Daily Archives: April 6, 2009

Ah! Now some specific "venomous rhetoric"

Finally, someone gets specific about what rhetoric, exactly, constitutes “mean” or “venomous.” According to this Tampa Bay columnist (interestingly, within the diocese of St. Petersburg), the controversial terms being employed by pro-lifers regarding Obama and Notre Dame are “scandalous” and “outrage.”

He claims that, while he agrees with pro-lifers disagreement, he does not support the use of this language.


A scandal is any situation which undermines the faith or morals of the public. This situation comes off as an endorsement of Barack Obama, especially from the University which employs Richard McBrien (also scandalous) and previously hosted The Vagina Monologues (also scandalous) and once led the Land of Lakes Conference (also scandalous).

Perhaps the term “scandal” is offensive now because our euphemistic culture has come to use The Scandal to refer specifically to sexual abuse by priests. But all these things are scandals, and “The Scandal” was as bad as it was because priests and bishops got lax about lesser kinds of scandals.

The fellow goes on to argue the whole “He’s the President; respect the office” line: he claims that, if we can’t “respect the Office of the President,” then our democracy is in danger.

I say that if you have to give special honor to “the President”–a guy who’s elected to do a job for four years as our employee–then we have no “democracy.”
Further, I would reply that we do *not* have a democracy. We have a Constitutional government which was designed, specifically, to ward off the great danger of democracy, which is that “the people,” voting for “the economy”, inevitably either vote the country into bankruptcy and/or vote a dictator into office. This has happened in every historical democratically elected government, and it may just have happened in our own (on both counts).

Our people have certainly voted our country into bankruptcy and Obama has all the earmarks of a dictator.

Speaking of the Constitution, I *do* respect the Constitution, but the man currently holding the office of President does not, as evinced by a) the things he has publicly said about the Constitution and our Founding Fathers in his speeches, b) his refusal to prove he is a natural born US citizen (a key point of the Constitution, as the Founders did not want us electing someone who had divided loyalties, and Barack Obama, “president of the world,” seems to care more about the opinion of other countries than about the United States); c) his efforts to take away First Amendment rights of conscience and free speech; and d) his vast expansion of federal bureaucracy into areas that, constitutionally, belong to the States.