Monthly Archives: March 2010

Who are the real racists, Part II?

A few days ago, I blogged about liberals who characterize statements against Islam as “racism.”

There’s also another claim of “racism” being lobbed at conservatives these days.

Example paraphrased from a comment on Vox Nova:
Liberal in 2010: “I went to a Tea Party meeting to see what it was all about, and they said ‘Obama was only elected because he’s black.’ That’s so racist!”

Dialogue from _30 Rock_ episode “Hardball” in early 2007:

Jenna: Liz, I’m just worried that I’m going to sounds like I don’t know what I’m talking about.
Liz: Hey, would Sharon Stone worry about that?
Jenna: Uh uh.
Liz: Would Richard Geere?
Jenna: No!
Liz: Then you go out there and voice your opinions like a star.

Liz: What are you going to do if they ask you about 08?
Jenna: Of course I want Hillary to be the first woman president.
Liz: Ugh, no. Obama, you support Barak Obama. Remember? You like those pictures of him at the beach?
Jenna: Oh right. Obama. What is he, Hispanic?
Liz: No he’s black.
Jenna: And he’s running for president?! Good luck.

Joe Biden on Obama, early 2008: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

African Americans I overheard while sitting in the Richland County Health Building, shortly after the election in 2008:
“If Palin were running for president, I might have voted for her, but I voted for Barack because he’s black.”
“Yeah, I like what Palin has to say, and she’s pretty hot, too.”

Woman on this video:

Teacher: “Why are you pulling for [ber ACK] or [ber ACH]?”
Little boy: “Cause, I just want a black president or something.”

And so it begins . . .

Now that “health care reform” as passed, Republicans start asking, “How are we going to pay for all these old sick people?

On Pre-Existing Conditions and Mandatory Coverage–Two Perspectives

One of the things about the healthcare debate is contradictory examples, and the contradictory examples show why “one size fits all” is not a solution.

Scenario #1: Tom has normal health. He is self-employed and makes about $100K per year. He can afford private insurance, but he chooses not to pay for it. Tom gets cancer. He goes to get health insurance only now that he needs it. This is what people who are *against* the bill bring up for pre-existing conditions.

Scenario #2: Dick has normal health. He is also self-employed and makes about $100K per year. He can afford private insurance, but he chooses not to pay for it. He also goes through a catastrophic illness. He racks up hundreds of thousands in hospital and doctor bills with no insurance. So he a) goes bankrupt or b) lies about his income so he can get a charity waiver (a charity waiver that might have gone to someone who’s poor. Ironically, Republicans will use a story like this to say why “there’s no such thing as free healthcare” (even though Dick got it), and “people can manage on their own” (even though Dick didn’t). For those who support manndatory insurance, Dick is the guy they’re talking about.

Scenario #3: Harry has a genetic disorder. He has always had coverage through his parents or his wife. He *could* qualify for SSI, and spent some time on SSI, but he’s a conservative and doesn’t like living off the government. More importantly, he knows you can’t really live off what SSI pays, and he wants to contribute to society. So Harry works rather than go on government disability. He can’t qualify for Medicaid under his state’s regulations. He and his wife go through a period where neither one is working for more than 3 months. When his wife gets a new job, they’re outside the pre-existing condition limit, so he can’t get coverage under her insurance.
This of course is what those who support getting rid of pre-existing limits are talking about.
But Harry is also the guy that conservatives point to when objecting to mandatory coverage, since Harry can’t afford it.

As it stands, Tom and Dick are both leeching off society. They claim to be good self-sufficient Republicans, but they’re not. They claim to be exercising their freedom, but they’re doing so at others’ expense.

The whole theory of insurance is that healthy people pay into it *in case* they get sick, and those who aren’t healthy enough get the support of the healthy people without having to beg.

If the healthy people don’t pay into insurance, there isn’t enough money in the insurance pool to pay for those who are sick. If the healthy people wait until they get sick, they haven’t made their own reasonable investments ahead of time, and they’re leeching off those who’ve paid.

Of course, those who don’t have insurance by choice, and then try to weasel out of their medical bills, are also mooching off society. They’re either getting the debts discharged, at the cost of the medical professionals, or else they’re getting charity that could have gone to those who really needed it.

Our third group is stuck in the middle. On the one hand, they can’t get insurance. On the other hand, they can’t afford it if they did, unless they’re getting it through an employer program.

It is important to note that one of the reasons I chose to actively support George W. Bush during his second term was his campaign promise to provide greater incentives for employers to provide health insurance. And McCain talked about mandatory insurance, and tax credits to pay for it.

So I really don’t see why Republicans are objecting to mandatory insurance. Also, since health insurance is an interstate commerce issue (e.g., some people can’t get their insurance policies to cover out of state care) the 10th Amendment doesn’t really apply, although subsidiarity might.

The real problem with the Act, besides abortion and euthanasia-related matters, is that it was all passed as one lump, which shows it to be a powergrab by the Democrats, not a real attempt at reform.

Fr. Murphy’s Judge speaks out: The NYT is 100% lying

My father in law has a favorite expression about the media I’ve quoted before: “Liars from Satan.”

With the exception of the lies about Pius XII, that’s no more true than in these attacks on Pope Benedict XVI.

Let’s summarize what we know so far about the case of Fr. Murphy in Milwaukee, and last week’s New York Times piece:

1. Murphy was head of a school for deaf children from the 1950s to mid-1970s, and had lots of allegations against him.
2. The allegations against Murphy were known about since at least 1974, but canonical action was not taken till 20 years later. So the inaction was the responsibility of the local bishop.
3. The Archbishop of Milwaukee during all those years was none other than Rembert G. Weakland, OSB, author of the New Mass, who once said that it’s a mortal sin to vote for Pat Buchanan, banned EWTN advertising from his diocese, trashed his cathedral at parishioners’ expense, called Mother Angelica all sorts of names, once threatened to go into schism, embezzled money to pay off his own sex abuse victims, and finally “came out” as an active homosexual in his memoir last year.
4. The reporter who wrote the Times piece wrote a glowing article on Weakland last year to coincide with his memoir. The article mentioned SNAP delivering documents to the Vatican, when the documents had not been delivered at the time the article was written. These point to a clear journalistic bias.
5. *Someone* supposedly wrote to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith–which was not in charge of sex abuse cases at the time–and asked for action against Fr. Murphy. Correspondence to the CDF on the issue was answered by the Secretary of the CDF at the time, now the Vatican’s Secretary of State, not by Cardinal Ratzinger himself. The media have portrayed this as “Cardinal Ratzinger’s secretary,” which isn’t what Secretary means in this case.
6. Apparently, Murphy himself wrote an appeal to the Vatican, asking for mercy given his age. Supposedly, at some point, Bishop Bertone, the CDF Secretary, wrote a letter to Weakland suggesting that canonical proceedings should be suspended due to Murphy’s advanced age and failing health as well as the lack of evidence after so many years.
7. We now have a statement by Cardinal Schoenborn that in at least one prominent case, Cardinal Ratzinger’s desire to reduce an accused bishop to the lay state was overriden by John Paul II, aka “the Great,” aka “Garrulous Carolus the Koran kisser,” a pope who had some great teachings and fantastic PR skills but very lousy management skills and a very liberal attitude about dealing with sinners.

Now, the Canonical Judge in the trial, Fr. Thomas Brundage, JCL, has written an article for the Diocese of Anchorage (also noteworthy to Fr. Brundage’s credit is that he notes he’s been in Alaska as early as 2001–obviously sought out a transfer from service under Weakland), trying to clear up some of the facts in this case. This is extremely noteworthy and groundbreaking. After all, one of the inherent problems in these issues, from an American “need to know” standpoint, is the extreme secrecy of canonical trials. *Everyone* involved in a canonical trial is sworn to secrecy.

But because this case is so important, and already so well-publicized, Fr. Brundage–with permission of his current bishop–has violated his oaths of secrecy as a canonical judge and as a participant in the Murphy trial to set the record straight:
1. He emphasizes his own commitment to fighting the plague of sexual abuse, having seen its horrible effects both as a canon lawyer and as a prison minister.
2. He emphasizes that perhaps no one has worked harder in the Church to solve this problem than Cardinal Ratzinger–how the process drastically changed for the better when authority over these cases was transferred from the Roman Rota to the CDF in 2001. Indeed, did Pope John Paul give the power to Ratzinger *because* he realized Ratzinger was right all those years?

3. Fr. Brundage says he never wrote to the CDF about the Murphy case, but the times quotes a handwritten letter that he supposedly wrote. He says that he would not have written to the CDF since the CDF had no authority, and the handwriting in the letter is not his own. He notes that he has been “quoted” or referred to in this case but never once contacted by a journalist. He notes a journalist’s responsibility to double-check all sources (particularly text sources), and that the reporter ought to have contacted him to verify the letter.

4. The letter from Archbishop Weakland Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone dated August 19, 1998–two days before Murphy died–stated that Weakland had instructed that canonical proceedings against Murphy cease.

5. Fr. Brundage emphasizes that he heard the pleas of the victims–and the Catholic Deaf community in general–and he agreed that Fr. Murphy should be laicized, but that was a Vatican matter, and had to take place after the local trial was completed. He was never told to stop proceedings by Archbishop Weakland. If he had been so ordered, he says, he would have filed an appeal with the Vatican to take the case to the Vatican Supreme Court.

Of course, to the secularists who are out for blood, none of these facts will mean anything; just as the facts, discrepancies and contradictions that were obvious from the NYT article itself didn’t mean anything. These people care nothing about the victims–remember these are the people who want “sex ed” in kindergarten–they just want an easy way to attack Pope Benedict XVI.

If anyone at the Vatican was suppressing investigations, it wasn’t Cardinal Ratzinger

Christoph Cardinal Schoenborn has come to the defense of Pope Benedict XVI as the one who has most been pushing for reform of the sex abuse crisis–that as Cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger tried to push for an investigation of Schoenborn’s predecessor as Archbishop of Vienna, Hans Hermann Groer.  Groer was removed from his post as Archbishop of Vienna in 1995 because of sex allegations, but no further action was taken.  Ratzinger pushed for a full canonical process but, as he told Cardinal Schoenborn, “the other side won.”

Apparently, John Paul II overruled Cardinal Ratzinger’s efforts to investigate Groer, because he was swayed by other “Vatican advisors” who told him the accusations were exaggerated.

Just as they are doing by siding with Rembert Weakland against the Pope, the media are letting the real culprits go in their desire to shoot down the B16 Bomber. It should be obvious that the media have had it out for him from the beginning, athing nd have done everything they can to cast his papacy in a negative light, from the Regensburg speech to the lifting of the SSPX excommunications.

This is not to say even that JPII was necessarily complicit–just naive, which is perfectly in keeping with his management style.

But it once again proves that there are clear factions within the Vatican. Whether we’re talking in this case about an “old boys club” trying to protect their power and superficial reputation, or about the “smoke of Satan” infiltrators, or both, we now have it in a quotation from Cardinal Ratzinger: “the other side won.”

Conspiracy of Hypocrites: More facts on Pope Benedict XVI

Click here for a radio program on the recent “revelations” about our Holy Father in the <em>New York Times</em>. It pretty much destroys the spurious allegations that, as Archbishop of Munich and Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Joseph Ratzinger tried to prevent prosecution of child molesting priests.

I noted in regard to the German case that reporters  show an ignorance of how the Church operates in thinking that Archbishop Ratzinger “should have known” about the priest there–archbishops have a lot of roles and often delegate them.

Something even more stupid is at work in the <em>New York Times</em> piece and its copycats.  The <em>Times</em>, that prestigious journal of plagiarism and extreme left-wing propaganda, focuses on how Archbishop Rembert G Weakland–who retired amid scandal, came out in his memoir last year as an active homosexual *while he was both a bishop and a member of the Benedictine Order*, and has long been known as a stalwart of heterodoxy–wrote a letter “to Cardinal Ratzinger” at the CDF and got a response back from “his secretary.”

It struck me that once again this shows how ignorant these reporters are.  Bishop Tarcisio Bertone was not “Cardinal Ratzinger’s Secretary”; he was the Secretary to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.  In other woords <strong>he was the guy who writes the letters, the second-in-command</strong>.  It is noteworthy that Cardinal Bertone is now the Vatican Secretary of State.

This is not the equivalent of someone writing to President Barack Obama and getting a letter back from his personal secretary.  This is the equivalent of someone writing a letter to Obama regarding US foreign policy and getting the response from Hillary Clinton. 

Further, as they explain on this recording, the real culprit of all this is Rembert G Weakland, who took 20 years to even pursue a case against this Fr. Murphy character, and the Vatican only said to stop canonical proceedings when they determined that it was too impractical to try a case that old, and the guy was dying anyway.

Though it should give us pause that this deplorable man, Rembert Weakland, was one of the principal authors of the “New Mass.”

This is about a conspiracy of hypocrites, folks.  What is a hypocrite?  The Pharissees were hypocrites.  Why?  Because they found fault <strong>only to try and bring people down</strong>.  They were not trying to make people better; just to bring them down.  How could they condemn Jesus for dining with tax collectors and sinners when they were there at the banquet themselves?  How could they condemn the woman caught “in the very act” of adultery unless, like the men in the case of Susanna in the book of Daniel, they were admitting that they were voyeurs?

The Pharisees tried to  trip Jesus up because  Jesus called people to a higher standard. 

Today, the Catholic Church is the main voice for morality in the world.  The various permutations of the Englightenment and Freemasonry have always seen the Catholic Church as their greatest enemy, going back to the French Revolution and before.  The Communists have always targeted Catohlicism, specifically, above other religions.

Today, these people are the real hypocrites.  All they want is complete moral license.  They don’t care about the children who are being abused.  They don’t care that the vast majority of child abuse cases come from “live in” “significant others” or stepparents  in divorce situations.  They don’t care that the rate of child abuse among public school teachers is several times that of Catholic priests–indeed, as part of recent budget cuts, the great state of South Carolina has cut previously required  “safe environment” training for teachers.

Let’s pray for all those CAPE Catholics today.

Today is one of those “busy shopping days” at Church, depending upon where you live.  While it’s a day many regular Sunday churchgoers dread for its length and (depending upon the depth of one’s spirituality) depressing nature, it’s also a hugely popular “cultural Catholic” day, which leads to the phrase a friend taught me this past Ash Wednesday:

“CAPE” Catholics = Christmas, Ashes, Palms and Easter.

Let’s pray that those who just showed up today for palm fronds to stick on their mantles will be touched by the liturgy, and by the sacrifice of Our Lord on the Cross.