else. Accordingly, Pfleger who boasts he's his own man is owned by The Squid. He goes to White Sox games with Daley and runs regular Democratic party rallies at his Masses at his church, St. Sabina's.

Pfleger isn't worried about the niceties of the 2nd amendment at his Mass-rallies. He riles up his parishioners (many aren't Catholic) about the ocean-tide of handguns among the poor (actually, it's a good bet that most of his piety-shouting parishioners pack heat themselves). But Pfleger can sense when he has a good thing. The crowd brays "amen, yeah brother!"

Pfleger can bring his audience to standing ovation by saying he doesn't care about what's written on a piece of paper like the Constitution: he's just tired of burying children. Always good for salutes, cheers and whistles from the Amen Corner. Taking a cue from whitey Pfleger, now almost all black preachers get people standing up in church applauding by beseeching legislators in ear-splitting decibels to pass ever-more stringent gun legislation.

The courts have given Pfleger much oracular ammunition for more standing ovations, no matter how they rule. Last year the U. S. Supreme Court took a decided conservative stand in behalf of individual gun ownership when it tossed out Washington, D. C.'s very stringent 32-year-old gun control law. If any town out-rivals this one in murder, it's the capital city which has the most abstemious gun control law in the world.

It was the first time the high court had ruled on guns and it came down on the side of the Constitution. That sent Pfleger and his troops angrily marching to the whirr of TV cameras. Now another case is wending its way through the courts to give the high court another bite at the apple. In a 3 to 2 decision (on which Obama's Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, the self-styled "wise Latina" took the liberal position) the 7th district circuit court of appeals upheld strict gun control ordinances in Chicago and Oak Park. This is a natural for Pfleger's happiness march staged in front of the Supreme Court when it reconvenes to intimidate it to rubber-stamp it in a separate decision.

Everybody, goo-goo's and conservatives, realize gun control isn't the answer to cutting down on homicides and the formation of street gangs who kill-as do the mainline news media... but no one wants to face the unpalatable truth. There is one main reason why gangs dominate their turfs in this city: the breakup of the family which has led to young fatherless males running the streets aligned with gangs as family substitutes.

Nobody in the poor, minority neighborhoods get married because the churches aren't doing their jobs... concentrating instead on prattling for more government handouts and blaming murders not on their own irresponsibility for not teaching the moral virtues-but on an easy answer: guns. Guns. Guns. By tagging guns as the reason, the churches and the liberals evade the blunt truth... that in its poorer sections-indeed in some trendy white enclaves as well... Chicago has become a...

City of Bastards.

The real and only reason for the ungodly high tide of murders on the largely minority South and West Sides is : the disintegration of the family. The Squid depends on the allegiance of minorities and to point out that black and Hispanic folk ought to get married is to insult them, goes the popular credo. And since black ministers... and black wanna-be preachers like Pfleger... crusade and cry their eyes out against violence... they more than anyone else should be the ones to insist their flocks get married, that fatherless families are disaster. But no. That will never do. Why?

You ask why? How unpopular would priests, ministers and politicians be if they said this to people who cheer, stomp their feet and fill the collection baskets? How their parishioners (and contributors) would have their Sundays ruined if they heard that kind of thing! They'd never come back to church; they'd go to another church where the sermonizing is more convivial. Donations would be down.

And the TV stations: they wouldn't play such sermons at all in fear of alienating so many viewers. The goo-goo's particularly the whites would be outraged. In fact it is very comfortable for all members of The Squid to crusade against guns and for gun control rather than be forced to consider that puppy-dog couplings on the South and West sides that produce kids bereft of families are the reason for the lawlessness... and why kids who have no family allegiance join gangs to whom they become indentured.

Of course if the Chicago Catholic archdiocese decided to take up the challenge of stressing marriage and legitimate children for whites and blacks... make a real crusade of it for everybody... that'd be good. But to do it would run the risk of being judgmental. Ugh. Judgmental. A terrible thing to be. Especially for a church.

Much easier to bewail lack of sufficient gun control. Besides, to imply that Chicago is becoming a city of bastards would jeopardize our getting the 2016 Olympics.

Personal Aside: Lisa Will Run for the Senate-Which Changes Everything... Kirk Dillard Looks Solid as Major GOP Gubernatorial Candidate... the Other Kirk (Mark) to Get Tough Primary Opposition... My GOP Ticket Pix!

Thu, 02 Jul 2009 08:13:00 CST

Lisa.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan will run for the U. S. Senate against incumbent Roland Burris (who is seen as a sure loser). Why when Lisa and her family have long felt that the governorship is in her destiny? Four reasons: (1) The gubernatorial situation has become so tumultuous with Pat Quinn that even Lisa will have a tough time getting a united party behind her even if she beats Quinn for the nomination. (2) The Dems have a lot of goo-goo's who want higher taxes to pay for social needs (unlike the state as a whole) and Quinn will have their favor. (3) In contrast running for the Senate should be a breeze for her-with Burris cascading into single digits and the White House pledging super-strong backing in this blue state. (4) Lisa's likely election to the Senate means that her poppa won't leave the legislative fray, a circumstance he has not been too keen about doing.

Dillard.

The phenomenal chaos between the Democratic governor and the Democratic legislature is torpedoing the confidence of voters that one-party dominance in the state house can work. Thus it strengthens the possibility... even approaches a probability... that Republicans can regain control of the Executive Mansion next year. My own preference aside, it looks like major elements within the party... including the money... will be on Kirk Dillard for reasons that (a) he's tested, (b) is extraordinarily knowledgeable about the state, (c) is articulate and (d) is seen as acceptable to all GOP factions including so-called moderates despite the fact that on social issues he has been almost 100%--which is an amazing achievement. Usually someone who is ace-high on social issues and pleasing to conservatives is zilch with moderates and vice-versa. Not so with Dillard.

At the same time it should be said that someone who has made a surprisingly good impression on the stump and with libertarians is Adam Andrzejewski (An-GEE-EFF-ski) the fresh-faced boy-wonder entrepreneur from Wheaton who appears like the proverbial breath of fresh air, never having run for office before... appealing to youth... increasingly a group that so hates professional politicians they would prefer a Buddhist monk from Tibet. DuPage county board chairman Bob Schillerstrom is perceived to be weighed down with baggage with standard pay-to-play supporters... people who hold down contracts having ponied up for his campaigns: appearing to be the same-old, same-old. Joe Birkett is suspected as not running for governor in the long run but for AG despite what he says now.

Bill Brady is a dud. Not on top of the issues; uses so-called charisma to substitute for vapid generalities. But still a favorite with some downstate. Yet since he voted for Christine Rodogno for Republican leader over Dillard, his future is behind him.

But somebody with a future... although not for governor this time... is Dan Proft. Not because of his stunning resume but because of his superb issue-phrasing and issue smarts. Where he will fit no one knows but he is a crowd-pleaser.

The Other Kirk.

The other Kirk-Mark-is in big-big trouble in the 10th. Shows you how unpredictable politics is. Initially he stalled announcing for the Senate because he was afraid his divorce proceedings would turn nasty and personal. Didn't happen. No sooner did he reconsider than the House vote on Cap and Trade came up. Rahm Emanuel, Mark's friend, in the past could be counted on... at least Mark Kirk thinks... as willing to trade a vote here and there for the Dems as pretext to get an easy Democratic candidate in the 10th for Mark to beat. Same thing popped up this time. With the Hamlet-like Kirk going this-way-and-that on either running for the Senate or sticking with the House, the Iago figure of Emanuel slunk in the door and said that if Mark did them a good turn on Cap 'n Trade maybe a clunker could be found to run against him in the House. Sounded good to Kirk no matter what he ended up doing.

His rationale which sounded reasonable at the time: Republicans have long been tolerant of Mark's defections because they know he has a tough district and so they wink at his apostasy. But this time Mark didn't understand the fervor Republicans had with beating Cap `n Trade. When Mark voted for it as only one of eight Republicans in the House and it passed by only eight votes, the dismay of business leaders turned into white-hot anger. They could take Mark's defections on social policy which business types don't care much about anyhow-but Cap `n Trade hits them in their wallets, can jeopardize the fragile health of the economy... and the old familiar word "betrayal" started to overshadow the issue. They ask: what's the use of our placating Mark Kirk if he's just another Dem vote anyhow? So he's going to get a tough primary opponent.

And paradoxically, Mark Kirk is more likely to go down to defeat to a conservative in the primary than if he were to meet any of the clunkers Emanuel can round up.

Strangely enough, if Kirk were a gambler... even a prudent risk-taker (which he doesn't appear to be)... he'd take a 90-to-l chance and run for the Senate against Lisa since he's likely to be dead-on-arrival by losing his base in the 10th. His knowledge of national security issues is impressive. But the lad with the cute little button nose is a Hamlet and so he'll stick in the 10th and take his chances... which aren't good. I couldn't vote for him for the Senate but he could round up enough ticket liberal squish-switch hitters to make it in a pinch.

My GOP Ticket Pix.

Thinking about a balanced ticket... here's what I'd pick as of today for the Republican state ticket-and why.

Governor: Sen. Kirk Dillard. Social and fiscal conservative with a warmly thoughtful personality who generates a "listening to you" mode. Also as a former top aide to Jim Edgar conveys a broader image than just conservative-although in truth he's more conservative than was his old boss. An ideal combination with pro-lifers, gun people and still a healthy middle-of-the-road appeal. The disaster the Dems are cooking up may well make him Illinois' 41st governor. Possible negative? Not many for a politician who's been around this long... but possibly needs to step up the energy on the campaign trail since as a thoughtful type he's more reflective and slower-moving-but this can be improved with good campaign management. DuPage county.

Lt. Governor: Kathy Salvi. Mother of six, lawyer, charming, even beauteous. Strong base with pro-lifers, social conservatives, Catholics; , has disagreed with husband Al on inordinate gun control. Good speaker to-boot. Negative: A personal injury lawyer, a little verbose. Lake county.

Attorney General: Rep. Jim Durkin (R-Western Springs). Excellent legislator and campaigner who without much money at all ran against Sen. Dick Durbin. In primary contest he was endorsed by every major newspaper. Has gained further prestige since with his role in the impeachment of Blagojevich. Social conservative but he doesn't go to bed every night and arise every morning with those issues in mind. Catholic. Cook county.

Secretary of State: Dr. Eric Wallace. Time for an energetic black conservative who's got a tough challenge against icon Jesse White: but running here would be a "get-acquainted" opportunity for the state from a constituency rarely heard-from: African American pro-enterprise intellectuals (Wallace has a Ph.D). Social conservative. Evangelical Protestant. Negatives: not all that well known; running against great odds by facing White. Cook county.

Treasurer: State Sen. Dan Rutherford (R-Genoa). Attractive speaker from the Pontiac area who makes a spellbinding speech; ran for secretary of state previously. Protestant. Knows a lot about fiscal policy and taxes. Negatives: None but that's not because some irresponsibles haven't tried. Intrusive attacks on non-governmental matters have backfired into a positive for him--resulting in a decided net-plus. Pro-life; supporter of gay rights. Protestant. Livingston county.

Comptroller: Adam Andrzejewski for all the reasons listed in paragraph 2 under subhead "Dillard." Surprisingly good on the stump; has a boyish touch of innocence that gives off a good government glow. Negatives: too green to have any. But he should remember saying he knows nothing about politics is good only one time around-the first time. From Wheaton. Cook county.

___________

On U. S. Senator, the decision of Lisa Madigan to seek that seat means that Illinois' most popular public official will be very tough to beat-but she's not insuperable... since the gloss is rapidly wearing off Obama and his ideas. Rep. Mark Kirk is dead in the water. Given his disastrous vote on Cap `n Trade he has lost... at least now, maybe for all time... his following on business issues, and his good background on defense issues is becoming irrelevant due to his frittering away even his so-called moderate following.

The logical candidate against Lisa is one who can challenge her and the Obama people on its weakest point-the economy. That would be...

Brian Wesbury, 51, suburban Cook county economist (supply-side) honored in 2004 by "USA Today" as one of the top ten economic forecasters in the United States and ranked by "The Wall Street Journal" as the nation's preeminent economic forecaster in 2001. He's published regularly in the WSJ and is a CNBC contributor. McGraw-Hill published his first book, "The New Era of Wealth" in 1999. He's attractive and speaks well-in fact makes much of his living on the stump explaining economics in easy-to-understand, everyday terms. He's current chief economist for First Trust Portfolios, a financial services firm located in Wheaton. Previously he was chief economist for Griffin, Kubik, Stephens & Thompson, a Chicago investment bank. When Republicans controlled Congress, he was chief economist for the Joint Economic Committee in 1995, directing and advising committee members on policy matters regarding the economy.

He has a BA in economics from the University of Montana (1981) and received an MBA from Northwestern University's Kellogg school of management. He's married, a father and is an evangelical Protestant.

What's little known about Wesbury is that he ran statewide when he was a very young tadpole... age 31... as candidate for lieutenant governor with Steve Baer who unsuccessfully challenged Jim Edgar. The campaign was under-funded and is forgotten... no lasting harm went to Wesbury and if any remains it's on Baer. Baer stressed social issues against Edgar; Wesbury stressed the economy. Wesbury's charisma is not unlike Art Laffer's.

I have no idea as to whether Wesbury would do it but he just might-because running for the U. S. Senate in a key states would provide him with even more visibility and probably... certainly... some national exposure, basis his economic prominence.

Negatives: One... which is also Laffer's... but it can be handled. Repeatedly, until the economic meltdown hit, he declared the country can avoid recession and people should buy stocks "because the market basically today is priced for almost the end of the world." But a precondition to his analysis was that for the economy to continue growth three things were needed: economic freedom, low taxes, open markets and a supportive governmental infrastructure. He can easily make the case... and as in the WSJ... that government was the culprit in the housing debacle and most everything else concerning the economy. He has been amply supported in this by the WSJ editorial board.

The second negative is that the last time I saw him he was wearing a beard. Quick, the razor, Jeeves!

There's no doubt that running against Lisa would be tough-but it'd be tough for anybody. And I just have this notion in the back of my head that someone who pushes Obama as she will is going to sound like the same-old, same-old.

Personal Aside: Arch-Liberal Marin Canonizes Arch-Liberal Bernardin.

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 08:13:00 CST

Not only is the "Sun-Times'" Carol Marin a whimpering, simpering ultra-lefty, she is a hard-eyed propagandist calling herself Catholic who adroitly suffocates the truth.

Take her Sunday column entitled "Let Bernardin's spirit guide Obama, Pope."

I will put her paragraphs in italics and follow-up with comments of mine in straight type.

"Pro-choice President Obama goes to the Vatican next month to meet pro-life Pope Benedict."

Wrong. Obama is not pro-choice. He is the most pro-abort president we have ever had, one who has differed with his old U. S. Senate colleagues by actions he took repeatedly in the state Senate where he was Judiciary chairman. There he continually-three times-killed legislation that would have supplied sustenance and comfort to live babies born of botched abortions. Marin is so cross-eyed liberal she can't see straight.

"Let's pray that the spirit of the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin fills the room and that Cardinal Bernard Law, now assigned to Rome, is nowhere in sight."

The spirit of the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin? You mean the one who devised the "Consistent life ethic" which my old Minnesota colleague Walter Mondale gleefully told me when we met at the Madison Hotel in Washington during the 1984 campaign resulted in Mondale's compiling in Mondale's words "a better pro-life record than Ronald Reagan"-for nuclear freeze, against the death penalty? Mondale chortled that Bernardin's devising this stratagem was truly "Italianate," meaning he saw how to help his pro-abort party transcend problems with Catholic pro-life voters.

"Bernardin and Obama, despite a deep difference on abortion, shared mch in Chicago. A commitment to dialogue. And a belief that common ground can be found even across the most fractured fault lines of faith and belief."

Totally wrong and misleading. They had no difference substantially on abortion. Their difference on abortion was cosmetic. Bernardin whom I knew and met with on the issue was a liberal Democratic manipulator who worked strenuously to water down the effect of abortion on the Catholic electorate to assist his party. He was technically "pro-life" with tongue deeply stuck in his cheek because he wanted the red hat. Obama whom I interviewed several times and discussed abortion with is not at all as complaisant as was Bernardin on the issue. Obama has never, ever sought common ground on abortion. The idea that by passing universal health care people will not resort to abortion which is Doug Kmiec's ridiculous proposition is non-substantive and of appeal only to the ideological Left like Marin.. Were he to have extended an olive branch he would not have vitiated the Mexico City rule, thereby softening his approach slightly. Marin is fiction-spinning again.

"And what happened to Bernardin in the months before his death illuminates the land mines ahead-both inside and outside the Catholic Church."

Cue up the violins. And can we lower the lights, please? Here comes the mythmaker machine.

"In the summer of 1996, three months before pancreatic cancer claimed him, Bernardin quietly sent a document to his fellow bishops for review. He told them that in two weeks he would hold a news conference on its contents. But that he asked them to weigh in. The document, `Called to Be Catholic: The Church in a Time of Peril" was the first official call for discussion among Catholics on polarizing issues including the role of women, human sexuality and abortion. And war, capital punishment and racial injustice."

By calling for discussion on abortion, it was this sly Italian's manipulative gesture of undercutting a precept of natural and moral law that has been part of the Church's theology for 2000 years beginning with the early Church fathers, beginning with the Didache composed before A. D. 80 ("You shall not procure abortion. You shall not destroy a newborn child").

If anyone deserves rank equivalent to Kim Philby it was Bernardin. He was a brilliant public relations impresario, adept at sycophantry with Rome to accomplish his objectives, smooth as silk as a purported saintly prelate, good listener, consensus builder. By the time of his illness his reputation as a faithful son of the Church was dissolving.

Marin's belief in absolutes is as profound as Erich Segal's. Her `60s mantra cannot understand why some issues are unchanging. Bernardin's 1996 bid was designed to win favor with some liberal bishops-Mahony of Los Angeles and Weakland of Milwaukee-to gestate a liberal, relativist largely secular credo to supersede authentic moral theology (in which he was not expert since he had had scarce theological training as a child of the public schools until seminary).

Obviously high on Marin's list is "the role of women" which she once debated with my old office mate the late John McDermott as she professed her wish that women be ordained to the priesthood, the bishopric and papacy. The result as Bernardin wished it to be would be a left-wing testament which would make abortion a non-sin and relative, would have cast homosexuality as a condition not remediable by moral firmness, oppose capital punishment and endorse near pacificism and affirmative action.

This man who went to his death in the theological company of Ann Landers and who in his will ordered his funeral mass to be serenaded by the Gay Men's Chorus was a slicker who had designed a concoction such as "the American Catholic Church" to differentiate itself from Rome-for which he would be the alter-pope.

"Though a few colleagues such as Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles lent their support, "Most bishops sat on their hands" recalled Msgr. Ken Velo one of Bernardin's closest friends. "Law did not say anything at all."

Law has much accounting to make here and beyond for his permissiveness on handling pedaphilia-prone priests, but give Law credit for knowing what Bernardin was up to. Bernardin's sly Italianate device was to preempt any criticism by subtle, murmuring intimidation. It didn't work here.

"Then on Aug. 13, the day Bernardin took his report public, Law sent out his own news release to denounce it. He called it "unfortunate" and said there could be no dialogue if it contested the truth of Church teachings."

Law was right. So what's wrong with that?

"A few months later, as Bernardin lay dying, Law called, hoping to see Bernardin. Velo left Bernardin's bedside to take the call. `He said,' Velo recalled, `I'm thinking of coming to Chicago.' Velo was blunt. He told Law that Bernardin `had a difficult time' with what Law had done. And he conveyed the dying Cardinal's disappointed words. Bernardin, referring to Law by his first name said, `I would have never done this to Bernie.'"

Here the duplicitous nature of Bernardin is on review. Remember, this is the man who, to quote Marin, believes in "discussion among Catholics on polarizing issues." In other words, everything sweetly reasonable. See how he liked dissent? He rejected another view even on his own deathbed. What did he expect, everyone should take good old Joe Bernardin's views "ex cathedra"? Velo's Italianate p. r. cosmetics is intriguing. Only a Marin would sign on for this ingenious deceit by Velo.

"Law, according to Velo, denied he had done anything hurtful. But we now know Law is well-practiced in the art of denial."

Law deserves whatever censure and defilement he receives from all quarters for his mismanagement of Boston-and should not have been given a berth in Rome but directed to the bowels of a Trappist monastery to reflect on his weakness. Now let's consider Velo. He's an officer of DePaul who told me two years ago DePaul was well on the way to burnishing its Catholicity. Then DePaul announced formation of its "Queer Studies: 101" for adolescent freshmen. Great job, Ken. Attaboy, Ken. Like Law you're well-practiced in the art of denial.

"A pedophile scandal engulfed his diocese and the nation, forced his [Law's] resignation and sent him into exile in Rome. Amazingly, Law remains a prince of the church-and lives like one."

Right you are. But you forget to report about Cardinal Roger Mahony, known to friends far and wide as "Roger the Lodger." As archbishop of L. A. he fought a subpoena to open his records to cases of pedophilia all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal and thus he had to open the file drawer. On August 24, 2007 Mahony's archdiocese had to shell out a beginning amount of $447 million for 47 cases of abuse. Surprised you didn't see fit to mention this. Of course, Mahony is a liberal: that's why, isn't it?

Now let's get to Bernardin. You left a whole lot of his story out, m'dear. What's the matter: cat got your tongue? In late December, 1993, a former seminarian from the archdiocese of Cincinnati, Steven Cook, filed a $10 million lawsuit against Bernardin and a Cincinnati priest, accusing the priest of abusing him and delivering him to Bernardin, then archbishop of Cincinnati for the same purposes.

The lawyers became involved. Several months later, in February, 1994 Cook dropped Bernardin from the suit saying he couldn't trust his memory. He never retracted his charges; nor did he say they were inaccurate. Bernardin's fan club says he was exonerated. Not at all. Four months later Cook's suit against the other priest was conveniently-at least for Bernardin-settled out of court. Bernardin went on to have a very public-well publicized and filmed-reconciliation with Cook. That captured the news all the while Bernardin's lawyers were hushing up another case in which seminarians from Winona, Minnesota had accused Bernardin of participating in sexual rituals at the seminary. The settlement from that lawsuit has been sealed. In the two years leading up to his death, one after another of Bernardin's closest friends from his native diocese of Charleston, S. C. were accused of pedophilia.

I'm sure you just ran out of space, m'dear. So I added "the rest of the story."

Personal Aside: Two Case Histories of "My Way or the Highway"--Richard Viguerie and Jack Roeser's Hired Lawyer. Doug Ibendahl (WHO?)

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:05:00 CST

Richard Viguerie.

The word "betrayal" is hardly ever used in politics these days except by a scarce genus of conspiratorial Republicans who think they taste fluoride in the drinking water... usually a few rich entrepreneurs who feel they've bought title to the brand after working in the vineyard during the parched years and chafe that they haven't been sufficiently revered for their output of money.

Nationally, the leading protagonist of Republican "betrayal" is a cranky has-been: Richard Viguerie. He was a direct mail king who made a fortune from Republicans-starting with Barry Goldwater for president and then for countless conservatives running in state contests. I knew Viguerie when he and I were members of an outfit called the Council for National Policy. Whenever we met, Richard had identified yet another Republican who "betrayed" the him and/or the movement which he meant was the same thing. Actually the reason for his anger was that conservatives weren't willing to do exactly what he thought they should do... to the iota no deviations.

Richard helped start Barry Goldwater on his way to the 1964 nomination. But when Barry Goldwater lost Richard said the loss came because he listened too much to Denison Kitchel, his campaign manager, and not enough to him or to Clif White. So, Kitchel was a betrayer. And then after Goldwater continued in the Senate, Goldwater himself was a betrayer (too much influenced by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan when they were senior leaders of the Senate Committee on Intelligence). Gerald Ford was a betrayer by being too soft on the Soviets and for making Nelson Rockefeller vice president. When Ronald Reagan ran against Ford in 1976 Viguerie decided Reagan became a betrayer by choosing Sen. Richard Schweiker as his potential vice president. Schweiker while pro-life didn't toe the line with Viguerie. In 1980 Viguerie went with Phil Crane for president but Phil complained about the cost of Richard's direct mail fee to me and others so to Viguerie Crane was a betrayer as well.

Viguerie said Reagan would never win the presidency because he had betrayed principle by naming George H. W. Bush as his running mate. Well, Reagan did, by 489 electoral votes to 40, carrying 40 states. Reagan hadn't served in office two months when Viguerie said he was convinced Reagan had betrayed the cause and the country yet again saying "I am disillusioned with a president that [sic] walks away from the Soviet Union." Meaning not going to war with it. Viguerie said: "Just like Jimmy Carter gave conservatives the back of the hand [sic] we see the same thing happening in the Reagan administration." He told the Associated Press (1/27/81): "Almost every conservative I have talked to in the last two months has been disappointed in the initial appointments to the Reagan cabinet." He said he wouldn't vote for Reagan in 1984. Of course Reagan won handily over Walter Mondale in 1984, with 58.7% to 40.5%, carrying 49 states (Mondale won only his home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia).

In December, 1987 Viguerie was saying: "Many longtime conservative activists are not buying Reagan's rhetoric. The emperor has no clothes on; just about every conservative I know is now acknowledging it." To the "Los Angeles Times" he said "In other important matters he [Reagan] has changed sides and he is now allied with his former adversaries, the liberals, the Democrats and the Soviets." "Eight years after Reagan's nomination for president the conservative movement is directionless."

The "changing sides" and going over to the USSR resulted in Reagan's winning the Cold War, as Mrs. Margaret Thatcher declares. Not a word from Viguerie. He probably thinks Thatcher betrayed the conservative movement as well.

After Reagan left and the beauty of the conservative record was clear, Viguerie was still dissatisfied. He wrote a book entitled-you guessed it-"Conservatism Betrayed" which excoriated Bush I. "Sixty-five months into Bush's presidency," wrote Viguerie, "conservatives feel"-what? "Betrayed." He said the party was betrayed by Bob Dole in 1996 and was outraged when it chose George W. Bush in 2000, saying it would be betrayed again. Four years later he said Bush deserved to lose because he had betrayed the party-well, he didn't. In 2008 Viguerie hated John McCain and said the party would be betrayed by him. Despite a war and seeming depression, McCain lost by 4 points to Barack Obama. But to Viguerie, McCain has still betrayed the party.

Also Tom DeLay betrayed the party along with Denny Hastert and Newt Gingrich. It's the same old story and has been since 1964, Now no one listens to Viguerie except Bill Moyers and the "Washington Post" who want to publicize their liberal aims by citing a so-called angry conservative token who says he is disillusioned. Viguerie has declared the following Republicans as betrayers: Mike Huckabee the former governor of Arkansas Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty. He likes only Sarah Palin but she had better watch her step or she too will be a betrayer.

And oh yes, Viguerie has another book out. Guess what it's called?

"Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Repuiblicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause." In it he identifies the betrayers as Fox News, "The Weekly Standard" and other successful organs of the media.

Figuring out Richard Viguerie is easy. He's an embittered old man who orders conservatives and the Republican party to follow his way-or the highway... and ends up standing in the middle of the street as traffic goes by heedlessly. He's called the Little Tyrant, who is mad that his every whim hasn't been followed. Those who don't agree with his every suggestion have betrayed conservatives and the Republican party. He has forgotten nothing but learned nothing about politics since 1964... and doesn't remember that while he's been prognosticating betrayal and defeat, he himself hasn't been elected and hasn't led the party to victory-ever. He's a lonely, embittered old man with no successes but a string of bad predictions to his credit.

Doug Ibendahl.

In Illinois we have a junior version of Richard Viguerie, Doug Ibendahl. Doug works for a self-made entrepreneur, a brilliant engineer, Jack Roeser of Carpentersville. I've interviewed Jack for the "Sun-Times," had him as a guest on my radio show, had him guest lecture my political course at a downtown university. Jack's a philanthropist with a social conscience-and like all of us, he's not perfect... and in politics his inclination is to insist the party either follow him or take to the highway. That's okay. All of us senior citizen types have that inclination. But few maim their party by declaring internecine war on its leaders. And very very few have supported candidates with money and once a candidate loses, demands his contribution back because the candidate didn't follow his program exactly. That's Jack.

Jack and Doug have elected nobody to a major post--ever. Doug writes fiery tirades against any Republican who dares to question his boss... and him. The other day Doug urged Republicans to get rid of Tom Cross in the 84th district. Tom Cross is the House Republican leader. Tom and I don't agree on everything but Tom's done things Doug Ibendahl and Jack Roeser haven't: and that is get elected to something.

While the remainder of the Illinois GOP is just starting to imagine that with the terrible record the Democrats have produced, it may just be possible to elect a Republican governor... and maybe a U. S. senator... Jack and Doug have a better idea. They're going to defeat Tom Cross if they can. Now Tom Cross and I don't agree on a few things-but having been active in Republican politics in two states... and having elected two Republican congressmen and a governor in what was, like Illinois, a solidly Democratic state... I figure you might want to hear my side on Tom Cross-and why the Jack and Doug effort to defeat Cross is nothing more than anger at not been heeded-by anybody. How dare Republicans fail to salute!

Jack, like Richard Viguerie in his old age, believes that conservatives have only one choice: Jack's way or the highway-with a string of defeats along the way... with the excuses that the party has been betrayed, betrayed, conspired-against, all by people who don't agree with Doug and Jack. I'm a senior citizen like Jack but I'm lucky to be married to another senior citizen who says I'm not right about everything: thank God for her; she saved me a lot of goof-ups. I don't know much about Doug: he's not married so I'll just leave that issue alone. But there is Jack just like Viguerie, standing in the middle of the highway flailing his arms, shouting "betrayal" while the traffic goes heedlessly along. Jack has only one major follower: Doug whom he pays.

Doug writes fulsomely about how Tom Cross betrays Republican principles. He calls him Tom "Double Cross." He implies Tom Cross has sinned with a crimson "A" on his back because he doesn't support each item in the Republican platform... almost as if the platform is engraved on tablets handed down by God on Mt. Sinai. (I'll tell you later on who supported the Republican platform when it was wrong-and who didn't, determining to be right rather than lip-synch views on a piece of paper).

Jack and Doug write that Tom Cross hasn't done this and hasn't done that-but this I know: As House Republican Leader Tom has withstood pressure from unions and special interest groups, the liberal media and the toughest opposition Mike Madigan could hurl at him to join them in raising taxes. And there has been no tax hike largely because of Tom Cross. Tom led his caucus in providing property tax relief. He has fought to pass a constitutional amendment requiring... get this... a three-fifths vote in each chamber to increase taxes.

Now Jack and Doug have laid down the dictum that if you don't support the Republican platform on every single item you have betrayed principle. I happen to support the platform on every item but I would remind them that it's not a capital sin to dissent from casting a blind loyalty oath on every item. Take ERA. They probably don't know that support for the ERA or Equal Rights Amendment... bad news for social conservatives... had been in every GOP platform from 1940 until 1964-even though there were those of us who feared the oncoming of legalized abortion in the states would presage acceptance of the practice as a bogus "right" supported by the platform. The Taft forces tried to dump it in 1944, 1948 and 1952 and failed. In 1964 almost all the Republican presidential candidates-Goldwater, Rockefeller and Scranton-supported keeping the ERA in the platform... but one candidate didn't: Walter Judd of Minnesota whose aide I was at the San Francisco convention. I supported Republicans anyhow. In 1972 ERA went back into the platform. In 1976 Ronald Reagan, then contesting Ford, supported continuing ERA even though at that time Roe v. Wade had been enacted by the Supreme Court three years earlier.

Jack and Doug pronounce that anyone who does not support the platform is a betrayer, a traitor to principles. I didn't support ERA then which means I wasn't loyal to the platform-but I worked my heart out for Republican candidates all the same. Phyllis Schlafly lost the fight to remove ERA in 1964, the year she wrote "A Choice Not an Echo." Am I to infer that she was a disloyal Republican when she worked for Goldwater and Nixon who supported ERA? And for Ford in 1976 who supported ERA? I don't think so. So Jack and Doug should drop this balderdash about who's loyal to a piece of paper and who's betraying whom. What they will never understand is what Henry Hyde said so long ago-politics is making choices... and if you have to settle for a sandwich rather than a full meal and there's no alternative, you take it. Jack and Doug have never understood that. This is why they don't understand politics... and which is why their influence is zilch. Z-i-l-c-h.

Instead they ought to recognize that even though they disagree with him on some things-as do I--Tom Cross has done an outstanding job of organizing and leading his caucus. I know because I have seen Republican legislative leadership in two states, recognize who's a leader and who's not.

Basically, Jack is basically a nice old man who's been so spoiled by saluters like Doug that he just can't abide people not saying "yessir" "yessir" on everything-not unlike Dick Viguerie. Jack Roeser and I aren't related; we have the same surname; we both lived at one time in the same suburb; we're both Catholic. We've even been friendly at times. Coincidentally enough, we both have sons named Tom and daughters named Jeanne Marie. And we're both octogenarians so we aren't going to be around forever... maybe, who knows, not to see the next election. It's time for Jack to call off the dogs... realize that like the rest of us he's not always 100% right... that he doesn't need to be saluted constantly to salve his ego... and turn his octogenarian energy to defeating Democrats, not Republican leaders-in the hope that before we check out we can turn this thing around.

I entertain some meager hope that Jack will call me and at least we can talk about it. I have no hope... none... that Doug will-but I don't really care since he's a hired gun.

Thoughts While Shaving: Michael Jackson... Finding it Tough to Comment on this Blog?... House Republican Leader a Man of Color... Kirk Votes for Cap & Trade... Fr. Ernie's Old Fashioned Sex Ed: 101.

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:26:00 CST

Michael Jackson.

If we had been nuclear-bombed Thursday and Friday by maddened North Korean president Kim Jong (as he has threatened to do) we would never known it until we were melted by the radiation... so deluged have we been with TV, radio and newspaper coverage of Michael Jackson's death. The "Tribune" said simply that he was "the best known person in the world"-bar-none. That's pandering to the kids. Jesus Christ is better known to the world, but then how do His numbers between ages 24 and 52, the key spending demographic, pull?

I never saw Jackson perform aside from some TV clips but what I saw was an electric dancer with a voice that sounded like a high-pitched whinny, weird girlish-appearing man-child transformed by too many facial surgeries into a garish cartoon of a human being: lipstick-covered mouth, nose badly remodeled like putty, stringy hair... as well as a provocative thrust of his hips and disconcerting stroking of his crotch-which could confirm the general view that with two serious allegations of child abuse, parents of young boys were wise to steer clear of him. A valid question is this: given what Jackson was, was it not for pecuniary reasons that some parents wanted to make a big financial haul in settlements for molestation charges? Nauseating.

My point is this: The furor over the "talent" and stardom of this poor little creep really with the masturbatory actions on stage tells the world what we are, doesn't it? Is the debasement of our culture so complete that no one has guts to say that the strutting little emperor wore no clothes? Well, let it be me.

Having Posting Difficulty?

A great number of readers have complained that they have experienced extreme difficulty registering their opinions on this blog. I took them up with my webmaster who tells me this: "The comment system works fine. The comments don't show up right away. People think they don't work but they DO. It's user error." As I know absolutely nothing about the technical side of this business... lucky to simply write my stuff and email it to my webmaster... I'll take his word for it. But your observations are important to me. Try to see if this works... wait a little while. He's always right: really is.

The George Hamilton Look-Alike.

With the Republican party woefully short on racial minorities, why doesn't the House GOP claim credit for Leader John Boehner and declare him a light-skinned African American, a mixed race aka mulatto (politically incorrect usage) or an exotic half-caste? Announce he's anything but what he is, a whitey who has been sitting under a sun lamp? Check his complexion tone and you'll be hard to allege that he's akin to Barack Obama. As a House staffer I used to office next door to Adam Clayton Powell (D-NY) who was lighter than Boehner.

As the GOP stresses anew it is the party of hardworking Americans living on fixed incomes, how does it look to have as spokesman a Dean Martin Bahamas-refugee look-alike? One of these days when he's doing his sound-bytes we're likely to see Boehner... a 2-pack-a-day smoker... gasp into a paroxysm of coughs, emitting a disgusting lunger into his kerchief. What ever happened to the apparently healthy other Republican leaders: the old ex-athlete Jerry Ford, chalky white, fleshy arthritic old men who used to lead the caucus, like John Rhoades and Joe Martin? I think Boehner looks decadent, one of those country-club creatures hanging around the training room too long. Two items will cut his service short: 2-packs-a-day and malignant melanoma which will indubitably come from his exposure to the ultra-violet high intensity lamps.

Why does he go with sun-lamps? Why not use the tanning spray that college girls use? Maybe he's afflicted with SAD (Sunlight Affective Disorder) that causes depression to some people when sunlight is sparse. If he's a victim of SAD I can understand-with eight Republicans skipping out, amounting to the difference with which Ms.Pelosi passed the Cap and Trade bill 219-212.

Kirk the Republican Defector.

Rep. Mark Kirk (D-IL) was one of eight Republican defectors who enabled Mme. Pelosi to pass the 1,200-page (300 pages added at the last minute) Cap and Trade energy bill in the House 219-212. One more reason why I can't vote for him if he runs for the U. S. Senate.

Fr. Ernie's Old Fashioned Sex Ed 101.

Note: Having taken four straight years of philosophy and theology from Fr. Ernie [Fr. Ernest Kilzer OSB] at the old Saint John's pre-Vatican II from 1946 to 1950 I think I can contrive from his past lectures his own special traditional Catholic Sex Ed 101. I'm taking a try at it. Ernie's lesson can be applied to all past and recent political sex sins: Gov. Mark Sanford (R-South Carolina), Sen. John Ensign (R-Nevada), John Edwards former Democratic vice presidential candidate and North Carolina senator, former Democratic Gov. Eliot Spitzer (New York), Sen. David Vitter (R-Louisiana), former Democratic Gov. James McGreevey (N. J.) and former Democratic President Bill Clinton. Here goes:

Fr. Ernest. Gentlemen, the liberal mainstream media have, as I predicted, taken to mocking the value of all who exhort the return of traditional family values because some lawmakers... most recently Gov. Sanford and Sen. Ensign... have departed from rectitude. To these commentators the hypocrisy of these political individuals negates the values-meaning if one were to apply this to other virtues, telling the truth should be discarded since many men lie. But consider the folly: truth is the basis of all law in the court chamber, business contracts, bank loans-in short every agreement we make in society. Should truth be invalidated because of this? Of course not. Should marital fidelity be dismissed because hypocrites have preached it and have fallen away? Of course not.

However it has come to my attention that since I have gone beyond, a whole generation may have grown up without the proper understanding of humanity and its sexual roles that have under-girded morality for the past 5,000 years. Hence I shall endeavor to re-train. So much liberal nonsense has been generated via the `60s sexual revolution and Gloria Steinem feminism that it is essential to review the fundamentals of pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic, sex education.

First, humanity. Man (I use the traditional form for both genders) has been sinful, duplicitous and self-serving since Adam and Eve. The first couple's falling from grace was caused by disobedience through sly lying by Satan. No other man is perfect or has been perfect; one woman has been sinless... I do not say perfect, mind you but sinless: Mary the mother of Christ. The only perfect human was Jesus Christ who also had a divine as well as human nature. No other human has been perfect-no saint, hero or heroine --and never will be. Therefore, human failing in the area of sexual morality is never to be taken as a repudiation of the moral law-when the lessons of derelict immorality in this 21st century are present for all to see.

Second, sexual differences. Men and women have different sexual natures. These natures have existed for long millennia and will not be changed by whim or liberal wishing it were so. Men were destined as the warriors, the hunters, engaged in hunting and defense-venturing forth from the cave to conquer enemies, kill animals and drag their carcasses back for their women to be fed along with their children. Women were destined since time immemorial as the nurturers-supporting the health of the family, even countermanding the order of the male if the family's well-being depends on it. From the dawn of prehistoric times, these roles have survived, triumphing over attempts to re-think them, do away with them, trans-gender them and foment same-sex "marriage" beginning in the latter 20th century.

Third, sexual roles. Important: gentlemen, as you understand all men come equipped with penises. The penis is used for an excretory function also for generation of seed for preservation of the race. Women come equipped with uteruses, the major sex organ which is often referred to by the original German "womb." This is for encapsulation of an unborn baby. Women also come equipped with breasts into which are concealed mammary glands with which to secrete milk to nourish infants.

Fourth: Penis excitation. Excitation of the penis is required to make possible the eventual ejection of semen �known as sperm or spermatozoa-into the vagina and thereafter to the womb to make possible conception of the unborn baby.

Fifth: Men by their nature are prone to excitation over some females, their breasts, legs, bodies. Undue concentration of this fact involves the sin of lust, the fascination of the possibility however remote of future concupiscence with a female outside the marriage bond. Lust is one of the seven capital sins. Since from the dawn of time, men-particularly adolescents--have brimmed with aggression and sexual desire, tempered by fear of ridicule from both male fellows and women. In their early stages, unless by religion they are enabled to master their drives-and not infrequently despite such training-men are zoos of countervailing desires and emotions: masturbatory sieges, pornographic curiosities-all entwined in the predicament of male sexual character. The prudent man who has mastered the impulses of his body has by formation of strong habit of virtue forbids lust since Christ condemns the practice in Matthew 5:27-28, declaring "whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart." We in the Religious Order have learned to dismiss improper visitations of incipient carnality by prayer. Be assured the visitations themselves are not sinful unless they are entertained. They come from the Devil who in the epistle of Peter "stalks through the world as a hungry lion seeking whom he may devour."

Sixth: Learning to dominate his thoughts and drives is the most important thing a young man must learn. Note: here is where Catholic doctrine enters, to-wit: (a) sexual organs are good and beautiful since they have been given to humans by God for the sole, most noble purpose: continuation of the human race... (b) sex in marriage is also good and beautiful because God has provided it for generation of children and expression of mutual love between the married spouses... (c) when sex is not used for mutual spousal purposes, between spouses but for non-spousal pleasure, to prevent conception, it is sinful... (d) homosexuality and masturbation are contrary to the will of God. These moral strictures are needed for man to attain everlasting happiness in heaven with God.

Seventh: Thus man by his excitable sexual nature must control his sexual urges. Women by their nature are not equipped as are men with hair-trigger sexual responses. Remember women are by nature the nurturers. They exist to attract the right man-the hunter, the protector. Thus their nature is to attract which means devote attention to their appearance... also by ways that have become indentured to species femalia... shy, come-hither, all the clich�s with which we assume the roles of the courted and the courtier.

Eighth: Make no mistake, the male is the one who conquers the wild beast, skins it and drags it to the cave to feed his wife and children-but he is the weaker gender in many ways psychologically. For one, his relations with a woman is the chief way he asserts his sexual identity. To her he offers his success in the world to attract her from others. All civilization is based on this age-old formula: His sex drive (the most powerful compulsion in his life) is harnessed by the woman who forces him to make a long-term commitment. His struggle with his own drives must be sublimated, not just by his allegiance to wife and family but for maximum effect to their spiritual goals.

Ninth: Just as men are not naturally monogamous but must use their will and moral determination to be so for the good of their marriages and progeny, prayer, penance and heroic chastity (at such time when women are not able nor willing to perform intercourse) are sacrifices which strengthen the soul. The absolute rot, nonsense that sex is necessity for completion of life is spread by world secularists in the company of the Evil One. But where the Catholic clergy is concerned, whenever a young man comes to me to inquire about joining the Benedictine Order I ask him if he is struggling to attain chastity. A popular answer is, "no Father. My mind is not on this struggle at all. I do not have temptations concerning women." At that point I will rule that he be denied of participation in religious and monastic life. If a man has no feeling so that he is impervious to the struggle that should engage all normal men, there is something wrong with him: maybe he is not drawn to women but preternaturally drawn to men, in which case by all means he should be disqualified for the religious life.

Tenth: For millennia the major concern of society has been this: how to respond to the un-harnessed power of male sexual energy. That is the source of 90% of the troubles of the world, wars, insurrections, the rise and fall of kingdoms. Hunting and defensive combat takes only a relative short amount of time in the cycle of intense rhythms of compulsions of male sexuality. Understand, then, that man is often helpless prey to aggressive, attractive women on the prowl. Women, most often those un-anchored with husband and family ... on the prowl as I say... for males... can be as duplicitous and dangerous beings as human nature can devise. When let us say a married male encounters a female of this type he may well be influenced by flirtatious but which I call seductive ways. The only way to fight this is not just with prayer but by your hat: grab it and run. Excessive female-encouraged familiarity extended to a man not qualified for marriage, either by being married or in the religious life can trigger the aeon-old process of male excitation. I note Gov. Sanford engaged this woman from Argentina in prolonged visitation about purported ways to save her floundering marriage. She was most probably dangling her problem to him as an excitement and inducement. This is not to exonerate him in the slightest for he yielded to what we theologians call the "occasions of sin" -but the wiles of women directed to men they wish to conquer... and I use that word advisably... are evil and directed by the Prince of this World.

Beyond his weakness, you must know that Gov. Sanford is quite emotionally unbalanced. One who falls into the spell of a woman not his wife is vulnerable. An elected governor who forsakes his duty to his wife and children, then forsakes his duty to constituents and neglects to inform his lieutenant governor that he will be gone... who then leaves the country to see the lady, comes back and says in public that he spent five days in Argentina weeping... he is in need of serious psychiatric help. It is immaterial to say he has fallen into the spell of lust: he has lapsed from rationality. He is an ill, potentially very sick man emotionally. He should resign and failing that should be removed-for his own good and the good of his polity, else suicide may well be his last desperate move.

Reviewing these fundamentals you can see how... barring consideration of Gov. Sanford's obvious mental illness... disruption came to the life of the Republicans and Democratic leaders... and truly can come to all who let up their guard or dally with occasions of sin. It's no time for nyaaa, nyaa, nyaa or to say as liberals do that it's hypocritical to support morality since in its practice some, perhaps many, fail. That's cynical nonsense. Just as truth is the ideal in a time of lying, morality is the ideal in this time of moral relativism. For that reason, hypocrisy is, in a sense, sin's tribute to virtue. So gentlemen, let us not titter at the Victorians whose patriarchs trumpeted virtue but may well have fallen off the boat themselves. Hypocrisy is not the worst thing to practice at that time because it protects the young from scandal. The worst practice is to drop pretense and advocate libertinism for that advocacy... supposedly without hypocritical pretense... is the one that loses souls.