Tuesday, August 31, 2010

This week on Reclaiming the Culture: "Salafism: Understanding a Strain of Radical Islam"

Today, on "Reclaiming the Culture," host Dolores Meehan interviews Brian Fairchild of the Intrepid Group on the threats posed by Salafist Islam. Parts one and two of a three part interview are presented; part three airs next week. Left: with Crown Prince Sheikh Saud bin Saqr al Qasimi of the Emirate of Ras al Khaimah in the United Arab Emirates.

In part one, Mr. Fairchild describes his background and experiences in Arabia, and begins to describe what Salafism is. In part two, he expands on Salafism, and on the inadequate conceptual and instrumental response of our government.

Listen here:


Mr. Fairchild is the co-founder of Intrepid Group, LLC. Since 9/11, Mr. Fairchild and his partner have trained over 10,000 US counterterrorism officials on the subject of Islamist terrorism, including officials from CIA, FBI, military special operations, and state and local law enforcement.

Podcasts can be downloaded, too.

Other Reclaiming the Culture shows:

Most Reverend Salvatore Cordileone, Bishop of the Diocese of Oakland: "The Manhattan Declaration: A Call to Christian Conscience"

Father Robert A. Sirico, President, The Acton Institute "The Principle of Subsidiarity and the Service of the Poor"

Dr. Janet Smith, the Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, "The Right to Privacy."

Dr. Maria Fedoryka, Ave Maria University, "The Gift of Woman"

And upcoming on September 14: Father Michael Sweeney, OP, President, Dominican School of Philosophy & Theology will discuss "Authentic Catholic Education and the Impact of the Land o' Lakes Conference"

Monday, August 30, 2010

What to do about the CCHD?

Jude Huntz, Director of the Human Rights Office of the Diocese of Kansas City - St. Joseph, offers some suggestions. Excerpts below is from "The Catholic Key."

"In recent years the Catholic Campaign for Human Development has come under a great deal of scrutiny and criticism. CCHD had a relationship with the national organizing group ACORN that was problematic, and when a variety of problems were discovered with ACORN the national CCHD office took steps to defund the organization. Yet, the relationships with community organizing groups across the country have been the fundamental problem with many CCHD grants in all parts of the country...

The Catholic Campaign for Human Development offers two possible national grant opportunities: community organizing grants and economic development grants. In studying the various problems with CCHD grants nationally, we noticed that the problematic grants all fell under the community organizing area. These organizations have traditionally attempted to create a voice for populations that have historically had no voice in the political and economic decisions of society. This goal is laudable in itself, but as time progressed the nature of organizing evolved. Many organizing groups began to develop a partisan edge to their work. What is more, many organizing groups began to advocate for causes that are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, most notably in the areas of abortion, same sex marriage, and health care reform."

Of course. I've described before how in my (and Fr. Malloy's) experience with a community organizing group the organizer refused to say what goals the created power structure would pursue, only that he wanted to create one. And, as Huntz says, what happens when the structures start pursuing goals contrary to the teaching of the church? You find out that you have funded your enemies.

Unfortunately, the two remaining groups being funded by the CCHD in the Archdiocese of San Francisco seem to fall into this category: the San Francisco Organizing Project certainly, and Nuestra Casa probably.

For a good counterpoint to the CCHD, visit the page of Fr. Robert Sirico, President of the Acton Institute, on Reclaiming the Culture.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Nice: Deacon Keith on "Restoring Honor" Rally

"The crowd easily exceeded 500,000 people. The event stage was set up at the base of the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. However, the massive crowd stretched along the Lincoln Memorial, on both sides of the reflective pond stretching all the way to the Washington Monument....

The address given by Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, secured this heroic and inspiring woman's place in American history. This is the 47th anniversary of her uncle, the late, great Christian minister and human rights hero, Dr Martin Luther Kings' famous "I Have a Dream" Speech. He would have been proud of his niece. She is an heir of his legacy and certainly has his extraordinary gift for prophetic rhetoric which can rouse the heart of a Nation.

This was a masterful and inspired speech, given on the day when the Nation honors one of our greatest Americans. Dr Alveda King candidly and honestly declared that 'our material gains seem to be going the way of our moral losses....'"

Full article here:


Saturday, August 28, 2010

Rally in DC Big Cause for Encouragement

A couple of photos of today's "Restoring Honor" rally in Washington DC.

"They spoke in soaring terms of the rally's importance, repeatedly telling the crowd that America is at a moment of spiritual and moral peril, and that their gathering represented the path to revival."

300,000+ Americans who take "honor" seriously is a very good sign.

Friday, August 27, 2010

Recommended Book of the Week: "The New Science of Politics" by Eric Voegelin

This week's recommended book is "The New Science of Politics" by Professor Eric Voegelin. The New Science of Politics was published in 1954. This is the book that introduced Voegelin to the American public. I first read it more than 20 years ago, and it had a massive effect on me.

All excerpts are from the introduction.

"To pursue a theoretical problem to the point where the principles of politics meet with the principles of a philosophy of history is not customary today. Nevertheless, the procedure cannot be considered an innovation in political science; it will rather appear as a restoration, if it be remembered that the two fields which today are cultivated separately were inseparably united when political science was founded by Plato. This integral theory of politics was born from the crisis of Hellenic society. In an hour of crisis, when the order of a society flounders and disintegrates, the fundamental problems of political existence in history are more apt to come into view than in periods of comparative stability....

A restoration of political science to its principles implies that the restorative work is necessary because the consciousness of principles is lost. The movement toward retheoretization must be understood, indeed, as a recovery from the destruction of science which characterized the positivistic era in the second half of the nineteenth century. The destruction worked by positivism is the consequence of two fundamental assumptions. In the first place, the splendid unfolding of the natural sciences was co-responsible with other factors for the assumption that the methods used in the mathematizing sciences of the external world were possessed of some inherent virtue and that all other sciences would achieve comparable success if they followed the example and accepted these methods as their model. This belief by itself was a harmless idiosyncrasy that would have died out when the enthusiastic admirers of the model method set to work in their own science and did not achieve the expected successes. It became dangerous because it combined with the second assumption that the methods of the natural sciences were a criterion for theoretical relevance in general."

I think of the following passages every time I hear the cringe-making 1973 ICEL translation: "Father, help us to seek the values that will bring us lasting joy in this changing world..."

"In order to arrive at clarity about the issue, it must first of all be realized that the terms "value-judgment" and "value-free" science were not part of the philosophical vocabulary before the second half of the nineteenth century. The notion of a value-judgment (Werturteil) is meaningless in itself; it gains its meaning from a situation in which it is opposed to judgments concerning facts (Tatsachenurteile). And this situation was created through the positivistic conceit that only propositions concerning facts of the phenomenal world were "objective," while judgments concerning the right order of soul and society were "subjective." Only propositions of the first type could be considered "scientific," while propositions of the second type expressed personal preferences and decisions, incapable of critical verification and therefore devoid of objective validity. This classification made sense only if the positivistic dogma was accepted on principle; and it could be accepted only by thinkers who did not master the classic and Christian science of man. For neither classic nor Christian ethics and politics contain "value-judgments" but elaborate, empirically and critically, the problems of order which derive from philosophical anthropology as part of a general ontology.

A few pages later, Voegelin describes this attitude while discussing the work of Max Weber:

"The amount of materials which he (Weber) mastered in these voluminous studies on Protestantism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Israel, and Judaism, to be completed by a study on Islam, is indeed awe-inspiring. In the face of such impressive performance it has perhaps not been sufficiently observed that the series of these studies receives its general tone through a significant omission, that is, of pre-Reformation Christianity. The reason of the omission seems to be obvious. One can hardly engage in a serious study of medieval Christianity without discovering among its 'values' the belief in a rational science of human and social order and especially of natural law. Moreover, this science was not simply a belief, but it was actually elaborated as a work of reason. Here Weber would have run into the fact of a science of order, just as he would if he had seriously occupied himself with Greek philosophy. Weber's readiness to introduce verities about order as historical facts stopped short of Greek and medieval metaphysics. In order to degrade the politics of Plato, Aristotle, or St. Thomas to the rank of 'values' among others, a conscientious scholar would first have to show that their claim to be science was unfounded. And that attempt is self-defeating. By the time the would-be critic has penetrated the meaning of metaphysics with sufficient thoroughness to make his criticism weighty, he will have become a metaphysician himself. The attack on metaphysics can be undertaken with a good conscience only from the safe distance of imperfect knowledge."

He can be funny when he wants to be, too:

"The theoretical issue of positivism as a historical phenomenon had to be stated with some care; the variety of manifestations themselves can be listed briefly, now that their uniting bond is understood. The use of method as the criterion of science abolishes theoretical relevance. As a consequence, all propositions concerning facts will be promoted to the dignity of science, regardless of their relevance, as long as they result from a correct use of method. Since the ocean of facts is infinite, a prodigious expansion of science in the sociological sense becomes possible, giving employment to scientistic technicians and leading to the fantastic accumulation of irrelevant knowledge through huge 'research projects' whose most interesting feature is the quantifiable expense that has gone into their production. The temptation is great to look more closely at these luxury flowers of late positivism and to add a few reflections on the garden of Academus in which they grow; but theoretical asceticism will not allow such horticultural pleasures."


"Weber, as has just been set forth, still conceived history as an increase of rationalism in the positivistic sense. From the position of a science of order, however, the exclusion of the
scientia prima from the realm of reason is not an increase but a decrease of rationalism. What Weber, in the wake of Comte, understood as modern rationalism would have to be reinterpreted as modern irrationalism. This inversion of the socially accepted meaning of terms would arouse a certain hostility."

Ya think? Reflect on the intellectual contortions pro-abortion thinkers must embrace in order to deny the humanity of the fetus, all the while claiming to be rational, scientific, objective, modern.

Professor Voegelin's influence probably cannot be overstated. By now, a couple of generations of first rate scholars have explored, and continued to explore, his works, via institutes and symposia. You can help the Eric Voegelin institute at LSU (which no longer receives any state funding) by going to http://www.lsu.edu/artsci/groups/voegelin/donate.shtml

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

"End the incontestable evil of abortion, anywhere and everywhere it exists."

The great Reverend Walter Hoye is speaking out about the overturning of his unjust conviction:

"It is my hope that this victory will encourage Pastors to both take a public stand against abortion in the pulpit and to minister the love of Christ to the men, women and children going into an abortion clinic from the public square. It's time for men of God to come together and end the incontestable evil of abortion, anywhere and everywhere it exists."

Now that's a Shepherd!

The LifeNews article also has interesting comments from the Life Legal Defense Foundation attorneys who represent Pastor Hoye.

In SF: Walk for Life: 1, Planned Parenthood: Zero

Back in 2005, the first Walk for Life West Coast took place. In response, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors (all Democrats) issued Resolution 05-0019:

"Resolution recognizing January 22, 2005 as "Stand Up For Choice Day" in honor of the 32nd anniversary of the landmark 1973 United States Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade establishing a woman's constitutional right to decide when and if to have a child; and further supporting the local Pro-Choice community demonstrating in San Francisco..."

The full resolution cited the Planned Parenthood abortion business a number of times.

Well, the Planned Parenthood abortion business is no longer in San Francisco. Full details of the severing of ties with their SF affiliate have not been made public, but certainly include financial mismanagement. We note that in FY2006-2007 Planned Parenthood Golden Gate's revenue was $22,345,629--40% of which comes from state funds and 16% from Medi-Cal reimbursements, which is $12,513,552 of your tax dollars.

By contrast, the Walk for Life West Coast is quite healthy. The 2010 event drew 40,000 participants, up from 7,500 in 2005 (when Fr. Malloy received the first annual Saint Gianna Molla award from founders Dolores Meehan and Eva Muntean).

Here's a great video of the 2010 Walk by the artists "Shadow of the Locust":

Mark your calendars! The next Walk for Life West Coast will be on January 22, 2011!

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Reverend Walter Hoye's Conviction Overturned: "The pastor may have been convicted for legal activities."

A three judge superior court panel has overturned the conviction of pro-life hero Reverend Walter Hoye.

From today's SF Chronicle:

"An Alameda County court panel has overturned an anti-abortion pastor's convictions for illegally approaching patients outside an Oakland clinic, saying a judge's flawed instructions could have allowed jurors to find him guilty for conduct that was legal.

Walter Hoye of Union City, a pastor at a Berkeley church, was the first person convicted under a 2008 Oakland ordinance that created an 8-foot "bubble" around patients entering reproductive health clinics. The law prohibited knowingly entering that zone to harass a client or offer counseling without the person's consent.

A Superior Court judge sentenced Hoye to 30 days in jail in March 2009 after he refused a probation condition that would have required him to stay 100 yards from the Family Planning Specialists Medical Group at Second and Webster streets.

Hoye served his jail term while appealing his two misdemeanor convictions. He has also challenged the ordinance in federal court, where a judge upheld it in August 2009.

In a ruling Wednesday, a three-judge Superior Court panel said trial Judge Stuart Hing had failed to tell jurors what they had to conclude before convicting Hoye.

When jurors asked Hing during deliberations to define the "approach" that the ordinance prohibited, the judge told them to use the everyday meaning of the word.

But the panel said the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a similar case from Colorado in 2000 that an abortion protester who stands still, and speaks or hands leaflets to patients who walk by, cannot be convicted of knowingly approaching the patient.

Hoye said he had been standing still during some of the incidents for which he was charged. As a result of Hing's misleading instruction, the court panel said, the pastor may have been convicted for legal activities.

The panel also said Hing should have told the jury that it must agree unanimously about what Hoye did that broke the law.

Jurors found only that he had approached patients illegally on two days in 2008. But because Hoye had multiple encounters with patients on both days, the panel said, individual jurors might have disagreed about which acts were illegal, violating his right to a unanimous verdict.
Kevin Dunleavy, the county's chief assistant district attorney, said prosecutors are reviewing the ruling before deciding whether to challenge it in a state appeals court."

To learn more about Reverend Hoye, or to contribute to his work, visit www.issues4life.com

His site has a chilling statistic that I had roughly known but never seen before right down in black and white: In 2005 there were 452,000 black babies killed in the womb. ALL other causes of death for African-Americans put together amounted to only 292,808. There were 157,000 more deaths than births in the African-American community in 2005.

As Walter says:

"Brothers, we have got to talk about this."

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Ed Whelan Defends Marriage at Northwestern Law School

The great Ed Whelan, who has done so much to expose Judge Walker's injudicious shenanigians, will be taking part in a forum discussing same-sex "marriage" at Northwestern Law School in Chicago on September 7. There is not yet an online link for the event.

Speaking of shenanigans, last week Maggie Gallagher observed:

"Gay marriage advocates are now hoping for a technical knockout -- for the 9th Circuit to rule that the voters of California have no standing to challenge Walker's ruling. This may be a sign they understand how extreme and weak Walker's ruling actually is, how unable it is to withstand substantive review by higher courts. Ted Olson goes on TV claiming he has proved there's no possible case for opposing gay marriage. Now he's in court trying to block any higher court from reviewing his handiwork.

Does that sound like the behavior of people with an airtight logical case to you?"

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Reasonable Arguments

The attack on defenders of heterosexual marriage that they are motivated by religious prejudice is common. A useful reply to this came in the second book of a series titled "Why vs Why" in which contrasting views on topical issues are books laid out in debate form. In the second one titled "Gay Marriage," published in May by Australian publisher Pantera Press, Bill Muehlenberg, secretary of the Family Council of Victoria, took up the case against same-sex marriage concerning Proposition 8 none of them based on religious grounds:

1. It negates what marriage is. Marriage is not just a social construct, but a cultural universal. Marriage is the basis for family formation and is not simply a way of legitimizing sex. Evolutionary biologists acknowledge that male-female bonding in lasting pairs was the critical step in human evolution and is something built into us by nature.

2. The percentage of homosexuals who want to marry is very small and in places where it has already been legalized there have been relatively few same-sex marriages. It has been legal in the Netherlands since 2001 and only about 4% of homosexuals married during the first five years after legalization.

3. There is another agenda here. A fundamental goal of the homosexual lobby is the complete social and public endorsement of them. Being able to marry is like having a stamp of approval from governments and society. It also changes the institution of the family and essentially redefines marriage out of existence.

4. Not all relationships are alike. Homosexual relationships are much more unstable and promiscuous than heterosexual ones. Research has also found that among married homosexual couples the rate of divorce is much higher than for heterosexual couples.

5. Claims of discrimination and denial of rights are spurious. People are entitled to the benefits of marriage if they meet the requirements. Just as family members and minors cannot marry, so too homosexuals cannot. Social goods are denied to all sorts of people and that is how life operates. Societies discriminate in favor of heterosexual unions because of the social good derived from them. Homosexuals are seeking to re-write the rules to get all the benefits, while avoiding the obligations.

6. The arguments used to justify legal same-sex marriage could be used to legalize incest, polygamy or any number of sexual combinations.

7. It is not good for children. In most cases a child will do better with a mother and a father. As well children need role models as they are growing up. Children should be given priority, and not used as political footballs. These arguments, amply documented in the book, show clearly just how wrong-headed was Judge Walker's decision.

Fr. John Flynn, LC as quoted in Zenith

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Dr. Maria Fedoryka on "The Gift of Woman"--this week's "Reclaiming the Culture"

Today, on "Reclaiming the Culture," Dr. Maria Fedoryka discusses the topic of her recent essay "The Gift of Woman" with host Dolores Meehan. Dr. Fedoryka is Professor of Philosophy at Ave Maria University.

Listen here:

Podcasts can be downloaded, too.

Other Reclaiming the Culture shows in August:

Most Reverend Salvatore Cordileone, Bishop of the Diocese of Oakland: "The Manhattan Declaration: A Call to Christian Conscience"

Father Robert A. Sirico, President, The Acton Institute "The Principle of Subsidiarity and the Service of the Poor"

Dr. Janet Smith, the Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, "The Right to Privacy."

And upcoming on August 31: Father Michael Sweeney, OP, President, Dominican School of Philosophy & Theology will discuss "Authentic Catholic Education and the Impact of the Land o' Lakes Conference"

Friday, August 20, 2010

Professor Robert George to Speak at Oakland Cathedral this Wednesday!

Our friend Bill May reminds us that the great Professor Robbie George will be speaking at Oakland's Cathedral of Christ the Light this coming Wednesday:

"The Clash of Orthodoxies"
Manhattan Forum Lecture Series features Robert P. George, Ph. D, a principal author of the Manhattan Declaration.

Wed, August 25, 7:00pm – 9:30pm
The Cathedral of Christ the Light Conference Center
2121 Harrison St. Oakland, CA
Admission: $50*

"In the Eighth Manhattan Forum lecture, Robert George will tackle the issues at the heart of the contemporary conflict of worldviews. Secular liberals typically suppose that their positions on morally charged issues of public policy are the fruit of pure reason, while those of their morally conservative opponents reflect an irrational religious faith. George will show that this supposition is wrong on both counts. Challenging liberalism’s claim to represent the triumph of reason, George argues that on controversial issues like abortion, euthanasia, same-sex unions, civil rights and liberties, and the place of religion in public life, traditional Judaeo-Christian beliefs are rationally superior to secular liberal alternatives."

*Registration fee includes admission to the upcoming September 18th Manhattan Forum Conference.
Register here:
http://sapi.org/mforum/eventregister.htm. (For more information on the September 18 conference go to: http://www.sapi.org/mforum/speakers.htm

Professor George holds the McCormick Chair in Jurisprudence at Princeton University. Speaking of the Manhattan Declaration, and the Diocese of Oakland, be sure to listen to Bishop Salvatore Cordileone of Oakland on "The Manhattan Declaration: A Call to Christian Conscience" on Reclaiming the Culture: http://www.reclaimingtheculture.org/cordileone.html

Amazing Physiological Changes Follow Judge Walker's Ruling--Homosexuals "Outraged"

Jeff Miller has the story:

Shocking result of Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling

"(Roto Reuters) SAN FRANCISCO – More fallout continues from Judge Vaughn Walker overturning of California’s Proposition 8 on grounds that it was unconstitutional. While the legal case will continue on in the courts a surprising side effect of this ruling is starting to cause consternation among homosexuals. Increasing reports are coming in concerning a very surprising turn of events which is currently being investigated.

Judge Walker’s ruling has apparently rendered homosexual couples wanting to get married capable of marriage. The biological mechanics of how this has happened is being looked into by researchers at Northridge Hospital Medical Center. Apparently within days of this ruling multiple homosexual partners started complaining of pains suspiciously similar to morning sickness. It was apparently considered a hoax by hospital staff when CT scans revealed female reproductive organs in one of the male partners from a homosexual couple. With multiple occurrences of this being reported by hospitals throughout California it is now shown not to be a hoax, but that some males in a gay relationship had indeed developed reproductive organs that had started growing on the day of Judge Walker’s ruling. It has also been confirmed that these men were indeed suffering from morning sickness and were actually pregnant...

Some gay couples are outraged by Judge Walkers decision that rendered them capable both the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage by giving them complementary reproductive equipment against their will. Many are upset about the idea that homosexual marriage will actually mean raising children other than by adopting the offspring of heterosexuals. Joe Smether of South Bay said 'I am glad that gay activists have often united with pro-choice activists in the past so that we can get abortions to keep our marriages sterile.' Others are seeking contraceptives to render sterile once again what once was a sterile act between a homosexual couple.

Legal scholars are looking at the physical repercussions of this. While in the past and present many rulings have gone against common sense and natural biology, this is the first ruling that caused a physical change to follow the law. Observer are carefully following other rulings to see if there are any other similar effects and whether judges have evolved beyond law interpretation/activism to the more god-like powers many thought they already had."

Recommended Book of the Week "Ideas Have Consequences" by Richard Weaver

This week's recommended book is Richard Weaver's 1948 masterpiece "Ideas have Consequences." Interestingly enough, the photo below was found on an Islamic website, whose author was recommending the book to Muslims.

From the intro:

“In considering the world to which these matters are addressed, I have been chiefly impressed by the difficulty of getting certain initial facts admitted. This difficulty is due in part to the widely prevailing Whig theory of history, with its belief that the most advanced point in time represents the point of highest development, aided no doubt by theories of evolution which suggest to the uncritical a kind of necessary passage from simple to complex. Yet the real trouble is found to lie deeper than this. It is the appalling problem, when one comes to actual cases, of getting men to distinguish between better and worse. Are people today provided with a sufficiently rational scale of values to attach these predicates with intelligence? There is ground for declaring that modern man has become a moral idiot. So few are those who care to examine their lives, or to accept the rebuke which comes of admitting that our present state may be a fallen state, that one questions whether people now understand what is meant by the superiority of an ideal. One might expect abstract reasoning to be lost upon them; but what is he to think when attestations of the most concrete kind are set before them, and they are still powerless to mark a difference or to draw a lesson? For four centuries every man has been not only his own priest but his own professor of ethics, and the consequence is an anarchy which threatens even that minimum consensus of value necessary to the political state.

Surely we are justified in saying of our time: If you seek the monument to our folly, look about you.

…our most serious obstacle is that people traveling this downward path develop an insensibility which increases with their degradation. Loss is perceived most clearly at the beginning; after habit becomes implanted, one beholds the anomalous situation of apathy mounting as the moral crisis deepens. It is when the first faint warnings come that one has the best chance to save himself; and this, I suspect, explains why medieval thinkers were extremely agitated over questions which seem to us today without point or relevance. If one goes on, the monitory voices fade out, and it is not impossible for him to reach a state in which his entire moral orientation is lost….

We approach a condition in which we shall be amoral without the capacity to perceive it and degraded without means to measure our descent."

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Ed Whelan's Ongoing Smackdown of Judge Walker

Ed Whelan has compiled a helpful inventory of his posts on Judge Walker's follies.

"For anyone who’s read in the mainstream media about how impressive Judge Walker’s opinion supposedly is, or how weak the Prop 8 proponents’ case supposedly was, or any of various other common myths, I present this selective inventory of some of my recent posts for your review."

You can access it here.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Muslims in America

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam:

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components.

The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

Can a good Muslim be a good American?

This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.

The following is his reply:Theologically> no ? Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia.

Religiously > no ? Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256).

(Koran)Scripturally> no ? Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.

Geographically> no ? Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially>no ? Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically > no ? Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan.

Domestically > no ? Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).

Intellectually > no ? Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically > no ? Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually > no ? Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Sojourners' Receiving Money from George Soros?

We first became concerned about the Sojourners when we learned that they, in conjunction with the Jesuit founded Alinskyite organization PICO, produced the Health Care Tool Kit: A Guide to the Health-Care Reform Debate.” Our concern was that PICO was co-opting Catholic parishes to their cause.

Today, there is an interesting story in the National Review by Jay C. Richards. Please make sure to read the whole thing.


"Why Is Jim Wallis Denying that He Receives Grants from Deep-Pocketed Leftists like George Soros?

In World magazine on July 17, Marvin Olasky called on “progressive evangelical” Jim Wallis to come clean and admit that he is not a non-partisan, as he likes to claim, but rather a devoted man of the Left. Olasky reported that Wallis’s organization, Sojourners, had received grants from George Soros’s foundation, the Open Society Institute (OSI), and had lent Sojourners’ mailing list to the Obama campaign.

Now, it isn’t news that both Sojourners and Wallis are friends of the Left; I explored the connections in my book Money, Greed and God, and others have connected the dots as well. But were Wallis and Sojourners actively involved with secular left-wing mega-donors and with the election machinery of the Left? After reading Olasky’s piece, I decided to look into the charges, and I now strongly suspect that Olasky is onto something that merits further inquiry.
Among the documents I now have are pages from the OSI website that list two grants to Sojourners — one for $200,000 in 2004, “To support the Messaging and Mobilization Project: Engaging Christians on the Importance of Civic Involvement,” and one for $25,000 in 2006, “To support a branding assessment” for the purpose of merging “Sojourners and Call to Renewal into one organization.” I have physical copies of these pages, which is good, because these pages seem to have disappeared from the OSI website (I’m sure that’s just a coincidence)....

According to Sojourners’ 990s (go here and search for “Sojourners” in “DC”), their total assets went from $513,896 in 2002 to $4,615,468 in 2009. Call me skeptical, but I’d be willing to bet that this windfall didn’t all come from humble readers of Sojourners magazine. If in fact Wallis did get money from Soros and various other left-wing foundations, what I don’t get is why Wallis doesn’t just say, “Sure, we get (or have gotten) money from left-wing foundations. We differ on a few points but agree on a host of important issues.” Instead, we’re getting cagey denials and disappearing webpages."

Ronald Reagan’s Words to Remember

"Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it.

'Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.

'The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

'The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

'Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.

'I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.' 'The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination.

'Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.

'The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.

'It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.

'Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

'Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed, there are many rewards; if you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book.

'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.

'If we ever forget that we're one nation under GOD, then we will be a nation gone under."

Thomas Sowell on Judge Walker

The great Dr. Thomas Sowell is interviewed by Peter Robinson today on "Uncommon Knowledge." He takes on Judge Walker's outrageous decision. Excerpt:

"The most important decision is always who makes the decision. The question of the role of gender is not for this judge to decide – since we’re presumably still, for the moment at least, a self-governing nation – it is for the voting public to decide. So the fact that Judge Walker feels the way he feels—wonderful! Let him vote that way in the privacy of the voting booth. But don’t let him say that this is now the law of the land."

I do believe the Congress has a duty to at least consider the impeachment of Judge Walker. The American Bar Association's "Impeachment Resources" webpage says:

"In the words of professor Jeff Atkinson of DePaul Law School, impeachment is designed 'to protect our country and our Constitution from leadership that has become a danger to the country. Phrases used by the framers of the Constitution include 'corruption,' 'abuse of power,' 'subversion of the Constitution,' and 'neglect of duty.'' In keeping with this purpose, the process and remedy are also 'political.' Our elected representatives in Congress sit in judgment, and, if convicted, the offender is removed from office and not permitted to hold office again."

Dr. Janet Smith on "The Right to Privacy" on "Reclaiming the Culture"

Today, on "Reclaiming the Culture," Dr. Janet E. Smith discusses the topic of her latest book "The Right to Privacy" with host Dolores Meehan. Dr. Smith holds the Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit.

She is the author of Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later, and editor of Why Humanae Vitae Was Right: A Reader. She has coauthored Life Issues, Medical Choices, Questions and Answers for Catholics, with Chris Kaczor.

"The Right to Privacy" is available at Ignatius Press.

Listen here:


Podcasts can be downloaded, too.

Other Reclaiming the Culture shows in August:

Most Reverend Salvatore Cordileone, Bishop of the Diocese of Oakland: "The Manhattan Declaration: A Call to Christian Conscience"

Father Robert A. Sirico, President, The Acton Institute "The Principle of Subsidiarity and the Service of the Poor"

And upcoming:

August 24: Dr. Maria Fedoryka, Ave Maria University, "The Gift of Woman"

August 31: Father Michael Sweeney, OP, President, Dominican School of Philosophy & Theology, "Authentic Catholic Education and the Impact of the Land o' Lakes Conference"

Monday, August 16, 2010

No Counterfeit "Marriages" in CA for Now--Ninth Circuit Overrules Walker

The Ninth Circuit has reversed Walker's outrageous decision to allow same-sex "marriage" to be inflicted on the state while the case is being appealed. No big surprise.

"SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court panel on Monday ruled that same-sex couples could not marry in California while the court considers the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage ban.

But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel set a relatively aggressive schedule for hearing the case, ordering lawyers to produce a series of briefs between Sept 17 and November 1.

The Monday decision by the appellate panel reverses a ruling last week by U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, who had said marriages could resume while higher courts considered the matter."

UPDATE: Ed Whelan at National Review Online's "Bench Memos" continues his takedown of Judge Walker's behavior. Example:

"Back in January, Judge Walker originally arranged for the videotaping of the anti-Prop 8 trial as part of his unlawful plan to broadcast the trial. Walker’s broadcasting plans were ultimately thwarted by the extraordinary (and fully warranted) stay order by the Supreme Court in an opinion that was plainly a stinging rebuke of Walker’s lack of impartiality:

'The District Court attempted to change its rules at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently than other trials in the district. Not only did it ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue. If courts are to require that others follow regular procedures, courts must do so as well.'"

Friday, August 13, 2010

Even Professor Carpenter thinks Judge Walker's Latest is Indefensible

That's Professor Dale Carpenter, a long-time supporter of same-sex "marriage."

From the AP:

"What Judge Walker's ruling means is you can sponsor a proposition, direct it, research it, work for it, raise $40 million for it, get it on a ballot, successfully campaign for it and then have no ability to defend it independently in court," said Dale Carpenter, a University of Minnesota constitutional law professor who supports same-sex marriage. "And then a judge maybe let you be the sole defender in a full-blown trial and then says, 'by the way, you never can defend this.' It just seems very unlikely to me the higher courts will buy that."

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Walker Digs Deeper and Deeper

Judge Walker's latest action just compounds and illustrates the arrogance of his original ruling.

Ed Whelan is all over it:

"Unbelievable: Judge Walker has denied the motion of Prop 8 proponents for a stay of his wild ruling against Prop 8 (with the exception of a stay for a limited time—until 5 p.m. on August 18—to enable proponents to seek Ninth Circuit review of the denial). In other words, he’s trying to implement same-sex marriage immediately—not only in the face of the more than seven million California citizens who voted for Prop 8 but also in an obvious effort to undermine the availability of appellate review as a meaningful corrective.

The heart of Walker’s rationale is that Prop 8 proponents may not even have standing to appeal. But if they don’t have standing to appeal, how did they have a right to intervene as defendants to present the defense of Prop 8? Why didn’t Walker simply enter a stipulated judgment (update: or more properly, as I hope to discuss more fully soon, dismiss plaintiffs’ case) when the state defendants abandoned their duty to defend Prop 8?"

Mr. Whelan also comments here.

Brian Brown from the National Organization for Marriage had this to say:

"When a lower judge makes an unprecedented ruling that totally overturns existing Supreme Court precedent, the normal thing for that judge to do is to stay his decision and let the higher courts decide in an orderly fashion that respects the rule of law whether he’s right or way off-base. Judge Walker’s ruling is more evidence that he is not a neutral referee but an activist on this issue.

He doesn’t even want his ruling — which ignores Supreme Court precedent and imposes gay marriage against the expressed wishes of the electorate — appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Walker feels that only the state politicians who were against Proposition 8 have standing to appeal, while the over 7 million California voters who supported Proposition 8 shouldn’t be able to even present their position to a higher court. It’s outrageous. The people are supposed to be sovereign, not the politicians."

Jack Smith, over at The Catholic Key:

"Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker today denied a motion to stay his ruling declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional. His written justification for denying the motion provides ample evidence that Walker should have recused himself from the Prop 8 trial. In responding to the reasons Prop 8 proponents offered for a stay pending appeal, Walker shows himself to be merely willful and more than a little cutesy.

In addressing the argument that a stay is warranted given the proponents likelihood of success on appeal, Walker, astonishingly argues that the proponents likely don’t even have standing to appeal. Walker argues, “California does not grant proponents the authority or the responsibility to enforce Proposition 8.”

And here the cute begins. He argues that only the state has that authority:

In Lockyer v City & County of San Francisco, the California Supreme Court explained that the regulation of marriage in California is committed to state officials, so that the mayor of San Francisco had no authority to “take any action with regard to the process of issuing marriage licenses or registering marriage certificates.”

The right of citizens to defend a democratically enacted law in court is here rendered akin to Mayor Newsom’s unilateral and illegal decision to start issuing same-sex marriage permits, ie., both are illegitimate. Since only the state can regulate marriage, Walker argues, the only people with standing to challenge his ruling would be the governor or attorney general. Since neither of them are likely to do so, there is no likelihood of an appeal even progressing, Walker argues. So no stay.

This is really extraordinary – the implication being that if the people of a state pass a law that the governor doesn’t like, and a trial court (with an obviously biased judge) throws out the law, then the people have no right to appeal."

Key Distinction

Kudos to Bishop Olmstead of Phoenix, Arizona, who has always been one of the staunchest defenders of the Church and its principals:

“We need to again recall the key distinction, when considering homosexuality, between the homosexual inclination on the one hand and homosexual acts on the other,”

The Phoenix bishop also clarified that although Scripture and Christian tradition hold that homosexual acts are sinful, “persons with homosexual inclinations but who do not engage in homosexual acts are not guilty of sin at all. No more or less than other persons, Christ calls them to holiness of life, inviting them as He invites us all to take up our cross each day and follow after Him.”

Catholic California Daily

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Should Judge Walker be Impeached?

It's something that should be discussed, and is being discussed--and about time. It is the envisaged method for removing those leaders who abuse their power.

Yesterday, Professor Carson Holloway, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, addressed the issue in "Giving Judges the Boot." Excerpts:

"Recent events remind us of the ongoing problem of anti-democratic and anti-constitutional judicial activism. Last month a federal district court judge in Massachusetts struck down portions of the Defense of Marriage Act. Last week, another federal judge struck down California’s recently enacted constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Both cases involve the invalidation of democratically enacted laws on the basis of arguments that turn constitutional provisions to purposes that no one could plausibly contend were entertained by their framers or ratifiers. To this extent, such rulings are properly understood as attacks on democratic self-government and the rule of law….

Impeachment will place the argument against activist decisions on its proper footing—presenting them not as mere errors, but as illegitimate usurpations of power lodged elsewhere, as incompatible with the preservation of democratic self-government and the rule of law.

Such a proposal will, of course, provoke a chorus of outraged objection from the American left, which has won so many of its policy victories through the promiscuous use of judicial activism. It will be said that the use of impeachment constitutes an attack on the independence of the judiciary, and hence an attack on the constitution itself, insofar as judicial independence is a key constitutional principle. Such an argument, however, mistakenly elevates a mere institutional means to the status of a constitutional end…."

The founders were practical men who sought the most effective ways to secure lawful self-government. Accordingly, they frequently appealed to the lessons of experience. In our time, experience shows that the independence of judges, which was designed to protect the constitution as a rule of law, has been abused to the extent that it is now a threat to the constitution as a rule of law. The institutional means has, in practice, become hostile to the constitutional end for which it was devised, and such a situation demands some corrective action. Fortunately, the constitution itself provides for such a corrective in the form of impeachment and removal of judges from office."

The American Bar Association’s “Impeachment Resources” webpage describes the process in the form of question and answer. Excerpts:

Q. How does the impeachment process reflect the role of checks and balances in our constitutional system?

A. In essence, impeachment reflects a check by the legislative branch on the executive and judicial branches. It provides a way for this branch to deal with serious misconduct by judges and by both elected and nonelected members of the executive branch.

Q. What are the grounds for impeachment?

A. As noted above, the Constitution specifies that high government officials may be impeached for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." What precisely constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" is, however, uncertain because the courts have not specifically defined or interpreted the term, unlike other constitutional clauses. Treason and bribery are very serious offenses against the state, and most experts agree that offenses encompassed within "high crimes and misdemeanors" are similarly serious. ("Misdemeanors" is a constitutional term that does not have the current meaning of an offense less serious than a felony.)

There is historical precedent dealing with impeachable conduct. For example, in 1974 the House Judiciary Committee rejected articles of impeachment against President Nixon for the secret bombings in Cambodia, which were viewed as being within executive prerogative as commander in chief, and for personal income tax irregularities, which were viewed as too personal to warrant impeachment. (The articles approved by the House Judiciary Committee related to criminal actions during the cover-up of the Watergate break-in; as noted above, Nixon resigned before the full House voted on the articles).

Also, many experts agree that there are different standards for impeachable and criminal conduct. In the words of Dean John D. Feerick of Fordham University School of Law, in an article published in 1984, "Most authorities agree--and the precedents are in accord--that an impeachable offense is not limited to conduct which is indictable. Conduct that undermines the integrity of a public office or is in disregard of constitutional duties or involves abuse of power is generally regarded as grounds for impeachment. Since impeachment is a drastic sanction, the misconduct must be substantial and serious."

It is difficult to think of anything more "subsatntial and serious" than Judge Walker's denial of the citizens their right to self-government.

Q. How is impeachment different from the criminal and civil processes?

A. The criminal process involves personal misconduct and imposes penalties to vindicate the interests of society. The civil process involves personal fault and imposes liability to compensate individual victims.

The impeachment process is different from either of these. While it has elements of the criminal process, it is also a 'political' process in that it is designed to deal with misconduct by high public officers. In the words of professor Jeff Atkinson of DePaul Law School, impeachment is designed 'to protect our country and our Constitution from leadership that has become a danger to the country. Phrases used by the framers of the Constitution include 'corruption,' 'abuse of power,' 'subversion of the Constitution,' and 'neglect of duty.'' In keeping with this purpose, the process and remedy are also 'political.' Our elected representatives in Congress sit in judgment, and, if convicted, the offender is removed from office and not permitted to hold office again.

Father Robert A. Sirico Discusses Subsidiarity on "Reclaiming the Culture"

Fr. Robert A. Sirico, President of the Acton Institute, is interviewed this week on "Reclaiming the Culture." Fr. Sirico discusses "The Principle of Subsidiarity and the Service of the Poor” -- a neglected aspect of Catholic social teaching.

Listen here:


Podcasts can be downloaded, too.

Other Reclaiming the Culture shows in August include:

August 17: Noted author and speaker Professor Janet Smith of Sacred Heart Major Seminary on “The Right to Privacy”

August 24: Dr. Maria Fedoryka, Professor of Philosophy at Ave Maria University, on “The Gift of Woman”

Sunday, August 8, 2010


US Navy Captain Ouimette is the Executive Officer at Naval Air Station, Pensacola , Florida . Here is a copy of the speech he gave last month. It is an accurate account of why we are in so much trouble today and why this action is so necessary.

That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 (When more than 3,000 Americans were killed) and maybe it was, but I think it should have been 'Get Out of Bed!' In fact, the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.

It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran . This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency The attack on this sovereign U. S. Embassy set the stage for events to follow for the next 25 years.

America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America 's inability to deal with terrorism.

America 's military had been decimated and down sized since the end of the Vietnam War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start.

Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East . America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued.

In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more.

Then just six short months later in 1983 a large truck heavily laden down with over 25 00 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.

Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait , and America continues her slumber.

The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.

Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe . In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid

Then in August 1985 a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rheine-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests are continually attacked.

Fifty-nine days later in 1985 a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.

The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie , Scotland in 1988, killing 259.

The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder.

The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America . In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley , Virginia

The following month, February 1993 , a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City . Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed again.

Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.

A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran , Saudi Arabia . It destroys the Khobar Towers , a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.

They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania . These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.

The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000 , when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.

And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America . How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.

In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high official in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979.

I think we have been in a war for the past 25 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough. America needs to 'Get out of Bed' and act decisively now. America has been changed forever. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze button again and again and roll over and go back to sleep.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor , Admiral Yamamoto said '... it seems all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant.' This is the message we need to disseminate to terrorists around the world.

This is not a political thing to be hashed over in an election year, this is an AMERICAN thing. This is about our Freedom and the Freedom of our children in years to come.

Friday, August 6, 2010

Marriage Unconstitutional, Judge Walker Says

All these centuries, marriage was unconstitutional. But it took an expert gay superman like Judge Walker to figure it out for us. In clarifying the agenda of the enemies of marriage and the family, his goofy decision supasses even my hopes.

Bill May of Catholics for the Common Good called the decision "Radical, But Instructive." Bill quietly stated "He may have overreached," then expanded:

"Judge Walker gutted foundational principles of democracy by seeming to say that citizens have no right to organize civil society using common sense unless it can be supported by scientific or sociological evidence. He decided mothers and fathers did not matter for children because other people could do just as good of a job raising them. He came up with a whole new definition of marriage as merely a committed relationship for the private interests of adults."

The bizarre ruling of course drew wide comment. As Carrie Severino, from the Judicial Crisis Network wrote:

"Judge Walker’s 138-page opinion overturning California’s definition of marriage presents such a target-rich environment that the hardest part about discussing its flaws is knowing where to begin."

I agree. So many scholars and writers are shredding Walker's opinion, it is hard to choose what to post, but here's a taste:

Cardinal Francis George, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

“Marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of any society. The misuse of law to change the nature of marriage undermines the common good. It is tragic that a federal judge would overturn the clear and expressed will of the people in their support for the institution of marriage. No court of civil law has the authority to reach into areas of human experience that nature itself has defined.”

Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage:

“Citizens of this nation have uniformly voted to uphold the understanding of marriage as a union of one man and one woman in every jurisdiction where the issue has been on the ballot. This understanding is neither irrational nor unlawful. Marriage is more fundamental and essential to the well being of society than perhaps any other institution. It is simply unimaginable that the court could now claim a conflict between marriage and the Constitution.”

Rich Lowry in National Review:

"Judge Walker’s decision is such a raw exercise of judicial imperiousness, he might as well have gone all the way and sentenced the defenders of Proposition 8 to suffer, Chinese-style, a parade of shame through the streets of San Francisco wearing placards emblazoned 'I Support Bizarre and Retrograde Social Practices.”

The social practice in question is traditional marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman, which Judge Walker finds dangerously passé. Sure, it had a good run during the past couple of millennia or so, but in August 2010, we’re beyond age-old parameters of fundamental social institutions — no matter what a majority of California voters might say, or the voters of the 29 other states that prohibit gay marriage in their constitutions....

All of that has been settled, and if you don’t believe it, well, Judge Walker said so. He describes traditional marriage as “an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and marriage.” Behold the boundless power of Judge Walker — even gender distinctions can’t survive the awesome finality of his pronouncements."

Professor Gerard Bradley:

"We can now look at Judge Walker’s opinion and ask: is this the handiwork of an impartial and open mind on the subject of same-sex marriage?

Or does the opinion rather resemble an ad hoc rationale for conclusions reached by its author – Judge Walker – on other grounds?

You do not have to be a legal expert to conduct this experiment. You can even try it at home. Slog through Judge Walker’s 136-page opinion and then ask yourself: why does this document read like the battle report of a search-and-destroy mission?

One would think, for example, that there are some rational bases for saying that marriage is what our society and our law have understood it to be for a few hundred years: the union of a man and a woman. Not in Judge Walker’s court.

One might think, too, that some (and perhaps a lot) of what the plaintiffs’ “expert” witnesses against traditional marriage would be branded by a fair-minded judge as the fruit of passionate political advocacy, and not dispassionate scholarly analysis? Not in Judge Walker’s court."

And of course a number of articles by Ed Whelan, who was on to Judge Walker from the beginning.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

As Expected...

...same-sex attracted judge imposes counterfeit "marriage" on California. As we've said before we have not bothered to follow the trial much, considering it a propagandistic exercise in narcissism.

Walker's absurd ruling will be overturned.

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Overwhelming Rejection of Obamacare in Missouri

The people continue to show good sense--let's hope Washington gets the message.

Proposition C is passing by a landslide in Missouri. With 3303 out of 3354 precincts reporting, the tally is 662,910 (71.5%) Yes and 264,217 (28.5%) NO.

The "Fair Ballot Language" from the Missouri Secretary of State decribes a "yes" vote on Proposition C as doing this: "A “yes” vote will amend Missouri law to deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services. The amendment will also modify laws regarding the liquidation of certain domestic insurance companies."

The full text of Proposition C is here.

Absent Divine Intervention, Judge Walker to Overturn Prop 8 Tomorrow

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that Federal Judge Vaughn Walker will issue his ruling tomorrow on whether to respect the will of California voters or impose counterfeit marriage on the state.

Given Judge Walker's actions in the courtroom, his verdict is not in doubt.

On February 7, 2010, legal analyst Ed Whelan shredded Walker's conduct, in National Review.
Whelan examines five "controversial--and in many cases, unprecedented decisions" by Judge Walker, and concludes:

"Walker’s entire course of conduct has only one sensible explanation: that Walker is hellbent to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage. Given his manifest inability to be impartial, Walker should have recused himself from the beginning, and he remains obligated to do so now."

That's why we never even bothered following it. We wrote back on January 25:

"We haven’t commented on the issue much, or even followed it, because it seems to be mostly a propagandistic exercise in narcissism. The "trial" has the same relationship to a real trial as same-sex "marriage" has to real marriage."

The case will eventually reach the Supreme Court.

Monday, August 2, 2010

Bishop Salvatore Cordileone on “Reclaiming the Culture”

The great Bishop Salvatore Cordileone of Oakland is interviewed on this week's "Reclaiming the Culture." Bishop Cordileone speaks on “The Manhattan Declaration: A Call to Christian Conscience.” His excellency discusses the motivation behind the Manhattan Declaration, the danger in the refusal to respect the right of religious conscience, and where it leads:

“When there are no subsidiary societies, there is just the general society, just one total society, one totalitarian society.”

You can listen at:

Podcasts can be downloaded, too.

Other Reclaiming the Culture shows in August include:

August 10: Fr. Robert A. Sirico, President of the Acton Institute on "The Principle of Subsidiarity and the Service of the Poor”

August 17: Noted author and speaker Professor Janet Smith of Sacred Heart Major Seminary on “The Right to Privacy”

August 24: Dr. Maria Fedoryka, Professor of Philosophy at Ave Maria University, on “The Gift of Woman”