The World According to Oatney: 05/08/2005

Friday, May 13, 2005

Levada will head Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Well, rumors that San Francisco Archbishop William Joseph Levada would be the Holy Father's choice to replace himself as head of the Holy Office have proven to be correct. The press in both the U.S. and Europe are already spinning this, some are calling Levada "progressive," which in real terms would make him a heretic, while others are saying that Levada is "conservative." Many Catholics, like me, have complete trust in the Holy Father to appoint the right man to this important post in the Church. I know that whoever the Pope appoints, it will be the right man.

There is a faction in the Church today that I like to call "my-way-or-the-highway Catholics." These aren't the "cafeteria Catholics," of much infamy, and in fact, most of these are very orthodox in their observance. However, if something smacks of anything remotely modern (modern styles of music for example, or more modern-looking churches), that the priest of that parish must be a heretic or a schismatic, usually they use the term "liberal" instead.

That kind of characterization is blatantly unfair in many cases, and coming from me, that is saying a lot. I am no fan of churches that look modern (I think many of them strike a resemblance to space ships or some structure out of Star Wars), and I prefer a little Latin in my Mass mixed with the vernacular. I even believe that permission ought to be granted freely and liberally to observe the Tridentine Mass (1962 Missal). I believe that under Benedict XVI, we are already seeing the beginnings of the "reform of the reform" he has spoken of in the past. However, none of the views I just outlined are matters of faith to be universally accepted by all Catholics everywhere. Sure, it would be great if they were, but you won't find acceptance of the things I just outlined mandated in the Catechism.

Now it is true that by orthodox standards we can say that Archbishop Levada's tenure as Archbishop of San Francisco was less than stellar. This was not due to any lack of orthodoxy on the part of Archbishop Levada, but seems rather to have been due to the fact that in the sea of immorality that is that part of the country, Archbishop Levada stayed very quiet, troublingly silent for some.

It might be worth remembering, though, that in 1981, John Paul II appointed the Archbishop of Munich to the same post. That prelate was known for being a "reformer" and a "progressive," or so said the papers at the time. That person was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, and we see just how much the Lord has used him. I have a theory: I think Curial posts often make good bishops come out of their shell. They don't have to be on television anymore every time they make a controversial (and usually right) decision. They do not have to answer to the local media, and they do not need to worry about protestors, so-called "Catholics" bringing unwanted and undue attention to the Church's internal affairs. Instead, they can just concentrate on doing their jobs, issuing the pronouncements that are required of them in order that the Truth might be defended around the world.

Archbishop Levada used to work for the Pope. I'd be willing to wager any amount of money that the Holy Father knows more about this man's orthodoxy than any of us could ever know. We wish Godspeed and send many prayers to Archbishop Levada in his new work for the Holy See.

Canada notes

The New Democratic Party is offering an olive branch to the Conservatives. Several NDP MP's have offered to "pass," or abstain from voting on the budget in Ottawa next Thursday out of respect for the fact that a number of Tory MPs will be unable to be present by that time due to cancer treatments.

Some Americans may be familiar with this statesmanlike gesture. Sen. Joseph Biden (D) of Delaware once volunteered to "pass" out of respect for the ilness of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. Some Canadian Conservatives are wondering whether Opposition Leader Stephen Harper should agree to this, wondering what the NDP would want in return. However, I think it is a very statemanlike gesture for the NDP to make, it comes from some of the finest traditions of parliamentary civility, not to mention that it could help the Tories. Go ahead, let the NDP be statesmen for a day.

Senate going nuclear

The United States Senate is about to engage in what is called the "nuclear option," meaning the Republican majority will wait out a few final Democratic filibusters before the GOP moves to make a rule change that will insure that the federal judges President Bush nominates will receive a straight up or down vote on their appointments to the bench.

The proposed rule change will not do away with the filibuster, and if it did, I would be among the first to oppose it. The filibuster was designed to protect us from bad legislation. In the early 19th Century, the Senate codified its rules so that debate could not come to an end on any motion or bill without 3/5ths of members agreeing to end debate and move to a vote. The rule was made to insure that every Senator has the chance to be heard and, if need be, to use the debate itself as a tool to block bad legislation. Because the Senate was originally established as a body where members were appointed by state legislatures, filibusters were often used to protect the rights of less populous states against conglomerations of larger states.

However, since the U.S. abandoned the state appointment system for Senators in 1917 (a move that many of us with brains think was the worst thing that could have ever happened to the Senate), the filibuster changed its complexion. It could still be used to protect the rights of the little people, and most of the time it was used for that purpose and it still is. Now, however, it is not being used as a tool to protect the rights of the potentially oppressed, it is merely being used to block judges from being appointed to the bench that do not accept the holy grail of the Democratic Party: That abortion is somehow a constitutional right, even though it is never mentioned and our founders clearly did not intend it to be on the agenda. The judges the Democrats are filibustering are those who believe in the Constitution as it was written, not as they would like it to be, and that is unacceptable to Democrats.

People should take note, then, that the coming battle on the Senate floor over the nomination of John Bolton as U.N. Ambassador is really part of a larger political war. It is but the first battle in a series of debates and outright fights on the floor of the Senate in the coming weeks that could literally shut down the Senate, or at least make it cease to function as normal. At this point, Mr. Bolton has really become a pawn in a game of political chess. The fight over his nomination (and it is controversial) is really being used by the White House and by GOP Senate leaders to test the waters for the battle that is going to take place over judicial filibusters.

The judges the President sends up to Capitol Hill deserve an up or down vote based on the merits of their nomination, and the federal courts should not be held hostage to the interest groups of the Democratic Party. If giving the President's judicial nominees means that the Republicans have to engage in all-out political warfare on the Senate floor in order to insure judicial fairness, so be it. Guaranteeing a vote on federal judges may mean a rule change to disallow filibusters on judicial appointments. Perhaps the Democrats should remember that it was their party who pushed for the destruction of the Senatorial system in 1917, and they got their way-the Constitution was amended accordingly. Thus, it is fair to say that if the structure and nature of the Senate can be so irreparably altered, then the rules of the Senate, which were designed to reflect that body's original purpose and intent, can be changed also.

Thursday, May 12, 2005

Stability of Democrat supporters on the internet brought into question

A poster who goes by Jami says:

Paranoia, ever? What a freak. Your people control everything, and yet you cower in your corner, stroking your Derringer.

First of all, note the inability to write in complete sentences or use logical sentence structure. "Paranoia, ever?" This is not correct sentence structure, and may be representative of an inability to think in proper order.

"What a freak." Okay, Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry aren't socialists? Really...then they themselves are liars, as they constantly accuse the GOP of not being "socially conscious," and in leftist parlance, those are code words for "not sufficiently socialist enough." They also admit to favoring aborticide and euthanasia, and they think the government ought to pay for it.

"Your people control everything..." Really? Wow...If my people control everything, wouldn't you think that would make me a very wealthy man. Anyone who has personal contact with me knows that my people do not control everything. Get a list of big contributors to the Democratic Party, however, and you'll find a great many Hollywood bigwigs and network executives. These people control the major media, and anyone who is mentally stable will inform you that the people who control the media are the ones who control everything.

"...you cower in your corner, stroking your Derringer." Darlin, I cower in the corner to no one, and I'd be willing to wager that if I haven't seen a lot more of reality than you have, I've seen just as much. As for stroking my Derringer...I don't own a Derringer, so I can't say that I have ever stroked one. It must be a relatively enjoyable thing to do since you are of the mind that I ought to sit in the corner and stroke one. Is it fun?

Del for the Opry

Those of my regular readers who have a personal connection with me outside of the internet know that my great love of music is Bluegrass, and that the greatest Bluegrass band in the world, if not the greatest band the world has ever seen, is the Del McCoury Band. Those who know me also know that I think Del is one of the greatest tenor voices in the world of traditional folk music.

Well, I have had enough of Del not getting the credit that he so richly deserves, so in addition to posting my personal political, social, religious, and sporting thoughts here at the World, this blog has just become the unofficial headquarters for the Del for the Opry campaign. Register your support for making Del McCoury a member of the Grand Ole Opry!

Small Dead Animals

For those readers actually interested in developments per the Canadian political situation, there is a great blog out there that goes by the name Small Dead Animals, and it is probably the best conservative Canadian weblog that I have found on the internet. It is run by Catherine McMillan of Delisle, Saskatchewan, and her insights are far better than my poor screed, as she is even closer to this volatile situation than I am. I am going to write Kate and see if she'll allow be to post a permanent link to her blog on this one.n

Even less confidence up North

More on the developing Canadian dictatorship: If The National is to be believed, Paul Martin's Government lost a second confidence vote in Parliament in as many days. Yet Martin refuses to petition for a dissolution of Parliament, saying that a no-confidence vote isn't really a no-confidence vote, and that one won't come until the budget vote seven days from now. Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has called on Paul Martin to be a man and face the music, and absent his own ability to do that, he ought to let the House of Commons place the music before him.

Unless Paul Martin does act like a man and ask for the dissolution of the disgrace of a Parliament over which he lords, he will, like the dictators of the last century, merely use the loopholes available to him in the instruments of democracy to solidify his own power. Martin and his party must be brought down for the sake of freedom in Canada-one way or another.

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Paul Martin-der Fuhrer

Well, it is official-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin is a dictator. For those not familiar with how parliamentary systems work, they rely on the notion that Governments survive based on the confidence of the House. When the Government loses a vote in the House of Commons, typically the Prime Minister asks the Queen (in this case, Her Majesty is represented by Governor General Adrienne Clarkson) to dissolve Parliament and call an election in order that the legitimacy of the Government cannot be brought into question.

Well, the Liberal Government lost a procedural motion in the House of Commons last night by a vote of 153 -150. The key to this particular procedural motion is that the language of it was such that it contained words of no-confidence, which effectively made it a vote of no-confidence. So Paul Martin went to Rideau Hall and asked Adrienne to do her duty on the Queen's behalf and call an election, right? Nope...nevermind the established customs of parliamentary democracy! Paulie Boy instead declared that this was a mere procedural motion, and every opposition MP (Tory and Bloc), even those sick and in hospital, who bothered to show up to defeat the Government voted in vain. Instead, Il Duce says he doesn't have to yield to an election or ask for Parliament to be dissolved. He says he can wait until next week, May 19th, when the budget is voted on. On several occasions now, he has tried to avoid votes taking place in the Commons at all that could bring down the Government, even having his cronies toy with the Parliamentary calendar. Now that a vote has occurred in which the Government has suffered a major defeat, an effective vote of no-confidence, Martin simply refuses to have Parliament dissolved.

One has to wonder if Martin is deliberately waiting until next week because a number of Conservative MPs (or independents who may vote with the Opposition) have cancer or are ill, and may not be able to make next week's budget vote. If the sick Members can't make it, you guessed it, Paulie Librano squeaks by again. It is sad when your Government must depend on the grave illness of others in order to survive. What is even more sad is that this is considered an acceptable tactic to use to remain in power. Those kinds of political moves are emblematic of a dictatorial mentality. I sincerely hope, so that we are spared the spectacle of a dictatorship under the vale of democracy on our northern border, that the sick Members of Parliament can make it back for next week's vote. Paul Martin is trying to avoid an election that he knows he will lose. It is time for the Parliament and people of Canada to hold the Liberals to account.

Mussolini

Hitler

Martin

Democrats-party of the rich.

Matt Daley wrote some interesting comments about one of yesterday's entries. His words lead me to comment further on the real "party of the rich." He writes:

...Referring to the class warfare bit, how does the left accomplish that? By keeping the lower classes down. That's the only way they can have any type of influence -- if a large enough class of people is (basically) poor and stupid.

The Democratic Party of the modern era (and other leftist parties around the world) actually depend on the perpetuation of a permanent social underclass in order to insure their political survival. The more people that can be put on the public dole and kept on the public dole, the more people are likely to vote for liberal candidates. The reason is because the left uses the ultimate scare tactic: They always tell people that if they vote for a more conservative candidate, they will lose their benefits and they might even find themselves on the street. Of course, no one in their right might is going to vote themselves into hunger and homelessness, so people who are forced to use the welfare system to survive feel forced to vote for liberals.

Further, the system of public benefit in this country is designed in such a way as to actually discourage people from removing themselves from it, and it was made that way, per the Great Society, from its inception. For example, a disabled person receiving a monthly pension, called SSI in this country, stands to lose over half of their income if they try to get a part-time job and work their way through college! For most people, getting a job would put them ahead, but not for many of the poor, because the system designed to help them has failed them.

They accomplish this feat through the government entitlement system (Welfare, food stamps, etc.) and through the crumbling education system, which they refuse to fix.

Because much of the government welfare system is cyclical and discourages people from getting ahead, the Democrats have created a permanent base of voters who make use of various government programs. They manage to keep this base in tact by using the fear tactic of "if the other guy wins, you'll be cut off." So long as a permanent underclass exists, this kind of fearmongering is an effective political tactic. It is the primary method of campaigning for many Democratic candidates because they know that they have created this permanent underclass in order to insure a definate minimum of political success. By appealing to the fears of the underclass, they can win races. If the Democrats ran campaigns on substance alone, they would never have a chance at either a national or a state majority.

To hear the Party Opposite talk, you would think there was nothing wrong with the educational system that money could not fix. We agree that perhaps a little money can fix the problem, if parents (who liberals forget are the people who raise children) are given the option on where and how to spend it. Wait...that would mean that parents would pull their children out of the public schools en masse, which would mean that children would then go to better schools, be better educated, and become better and more informed citizens, which all statistical information would indicate makes them more likely not to vote for Democrats. Strange coincidence, isn't it?

Why would the people need big government if they were wealthier, more independent and more intelligent?

They wouldn't need much government at all, and likely wouldn't have much use for the Democratic Party as we know it today. That's why the Democrats, for all of their harping about the poor getting poorer, don't really want the poor to do well and have a better life. If the poor were less poor, they'd be less likely to look for a "D" on their election ballot.

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

Why the Left frightens me

Following up on my earlier post as to why liberals (in the modern socialist sense) are unacceptable as those who govern, I thought it appropriate to re-post here something I posted on the Catholic Answers Forums in a thread on the British election. In response to a poster who said:

There is no 'Conservative alliance'. Only the left of left call Mr Blair , 'Bliar' (usually in frighteningly moral-deficient rags such as The Guardian, The Independent and The Observer (the Guardian's 'Sunday').

No Catholic should read these papers - unless it is to refute what they are saying!

Haters of Mr Blair are usually lovers of the libdems and very few of these (see David Alton MP - a wonderful advocate of life) have any scruples at all. In my constituency the libdem candidate liked abortion, therapeutic embryo research and euthaniasia. I thank the great God that the Tory got in!

I replied to that post with the following:

Thea, you are right. No one likes to think of the overt social consequences of voting for these leftists. The left successfully manages to convince people of the bogus "party of the rich" argument, while appealing to their innate sense of justice using Marxist class warfare rhetoric. In the meantime, by supporting these people in the name of so-called justice, they vote for more baby killing and euthenasia. As a disabled person, these sorts of people frighten me.

Why? Because they talk a good game about increased social spending, what they call "justice," but they know that continual voting of benefits from the treasury will bankrupt the state. What is their solution? Kill off the vulnerable in society, they cost too much money. Kill the unborn, so that the population can be kept down and we don't have to spend as much money. Kill the aged and infirmed, they don't have a high quality of life, their care costs too much...Finally, it may very well come to "kill the disabled, they are less useful to society and they are not producers, they cost society too much money."

If you think it can't happen, remember that there was a time when no one thought legalized abortion could happen, either. The very notion was seen as "barbaric."

When you vote for left-wing parties, you had best remember just what it is you are really voting for.

The case for the GOP

In my post on the British election, I wrote:

If you want to send a message that you are tired of filth and corruption in your Government, you must remove that Government from power and replace it with another one.

A poster responded with the comment:

A good suggestion. But why should the British succeed this year, while last year Americans utterly failed to remove their enron-style corruption-dominated democracy-attacking constitution-undermining government from power?

Now, the poster in question was quite anonymous, so I do not know if they were British, Irish, Spanish, French, any other myriad of nationalities, or whether they were American. They also didn't seem to have a blog of their own, so I couldn't visit their blog to learn what exactly their political persuasion was. So far, they've made a couple of posts on my blog just today, and liberal or conservative, they seem like a nice enough individual. Perhaps it is time to treat them (and all of my regular readers) to an explanation of why this administration is more worthy of power than its left-wing opposition.

If the above poster is not from the U.S., I can excuse them for not understanding the nightmare of the Clinton presidency, and how the Democratic Party successfully used the mainstream news media to convince people on two separate occasions (the travel office scandal and the Monica perjury affair) that it was perfectly bloody fine for members of their administration to commit criminal acts and get away with them. Perjury was to be excused simply with "it was only sex, what's the big deal." Accountability applied to others, but not to the Democrats. The American people were ignorant enough at the time to buy into this load of bull, until they realized in 2000/2001 that they had been taken advantage of, and Mr. Clinton left office with some of the lowest approval ratings since the Truman administration.

If the poster is an American, he or she ought to know these things. If he or she is from the U.S., they should know that in 2004, Americans were offered two choices: Political stupidity and military inexpediency (Bush), or moral and social decay and corruption (Kerry). I'll take political stupidity and military inexpediency over moral and social decay and corruption of the fabric of our society any day.

Most of my friends and those close to me recall that before the war in Iraq began, I was opposed to starting a military conflict there. I still believe that going to war in Iraq was a very poor decision, that the post-war occupation and reconstruction was poorly planned, and that our military forces are stretched entirely too thin (thanks to military cuts initiated by the previous administration) to deal with legitimate threats to national and global security (read: Iran and North Korea). However, the war happened despite my opposition. Our forces in the field deserve support, and even Mr. Kerry as much as admitted that he was in no position to simply withdraw from Iraq.

As much of a blunder as Iraq has been for President Bush, he has stuck to his guns on the important issue of judicial nominees. The fate of the Constitution is not decided by the White House, but by the federal judges that White House appoints. Recent Democratic administrations have appointed judges who have little regard for the Constitution, and these judges take great pains to invent concepts that are simply nowhere to be found in the Constitution. They believe in making the Constitution into what they might prefer that it be, rather than interpret the document as it is written. Mr. Bush has seen fit to try and appoint judges who believe in the Constitution, and who will interpret it strictly as it is written, not invent law that is not there out of thin air.

Now, we can argue all day the merits (or lack thereof) of this administration's post 9/11 over-reaction. However, there is no reason to believe a Gore administration would have reacted any differently (Homeland Security), and that administration would do far more damage to our federal judiciary.

Bush is far from a perfect President. His greatest political advantage is that his opposition is far worse than he ever thought about being. I do believe, however, that his victory over Kerry is a signal that Middle America is starting to fight back against the cultural domination of the Left a la New York and Hollywierd. The only way people can vote against the Great Coastal Cultural Disease is to outvote those people at the ballot box...and we did so.

Anthem of liberal Democrats

Could you imagine what a country run by Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid and John Kerry would be like? For those of us who are sane, this scenario would be a nightmare. For many of our Leftist friends, it would be a dream come true. The very thought of these sorts of people controling the Department of Homeland Security after 2008 scares me to death, because their version of Homeland Security would likely include ridding America of their legally armed political opponents. I'd even be willing to bet we'd have a new National Anthem in such a liberal utopia.

In advance of General Elections in 2006 and 2008, do America a favor and don't vote for a slide toward socialism: Vote Republican

Monday, May 09, 2005

The Pope speaks

Pope Benedict XVI was formally installed as Bishop of Rome in the Basilica of St. John Lateran on Saturday. Heretics and schismatics would not be pleased with some of his remarks:

The pope "must not proclaim his own ideas, but ever link himself and the church to obedience to the word of God, when faced with all attempts of adaptation or of watering down, as with all opportunism," Benedict said.

"The pope isn't an absolute sovereign, whose thoughts and desires are law," said the Holy Father. "On the contrary, the ministry of the pope is the guarantor of the obedience toward Christ and his word."

"Freedom to kill is not a true freedom but a tyranny that reduces the human being into slavery."

Long live Benedict! Long live Benedict!

The smackdown begins

When Benedict XVI was elected to the Chair of Peter, I remember telling Father Chris Rohmiller, my former pastor, that I believed the election signalled that the Church was ready to deal seriously with schismatics, heretics, and those who openly oppose the teachings of Holy Mother Church. Father Chris told me that I ought to reserve judgement until we got a more clear indication of what Benedict's papacy might yield. Early indications would seem to show that my initial observations were correct.

Multiple sources are reporting this afternoon that Father Thomas Reese, SJ, the now-former editor of America magazine, has been forced from that post due to pressure from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Apparently, the Sacred Congregation has been inquiring into the activities of Reese and America for some five years, which means that the investigation into the notoriously liberal outfit began under the tenure of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict.

America had become famous for allowing open dissent against the teachings of the Church to appear within its pages. These dissenting pieces often went well beyond mere differences of opinion about some minor point. Instead, they openly questioned and in many cases contradicted fundamental doctrines of the Faith. Some of the writings in question have included:

-An essay exploring moral arguments for the approval of condoms in the context of HIV/AIDS;

-Several critical analyses of the doctrinal congregation's September 2000 document Dominus Iesus, on religious pluralism(Note to non-Catholics:The CDF is not a Church body that anyone who calls themselves Catholic wants to mess with...bad idea.);

-An editorial criticizing what America called a lack of due process in the congregation's procedures for the investigation of theologians(Somebody forgot to remind America that the Church is not a democracy, thank God.);

-An essay about homosexual priests;

And perhaps most notoriously...

-A guest essay from U.S. Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, challenging suggestions that the church should refuse Communion to Catholic politicians who do not vote as a number of bishops believe they should vote.

Well, the CDF looked at this and has finally said "enough, out with the Dissent." It's about time.

The Great Smackdown to rid the Church of the Unfaithful seems to have begun.

Thanks to Michael S. Rose and his blog, the Papa Ratzi Post, for the lead on this developing story in the Church.

V-E Day

For those of you who don't remember, yesterday was the 60th anniversary of V-E Day, the day the Allied forces were able to claim victory over Nazi tyranny. Very often, we forget the efforts and the sacrifice of those men and women who gave their lives and limbs so that today we would not have governments that were puppets of Germany or Japan, and that whole races of humanity would not be annihilated. It is very easy for our generation to forget the Greatest Generation.

We simply do not have an inkling of what it takes to defeat tyranny, and it can be argued that today, we do not even know what tyranny is. I pledge that as long as I am alive, though the veterans of the Great World War II may cease to walk among us, I will never forget them or what they did to save the world in which we live.

Weekend at Burbank's

For those of you who, like me, are great fans of Thoroughbred horse racing, this weekend was your Holy Grail, because Saturday was the 131st running of the Kentucky Derby. Nicole and I have established the custom that-absent a trip to Louisville-as long as we are living in the Tri-state area we make a trip to River Downs to watch the simulcast from Churchill Downs and enjoy the day's live races, and to place a $2.00 wager on the Derby. Last year I placed $2.00 on Smarty Jones to win, and I got $10 in return.

This year, however, there was a perfectly legitimate reason why we did not go to the track Saturday. We celebrated the conclusion of my educational endeavors with about 25 family and friends at Burbank's Real Barbecue and Ribs. To be honest, I can't think of a better way to spend a Saturday afternoon. What's a late spring Saturday without good barbecue? Perhaps the most special part of the day, however, was that so many of my friends took the time to come and wish me well. I want to personally thank everyone who took the time to come and celebrate with us, and thank you all for the many cards, gifts, and congradulations that you brought. This was truly the best Derby Day I can ever remember.