Friday, March 08, 2013

Angry Old White Man


John McCain railing against Rand Paul's appeal to "impressionable" kids in dorm rooms is so politically tone deaf and out of touch that it makes Clint Eastwood look like a breath of fresh air by comparison. Yesterday, in a textbook example of EVERYTHING that is wrong about John McCain, just after scolding Paul on the Senate floor, McCain lamented the retirement announcement of 78-year-old Democrat Sen. Carl. Levin who has been in the Senate FOR 35 YEARS ... since the Carter Administration.

McCain's world: young upstarts inspiring people to take our liberties seriously and challenging the perpetual war establishment ... bad; crusty old farts clinging to power and enriching themselves on the public teet until they're octogenarians ... good.

Remember ... John McCain got absolutely SLAUGHTERED in a presidential campaign in large part because his opponent was able to inspire young people to turn out in droves for him. Apparently, "Maverick" hasn't taken the lesson to heart. He and his girlfriend Lindsey Graham represent the hyper-militarist, neo-con old guard of the GOP. Hopefully, they are a dying breed.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, May 03, 2011

Michael Sean Winters and National Catholic Reporter Celebrate Bin Laden's Death

Of all the responses in the Catholic blogosphere to Osama bin Laden's death, few have matched the sort of jingoistic and nationalistic bravado that we've seen in the secular media and on the streets of New York City and Washington, D.C. The overwhelming majority of Catholic bloggers have been quite circumspect and reflective upon the killing of America's public enemy #1, soberly asking themselves what is the appropriate Christian response to the sudden, violent death of the mastermind of 9/11.

The most prominent exception to this general rule - the one high-profile Catholic blogger who openly relished (indeed, encouraged celebrating) bin Laden's demise - came from what might seem like a surprising source. The National Catholic Reporter, the newspaper of record for the Catholic left, routinely excoriates the Catholic blogosphere for what it sees as pro-Republican, militaristic, and jingoistic nationalism. And yet, it was the Reporter's most high-profile blogger, Michael Sean Winters, who used his blog, the so-called "Distinctly Catholic", to do a tap dance on the freshly killed body of bin Laden:
... I do not normally take delight in the death of a fellow human being. Nor do I support the death penalty. But, if there was one man on the planet whom it was important to kill, not to just let die, it was Osama bin Laden. You should not be able to murder well nigh to 3,000 Americans and others with impunity. If you commit such a crime, you should fear every moment of every day that U.S. Special Forces will come crashing through the door to bring you to justice. I am sure bin Laden knew better than to be captured alive. (Given the legal nightmare of Guantanamo, thank God he was killed on the spot!) It took a long time to track bin Laden down, too long, and it is impossible not to think that we might have reached this happy day earlier if we had not detoured through Baghdad. But, this is no time for recriminations. It is time to celebrate.

As I write these words, images of young people streaming into the streets in front of the White House chanting “USA” and singing the National Anthem are coming onto the television screen. If it were not so late and I did not have an early morning, I would drive down myself. Vengeance is not a healthy emotion, I know. Assassination is against the law, to be sure. But, better to indulge and go to confession. I am glad Osama bin Laden did not die in his bed, as I am glad Hitler did not die in his bed and as I am distressed hat Stalin and Mao did. Men who commit such evil do not deserve normal considerations of human sympathy or civilized respect. The world is well rid of bin Laden. It is a great day to be alive.
I think many Catholic bloggers, upon hearing the news, struggled with feeling happy over the news of bin Laden's death. But, in blogging about it at least, few gave such full-throated approval to the notion of celebrating the macabre as did Michael Sean Winters.

There is much that is disturbing about Winters' piece, but the part that troubled me most was his acknowledging that giving into vengeful thoughts is sinful, but nevertheless stating explicitly that he would go ahead and engage in (and, indeed, celebrate) such thoughts anyway, and then afterward take advantage of the sacrament of confession.

Think about that for a moment. Serious sin. Willfully engaged in. But it doesn't matter because he'll just go to confession later and seek forgiveness for a sin for which he doesn't appear to be the least bit sorry. Presumption. What's more, Winters is presuming upon the Divine Mercy and grace of God for his own sins, while in the very next breath declaring that another of God's children "do[es] not deserve normal considerations of human sympathy" (on Divine Mercy Sunday, no less, which is when Winters wrote this).

Now, earlier in this post, I noted that this piece came from "what might seem like a surprising source". It might seem suprising, that is, unless you know anything about the writing of one Michael Sean Winters. On any topic on which there is a disagreement between Catholics on on a matter of interest to the Church, just find out what the official Democrat Party position is, or which view is more advantageous to the Democrats were it to prevail, and that will pretty much tell you where Michael Sean Winters stands. (You've heard of "Republicath" bloggers who allegedly substitute the Republican platform for Catholic theology and label it as the latter? Well, Michael Sean Winters is the Democath blogger par excellence.) Here, the death of Osama bin Laden is being celebrated by the Obama Administration and the Democrats because it happened on their watch instead of George W. Bush's, so Winters happily joins in.

Suffice it to say, however, had this happened with Bush in the White House, and had the streets filled with people chanting "U.S.A" and other slogans and singing the National Anthem, and had some blogger on the right side of the Catholic blogosphere written a piece celebrating not only the death of bin Laden but the over-exuberant reaction thereto, I feel fairly confident in believing Michael Sean Winters would be singing a different tune. But, as fate would have it, this happened on his guy's watch, so bravado, jingoism, nationalism, and celebrating the death of the enemy is all the rage.

Ironically, it's the folks at The American Catholic, who Winters has at various times criticized as "yahoos" and as being "kookie" (I guess that's like being "kooky"), and who one prominent left-leaning blogger has described as being guilty of "blood lust" and pushing a "theology of violence", and who other left-leaning Catholics have parodied as "fascists", who had the definitive post on the appropriate Catholic reaction to bin Laden's death. Contrast Michael Sean Winters paean to veangence to another Michael's (Michael Denton) thoughtful and charitable post, "The Catholic Response to the Death of a Murderer".

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, May 02, 2011

Vatican Spokesman on Killing of Osama bin Laden

From Catholic News Service:
... Osama bin Laden, as we all know, bore the most serious responsibility for spreading divisions and hatred among populations, causing the deaths of innumerable people, and manipulating religions for this purpose.

In the face of a man’s death, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibilities of each person before God and before men, and hopes and works so that every event may be the occasion for the further growth of peace and not of hatred.
See also Michael Denton's well-written piece at The American Catholic, "The Catholic Response to the Death of a Murderer".

My Comments
Hopefully, the reaction to the news of bin Laden's death will become more reflective and the overexuberant reaction we've witnessed so far will be tempered. But at the same time, I'd like to see those who are condemning the jubilation (and I do not count the Vatican spokesman or Michael among them) show a bit more understanding and compassion for why people are reacting the way they are.

Yes, more people should put into practice the Church’s teachings on mercy and forgiveness and embrace the Church’s teachings on social justice. I am convinced, however, that one reason more do not do so is because the pious “tsk-tsking” and “tut-tutting” of the more vocal proponents of social justice, which seems to never account for the natural feelings of those impacted by such crimes, is so offputting.


UPDATE
What I've written above is especially apt in discussing the overjubilant celebrations we've seen among college-age students. I ask the harshest critics to put themselves in their shoes for a moment. Cut 'em some slack. They have grown up with bin Laden being the greatest menace the world faced (aside from George W. Bush). They've grown up with terror alerts, pat-down frisks in airports, and the horror of being children and watching the ultimate in man's inhumanity to man as those buildings came crashing down, turning living, breathing humanity into mere dust particles.

Think back to how we felt when the menace of our childhood ended as the Berlin Wall came tumbling down, and imagine how these young people feel. It's a catharsis for them to be able to experience SOME emotion over this monster other than the fear, grief, anger, and disappointment they've experienced for the last 10 years.

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, November 04, 2010

Bad Move, Dubya

Both in authorizing it to begin with, and now in admitting it unrepentantly.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, October 21, 2010

NPR Thinks Wishing Jesse Helms or One of His Grandchildren Would Die of AIDS is Okay [UPDATED]

This is the only conclusion one can draw from National Public Radio's decision to fire Juan Williams after Williams related to Bill O'Reilly his understandable anxiety over flying with Muslims after 9-11 (while nevertheless warning O'Reilly of the necessity of not stereotyping all Muslims for the actions of a few), but NOT firing Nina Totenberg several years ago after making the following statement:
“... if there's retributive justice, [Jesse Helms] will get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.”
As the linked piece notes, Totenberg is still NPR's legal affairs correspondent. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude, therefore, that NPR thinks it's just great for one of its correspondents to publicly wish AIDS upon the innocent grandchildren of someone with whom that correspondent disagrees politically.

Any doubts about whether NPR is anything more than a left-wing propaganda organ may now be removed.




UPDATE
JUAN WILLIAMS: I Was Fired for Telling the Truth


UPDATE #2 (22 October)




UPDATE #3 (22 October)
The Corner has complied a list of Nina Totenberg's Greatest Hits: "What About Totenberg?"

(Hat tip: Creative Minority Report)

Meanwhile, the NPR ombudman/person, while noting that the firing was "poorly handled", nevertheless defends the public broadcaster's decision to terminate the contract of Juan Williams.


UPDATE #4 (22 October)
For the record, someone in this whole Juan Williams - NPR dustup made a public comment that should cost someone that person's job. That someone was NOT Juan Williams, but NPR's CEO, Vivian Schiller:


Someone needs a refresher course on HR dos and don'ts. Ms. Schiller has likely opened up herself and NPR for a lawsuit. I, for one, hope Williams decides to take them to the cleaners.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, September 07, 2010

TIME: Money-Grubbing Joooooos Don't Care If People Die as Long as They're Getting Rich

TIME Magazine explains "Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace":
... Quote unquote:
The truth? In the week that three Presidents, a King and their own Prime Minister gather at the White House to begin a fresh round of talks on peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the truth is, Israelis are no longer preoccupied with the matter. They’re otherwise engaged; they’re making money; they’re enjoying the rays of late summer. A watching world may still define their country by the blood feud with the Arabs whose families used to live on this land and whether that conflict can be negotiated away, but Israelis say they have moved on… Asked in a March poll to name the “most urgent problem” facing Israel, just 8% of Israeli Jews cited the conflict with Palestinians, putting it fifth behind education, crime, national security and poverty. Israeli Arabs placed peace first.
Obviously that poll actually shows that Israelis are preoccupied with educating their children, keeping their families safe from crime, and not getting killed by neighboring countries. Ergo listing those as priorities one, two, and three. But why let mere numbers get in the way of “Jews are too busy ‘making money’ to embrace negotiations?” ...
(emphasis added by Mere Rhetoric)

Labels: , , ,

Friday, August 27, 2010

The Crusades and Jihad Are NOT Moral Equivalents

Read Joe Hargrave's excellent commentary on the dubious comparisons drawn between violence perpetrated by Islamists in furtherance of the Jihad and the violence engaged in by Christian soldiers during the Crusades:
One of the memes – the unconscious, uncritical, lazy thoughts that spreads from person to person like a virus – that has been particularly virulent during this ground-zero mosque controversy is that Christians have no standing to criticize the violence of Islam, given a supposedly violent Christian history. And no one event is more often invoked as an example of Christian hypocrisy than the so-called “Crusades” (so-called, because no one who fought in them called them that).

The latest and most appalling example appears in the NY Times, courtesy of a Nicholas D. Kristoff. Among the many absurdities one can find
in this column, including definitive claims as to the intentions and desires of Osama bin Laden, Kristof writes,
Remember also that historically, some of the most shocking brutality in the region was justified by the Bible, not the Koran. Crusaders massacred so many men, women and children in parts of Jerusalem that a Christian chronicler, Fulcher of Chartres, described an area ankle-deep in blood. While burning Jews alive, the crusaders sang, “Christ, We Adore Thee.”
What could be more logical, more pertinent, more relevant, than to invoke thousand-year old wartime excesses as proof that Christians have no grounds to criticize Islam?

[Read the whole thing]

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Cordoba House: A Closer Look at the “Ground Zero Mosque”

Take the time to read Steven Greydanus' very thoughtful piece on the controversy over plans to build a mosque/Islamic center near the site of the World Trade Center.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

The Left's New-Found Respect for "Bushitler"

The left needs W's "gravitas"
To bail out Barack's craven ass
.

Labels: , , ,

"Ardent, Practicing Catholic Grandmother"™ Wants to Investigate Opponents of 9-11 Victory Mosque

Ed Morrissey reports:
Of course! What better way to defend the First Amendment freedom of religion than to have the Speaker of the House ask the federal government investigate those exercising their First Amendment right to free speech? Nancy Pelosi just guaranteed at least two new news cycles for a story, tossing even more gasoline on the fire than Barack Obama’s pas de deux this weekend:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday said she supports an investigation into groups opposing the building of a mosque near ground zero in New York.

Pelosi told San Francisco’s KCBS radio that “there is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some.”

“I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded,” she said. “How is this being ginned up?”
Does that mean that Pelosi wants Harry Reid investigated, too? Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY)? This should be fun!

One might think that Pelsoi would want a peek at where the Park51 will be getting its funds to build the mosque, especially since the State Department is footing the bill for a tour conducted by the imam at the head of the project. Instead, Pelosi wants the power of the government directed at people taking political positions. That goes well beyond any supposed extremism by the mosque’s opponents, most (but not all) of whom acknowledge that the property owners have the right to build on their lot anything that meets code, but want to express their opposition to the plans. Pelosi would take this opportunity to use the government as a thought police to silence dissent...

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
San Fran Nan the Theologian Won't Say at What Point Word Became Flesh


Pro-Abortion "Ardent, Practicing Catholic Grandmother" Just Doing What Jesus Would Do [UPDATED]

Bishop Morlino: “Speaker Pelosi is Not Called by Jesus Christ to Lead the Catholic Faithful”

Nancy Pelosi ... Dumb@$$

U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference Contradicts Pelosi's Claim That Senate Health Bill Doesn't Fund Abortion

San Fran Nan Gets Taken to the Woodshed: Speaker Pelosi’s Bishop Corrects Her Once Again

Boston-Area Priest: Pastoral/Teaching Approach Has Failed Miserably in Persuading "Pro-Choice" Catholics of Their Error

"Ardent Practicing" Conservative Catholic Grandmother™ Calls Opponents of ObamaCare Nazis

Pelosi Accused of Muzzling Opposition to Taxpayer-Funded D.C. Abortions

Wuerl: Why I Won't Deny Pelosi Communion

Pope to Speaker Pelosi: Reject Abortion Support [UPDATED]

"Conservative Catholic Grandmother"™ Pelosi Backs Down: Contraception Removed from "Stimulus Package"

"Conservative Catholic Grandmother"™ Pelosi Says Birth Control a Boon for the Economy [UPDATED]

More U.S. Bishops Issue Statements on Abortion

LA Times Columnist Lies to Cover for Pelosi

Obama Camp to Speaker Pelosi: "Shut Up, Already!"

The Follow-Up Question Brokaw Should've Asked

Pelosi: St. Augustine Agrees With Me - That's My Story and I'm Sticking to It [UPDATED]

Archbishop Chaput on Speaker Pelosi: "On the Separation of Sense and State" [UPDATED]

Biblical Scholars Challenge Pelosi's "Scripture" Quote

Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians to Receive Communion at Papal Mass [UPDATED]

"Conservative Catholic Grandmother" Pelosi Defends Removal of "God" from Flag Certificates

President Bush to Veto Stem Cell Bill

Never Mind Church Teaching, Catholic Nancy Pelosi Says ESCR "a Gift of God"

"Anti-Catholic" Pelosi Accused of Promoting "Culture of Death"

Pelosi Sings Praises of Embryo Destruction

Bishop Vasa on Nancy Pelosi: It's "Categorically Impossible" to be Catholic and Hold Abortion is "Just a Choice"

Worth a Thousand Words

Nancy Pelosi: "My Family is Very Pro-Life"

Catholicism, Pelosi style

Archbishop Wuerl's Stand on Lawmakers Who Back Abortion Angers Some Conservative Catholics

NARAL Pro-Choice America Salutes Nancy Pelosi on Her Inauguration as Speaker of the House

More on Speaker Pelosi at Open Book

A Catholic Speaker in the House

American Life League's Judie Brown: Pro-Abortion Pelosi Insults Catholic Faith

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, August 03, 2010

Proponents of Word Trade Center Mosque Should Follow the Example of the Auschwitz Nuns

Bill McGurn writes in today's Wall Street Journal:
With every passing day, the dispute over the planned Islamic Center near Ground Zero grows more acrimonious. These feelings will probably only get worse today, when the New York City Landmark Preservation Commission is expected to remove another hurdle by ruling against landmark status for the undistinguished old building the center will replace.

So maybe it's time to look beyond the lawyers and landmark preservation commissions and regulatory agencies. When we do, it will be hard to find a better example than the grace and wisdom Pope John Paul II exhibited during a similar clash involving another hallowed site on whose grounds innocents were also murdered: Auschwitz.

In the 1980s, Carmelite nuns moved into an abandoned building on the edge of the former Nazi death camp to pray for the souls taken there. As with the dispute over the mosque near Ground Zero, the convent's presence escalated into a clash not only between different faiths but between competing historical narratives. As with today's clash too, it seemed intractable until the Polish pope stepped in.

For Jews, Auschwitz is a symbol of the Shoah, and the presence of a convent looked like an effort to Christianize a place of Jewish suffering. Suspicions were further aroused by a fundraising brochure from an outside Catholic group, which referred to the convent as a "guarantee of the conversion of strayed brothers." The protests mounted over the course of several years and various interfaith agreements, and pointed to the real strains that remained between Poles and Jews over a shared history with very different perspectives.

Many Catholics, not just in Poland, could not understand how nuns begging God's forgiveness and praying for the souls of the departed could possibly offend anyone. There was also a nationalist element. Many members of the Polish resistance had also been murdered at Auschwitz. And again like our present controversy at Ground Zero, intemperate reactions and statements from both sides only inflamed passions.


[Read the whole thing]
My Comments:
I've been wondering since this controversy over the WTC mosque began whether there was a Shoah-related example of the people involved acting with special sensitivity.

The difference, of course, is that the Auschwitz nuns were not the least bit interested in triumphalism by their presence at the site of profound suffering and murderous inhumanity and the Polish-born Pope was especially attuned and sensitive to Jewish concerns over appropriately memorializing the Holocaust.

Labels: , ,

Friday, July 09, 2010

Joe Scarborough: For Too Long, McCain, Kristol, Graham & Lieberman Have Defined GOP Foreign Policy

More on the Asscrackistan crack-up among conservatives:

... Anybody that understands how the conservative movement runs, how the Republican Party runs, there are columnists that people listen to. Ann Coulter is one of them on the hard right. And when Ann Coulter starts coming out, criticizing Republican foreign policy, policy that you can date back to George W. Bush and the second inaugural address . . . you know a real debate's about to begin in the Republican Party.

The party has been the party of endless wars now for the past five, six, seven years, with George W. Bush promising to export democracy across the globe and, quote, end tyranny across the globe. The debate's begun.

For too long you have had John McCain and you've had Bill Kristol, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman define what it meant to be a Republican when it came to foreign policy. When, in fact, historically, the Republican Party has usually been for restraint. They've been accused of being isolationists in the past and it seems like a small group of people want to fight every war at every corner of the planet and not good for the party. . . . This is a very important op-ed that Ann Coulter wrote yesterday.
And more here, as well.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
The War Party Redux

The War Party [UPDATED]

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, July 07, 2010

The War Party Redux

I originally posted this as an update to my original post on the subject, but have decided that it merited a post of its own.

I don't normally go in for Ann Coulter ... her vitriolic brand of commentary isn't my style, nor do I believe it to be all that effective except in throwing some red meat to the true believers.

That said, I have to give the girl credit for knocking this one out of the park::
... But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest.

What if Obama decides to invade England because he's still ticked off about that Churchill bust? Can Michael Steele and I object to that? Or would that demoralize the troops?

Our troops are the most magnificent in the world, but they're not the ones setting military policy. The president is -- and he's basing his war strategy on the chants of Moveon.org cretins.

Nonetheless, Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama's war -- and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn't liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?)

I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too.

Of course, if Kristol is writing the rules for being a Republican, we're all going to have to get on board for amnesty and a "National Greatness Project," too – other Kristol ideas for the Republican Party. Also, John McCain. Kristol was an early backer of McCain for president -- and look how great that turned out!

Inasmuch as demanding resignations is another new Republican position, here's mine: Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney must resign immediately.
(emphasis added)

Amen! Couldn't have said it better myself.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
The War Party [UPDATED]

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, July 03, 2010

The War Party [UPDATED]

John McCain has been severely screwing over conservatives, not to mention the Constitution via his ill-conceived campaign finance reforms, for roughly a decade now.

Yet National Review, in an extremely rare (and heavily criticized) move, recently endorsed McCain over his GOP primary opponent. McCain may be the better candidate, but he was likely to win anyway, so National Review's decision to involve itself is somewhat puzzing. Until, that is, you read their explanation, and then it becomes painfully obvious what REALLY matters to those who call themselves "mainstream conservative" these days:
... when McCain is right he can have a terrific impact. McCain has a credibility on national security that few other Republicans can match. It is entirely possible that without Senator McCain we would have left Iraq in ignominy. Few legislators ever accomplish as much good as McCain did through his leadership on the surge. Conservatives should be grateful for this service and appreciative of the wisdom and fortitude that made it possible. This accomplishment, in our judgment, more than makes up for McCain’s mistakes, the impact of which has also been major (as in the cases of campaign-finance regulation and interrogation policy).
(emphasis added)

Got that? Be as squishy as you want on pro-life issues, especially things like ESCR. Screw over your party's efforts to get qualified conservatives onto the judiciary by compromising with the Dems who are filibustering those nominees, making it that much more difficult to get originalists through the Senate confirmation process (and, thus, Roe v. Wade overturned). Quash political free speech by pushing for restrictions on campaign financing that are, in fact, efforts to shield incumbents from the criticism of politically active citizens. Play footsie with the media and the opposing party, while reserving your harshest language and criticisms for those in your own party and in the conservative movement.

But, as long as you toe the War Party line, that "more than makes up for" the afore-mentioned deficiencies.

Another example: Michael Steele.

Steele has been needing an ousting from the role of RNC Chairman for quite a while now. Poor fundraising in what should be a banner GOP year is just the tip of the iceberg. Steele has been guilty of political misstep after political misstep, and is prone to stick his foot in his mouth and alienate some segment of the party on a weekly basis.

Long ago, Steele fell afoul of social conservatives over his irresolute and ambivalent remarks regarding abortion. I called for his removal over a year ago after he seemed to admit that he was "pro-choice" on the abortion issue.

But for all the pratfalls that have bedeviled Chairman Steele throughout his tenure at the helm of the RNC, he is only now in real danger of losing his job. Why?

Because his most recent misadventure with foot-in-mouth syndrome just so happened to cross the War Party cheerleaders:
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is under increasing pressure from within his own party to step down for saying the nine-year old U.S. military conflict in Afghanistan is a "war of Obama's choosing" that history suggests is "probably a lost cause."

[...]

But Rove didn't go as far as other prominent conservatives, including Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol, who are calling on Steele to resign.

"Everyone makes mistakes, but Mr. Steele has failed at virtually all of the tasks expected of him," Christian Whiton, a State Department official in the Bush administration, wrote in an opinion article for FoxNews.com. "He is gaffe prone, off message, and has repelled rather than attracted RNC donors."

"His comments on Afghanistan, reminiscent of isolationists who called World War II 'Mr. Roosevelt's war,' and who were kept out of office by voters as a result, ought to be the last straw," he wrote.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., a Marine combat veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Steele's "irresponsible comments show him to be completely out of touch with the majority of the Republican Party."

"Time and again, Steele has demonstrated this disconnect," he said Saturday in a written statement. "His comments were not only tactless, but showed an unfortunate level of ignorance on such a significant national security issue."

Hunter added that Steele's comments were "as wrong as it is a disservice to our military men and women."

In remarks captured Thursday on camera and posted online, Steele criticized President Obama and his handling of the Afghan war and suggested the war cannot be won.

"This was a war of Obama's choosing," Steele said. "This is not something United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."

[...]

Kristol, writing for The Weekly Standard, was among the first to say Steele should resign.

"There are, of course, those who think we should pull out of Afghanistan, and they're certainly entitled to make their case," wrote Kristol, a consistent supporter of the Afghanistan war. "But one of them shouldn't be the chairman of the Republican Party."

Liz Cheney called on Steele to resign, telling Politico in a statement that Steele's comments were "deeply disappointing and wrong."

"I endorse fully Bill Kristol's letter to Chairman Steele," she said. "It is time for Chairman Steele to step down."
Whenever the GOP performs poorly, it is inevitable that the presence of social conservatives in the party will receive the lion's share of the blame. But it is inarguable that the GOP performed poorly in the last 2 election cycles because of the Bush Administration's war policy.

Unfortunately, the War Party tail is STILL wagging the Republican Party dog.


UPDATE (7 July 2010)
Damn. I hate it when I find myself agreeing with a vitriolic windbag like Ann Coulter. But she hit this one out of the park:
... But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest.

What if Obama decides to invade England because he's still ticked off about that Churchill bust? Can Michael Steele and I object to that? Or would that demoralize the troops?

Our troops are the most magnificent in the world, but they're not the ones setting military policy. The president is -- and he's basing his war strategy on the chants of Moveon.org cretins.

Nonetheless, Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama's war -- and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn't liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?)

I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too.

Of course, if Kristol is writing the rules for being a Republican, we're all going to have to get on board for amnesty and a "National Greatness Project," too – other Kristol ideas for the Republican Party. Also, John McCain. Kristol was an early backer of McCain for president -- and look how great that turned out!

Inasmuch as demanding resignations is another new Republican position, here's mine: Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney must resign immediately.
(emphasis added)

Amen! Couldn't have said it better myself.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Media: Pope is Just Like Bin Laden; Let's Kill Him

Matthew Archbold reports at National Catholic Register:
The media has been fanning the flames of anti-Catholicism this month and now a columnist for the state owned ABC in Australia is comparing the Pope to Osama bin Laden and asking, “Why not bomb the Vatican, and riddle the Pope with bullets as he staggers out of the flames?”

[More]

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, March 08, 2010

No More Linking ...

... to any website or blog that displays this ad:


So far today, I've seen the ad at both HotAir.com and TownHall.com, both sites owned by Salem Communications, an outfit describing itself as "a leading U.S. radio broadcaster, Internet content provider, and magazine and book publisher targeting audiences interested in Christian and family-themed content and conservative values".

Since when did displaying an ad of a young woman wearing a t-shirt declaring "I'd Rather Be Waterboarding" qualify as "Christian and family-themed content"? Since when did celebrating torture as something in which someone would enjoy participating constitute "conservative values"?

If that's the sort of "values" embraced by the modern-day "conservative movement" and the so-called "Christian right", then count me the hell out.


UPDATE (9 March)
I no longer see the ad displayed anywhere on HotAir, so unless I see it again, I suppose I can resume linking to that site. But the ad can still be seen prominently displayed at TownHall.com.


UPDATE (10 March)
Spoke too soon. Just saw this stupid ad again at the bottom of a post at HotAir.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, February 22, 2010

"Terminally Ill" Lockerbie Bomber, Freed on "Compassionate" Grounds, Still Alive and Living in Luxury Villa 6 Months After Being at "Death's Door"

Big frickin' surprise (NOT!):
The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is living with his family in a luxury villa in Libya six months after he was released from jail on compassionate grounds because he had less than three months to live.

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer, no longer receives hospital treatment after ending the course of chemotherapy that he had been given after returning to his homeland last August.

Professor Karol Sikora, the London-based doctor who examined Megrahi and predicted he would be dead by last October, admitted this weekend that the fact the bomber is still alive might be "difficult" for the families of the 270 victims of the attack.

Most did not want Megrahi released and they suspected he would live longer than the predicted three months.

The Sunday Telegraph revealed last September that the Libyan government had paid for the medical evidence which helped Megrahi, 57, to be released. The Libyans had encouraged doctors to say he had only three months to live.

The life expectancy of Megrahi was crucial because, under Scottish rules, prisoners can be freed on compassionate grounds only if they are considered to have this amount of time, or less, to live.

Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, ruled last August that Megrahi should be freed. Megrahi's release came after Libyan leaders warned that lucrative oil and trade deals with Britain would be cancelled if the bomber died in jail ...
My Comments:
I suppose Tony A will be along at some point to explain how all us vengeful "Calvinists" are sick, morbid monsters for holding it against the guy that he's still alive. No, the problem is that the guy is still alive and NOT IN JAIL, while his victims and their families have, once again, been denied justice.

For, now we know that, not only was so-called "compassion" NOT the motivating factor behind the terrorist's release (the real motivating factor would be greed, as the UK was more interested in saving its lucrative oil deals with Libya than it was in being "compassionate"), but the terrorist himself was NEVER EVEN ON the threshold of "death's door" as claimed.

Suckers.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
New York Archbishop: Mistake to Release Lockerbie Bomber

Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, February 12, 2010

Have the Bishops Missed a Teaching Opportunity With Regard to Torture?

Writing at both First Thoughts and The American Catholic, my friend Chris Blosser ponders whether a prime teaching opportunity has been missed by the U.S. Bishops in regard to the intrinsic evil of torture and the receipt of Holy Communion by those Catholics who advocate on behalf of so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques":
Writing at Vox Nova, the author known as “Morning’s Minion” has published a post calling for consistency in the application of canon 915 — the denial of Holy Communion to those who “obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin” — in this particular case, the public advocacy of abortion and torture. The post was occasioned by the recent appearance of Mark Thiessien on Raymond Arroyo’s “The World Over”, in which the duo lobbied vigorously in defense of waterboarding...

[...]

With respect to abortion, readers may recall a number of opportune moments during the 2008 presidential elections when Catholic bishops were obliged to speak out, publicly, forcefully and collectively, in correction of blatantly false presentations of Catholic teaching on abortion by Nancy Pelosi and (then) Senator Joseph Biden.

There have been numerous missed “teaching moments” for our bishops and the Catholic Church on the matter of torture.
The post by our old friend Tony A (aka Morning's Minion) that occasioned Chris's response isn't the first time Tony has raised this issue. And, as I noted at that time, I wholeheartedly concur with the notion that Catholics who publicly dissent from the Church's teachings on intrinsic evils such as abortion and torture should not receive Communion.

But, as has been pointed out in the comments at The American Catholic, it is not altogether clear that Tony actually agrees with the position being advocated. In his defense, I must admit that the torture debate is a tu-quoque-rich target for one intent on exposing the hypocrisy of pro-lifers on the right.

Nevertheless, if pointing out hypocrisy is the true intention of of Tony's post, I think it ill serves the seriousness of the subject matter. It assumes that those in favor of the Bishops taking corrective action against advoctes of legalized abortion are doing so merely for political reasons - to use the Eucharist as a "cudgel" against poltical opponents.

Abortion and torture are about as serious evils as man can devise. And the Eucharist - Christ Himself - is not a weapon to be used to score points - political, rhetorical, or otherwise - against those with whom we have philosophical differences. But if abortion and torture are what the Church claim they are, and if the Eucharist is Who the Church claims it is, then denial of Communion to those who publicly advocate against the Church's teaching on these matters seems not only appropriate, but imperative.

Here's where our old friend the Regular Guy, fresh off his heroic-but-unsuccessful run for the Illinois legislature, comes in with his usual cut-to-the-chase commentary:
As far as I can see, we already have perfectly consistent application of Canon 915. It is virtually never applied.

The bishops have consistently condemned both torture and abortion, and have done precious little against Catholic public figures who advocate either.
Yep, that about covers it.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Noemie Emery on David Brooks and the "Educated Class"

Noemie Emery writes in The Washington Examiner:
David Brooks notes that in the last year, something dire has happened: The public has turned decisively against the "educated classes" and all of their works. At the same time, it has also moved against Barack Obama, who began his term with approval ratings that bumped up against 70, and have now sunk to the high to mid-40s, with "strongly disapprove" ratings that rival those of George W. Bush at his worst.

It has also moved strongly against his -- and the educated classes' -- ideas. It is more pro-life, more anti-climate change, more free market, less statist, more inclined to favor "harsh" measures against terrorism suspects, more in favor of "waterboarding" the terrorist
[ED.: Unfortunately, I think the majority of the public has always looked the other way on torturing terrorism suspects] caught in the brief-bombing effort, more opposed to the closing of Guantanamo Bay.

While the liberal Left controls the White House along with both houses of Congress, the country it governs has moved to the Right. These phenomena are all interrelated: The country is moving Right in reaction to Obama's theories of governance, and Obama and the educated class are one and the same.

He epitomizes that class and was sold by that class to the country, which purchased the product and has come to regret it. It now wants its money returned.

In a sense, Obama has never been more than his education (Columbia, Harvard), which for some people was more than enough. When Brooks met Obama in 2005, the new senator had no experience and no accomplishments, but he was perfectly briefed in the requisite talking points.


[...]

He was hardly alone. People in newsrooms all over the country decided that someone who talked the way they did was the cure for what ailed the country, and are stunned to find out it is not.

[Read more at The Washington Examiner]

Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

First Thoughts: "Did First Things Influence the Obama Doctrine?"

Joe Carter has a tongue-in-cheek (I think) post at First Thoughts speculating (and then dismissing said speculation) that First Things might have played a role in influencing the so-called "Obama Doctrine" on the exertion of military power, which (to the extent the President's Nobel speech actually announced a doctrine at all) appears to have been inspired by the "Christian Realism" of theologian Reinhold Niebuhr.

(Niebuhr is obviously trendy at the moment as, just yesterday, I linked to an LA Times piece by Neal Gabler in which he mentions that Bill Moyers "has also called himself a Christian Realist, after the great theologian Reinhold Niebuhr".)

An interesting discussion ensues at First Thoughts, but my attention was most drawn to this comment, which ponders how Obama's "Christian Realism" might play a role in arbitrating winners and losers in the Culture Wars:
... We learn from Mr Brooks that the Brooks-Obama doctrine of ‘Christian realism’ is grounded on ‘core struggles within human nature’ or paradoxes of the human condition, namely ‘humanity’s noble but sinful nature’, ‘prophetic Christianity and the human tendency towards corruption’. So far, so good. It sounds Pauline, even evangelical.

But place these memes and paradoxes together with the tactical message of President Obama’s speech at Notre Dame in which he indicated that there are two seemingly irreconcilable positions on abortion: a woman’s right and the right to life. Now what do we have? A perfect argument for the Christian Realist to take up the mantel of Arbiter-in-Chief in the culture wars, the umpire in the new American multi-faith, multi-cult society in which everyone has his or her own truth and there is no health in us.

Brooks-Obama presents a new, appeal-to-the-evangelicals, twist on the old story of American pragmatism. It is not the Unifying One who is being put forward as Presidential Persona by Brooks, but the Christian Realist One who will constitutionalize (forgive the barbarism) relativism as the new American civil religion.

Questions of war and peace and much else (gay marriage, abortion, stem cell manipulation, freedom of conscience and general cultural mayhem) can, thanks to the paradoxes of human nature and the human condition, be rendered perfectly harmless by being translated into pragmatic considerations because they are undecidable. You see, Brooks-Obama is even a tad post-modern.

None of this is new but it took Mr Brooks to spell it out theologically and politically.

The anticipated result: a big knock down to Evangelicals of the conservative persuasion, Catholic Bishops, idiots in trailer camps, signers of the Manhatten Declaration, Neocons, American exceptionalists, grumpy old men and women and, of course, Mrs Palin who doesn’t know a relativist from a fundamentalist except that she does know that certain things are wrong. I’m not carrying a brief for Palin but I can’t resist pointing out how un-Realistic she is.

I would like to ask a pragmatic question. Is Brooks-Obama confecting a winner in the cultural wars? By contenting moderately the moderates and shunting aside what will now appear to be the fanatical fringes (Palin to Dolan), it might be possible to acquire both majority and legitimacy. Brooks suggests that Obama’s Christian Realism can offer both success and the moral rearmament of liberalism.

The price is that we must agree that there is no truth, even if truth is something we strive to find and understand rather than possess. We will be offered an analysis of multiple and conflicting problems, rights, needs, paradoxes, perspectives, positions, values and truths, held together by the numbing tragedy and limitations of the human condition. And, oh yes, there is a bright side: we will have a President who is the constitutional guarantor of relativism as the alternative to civil war.

The choice Brooks-Obama offer, and which they want us to accept, is false and demeaning.
[emphasis added]

An interesting (and troubling) perspective.

Labels: , , , , , ,

hit counter for blogger