Archive for March 31, 2010

don’t think for one minute that the president would be defying his leftist friends if he didn’t need to recover from their pushback.

In a move that could help win Republican support for other energy initiatives, President Obama will announce plans Wednesday to open large sections of the eastern Gulf of Mexico and an area off the Virginia coast for oil and natural gas drilling.

“To set America on a path to energy independence, the president believes we must leverage our diverse domestic resources by pursuing a comprehensive energy strategy,” said a statement provided by an administration official

Wrong reason or right reason aside, it is the right policy, particularly in a time of high unemployment and it should be supported and encouraged, particularly when done by a president on the left.

The Lonely conservatives thinks it might be to get votes on cap and tax. We’ll see.

I would really like to see what “experts” are saying the Catholic Church is in turmoil. It is not for nothing that the story has a big correction at its head.

I submit that cafeteria Catholics and the media are seeing and trying to make turmoil where it doesn’t exist. As Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio… said

called upon the priests and people of the Diocese of Brooklyn to stand up with him and “besiege The New York Times. Send a message loud and clear that the Pope, our Church, and bishops and our priests will no longer be the personal punching bag of The New York Times.”

Bishop DiMarzio’s spirited defense of the Holy Father was based on the decision of The New York Times editors to, “Omit significant facts,” and ignore the reality that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Cardinal Ratzinger headed up, did not have competency over Canonical Trials in 1996. Moreover, Bishop DiMarzio continued “…the priest in question, Father Murphy was in the midst of a Canonical Trial. He died before a verdict was rendered.”

via Brutally Honest.

If the media bothered to look they would notice the huge attendance at events like the Catholic men’s conference among Catholics who actually believe and attend mass.

If Catholicism is so weak why was such a fuss made when dissenting nuns supported it? If Catholic opinion doesn’t matter why fund pseudo Catholic groups? In my opinion it is no coincidence that the scandals that struck the church were at their height as the church walked away from traditional practices.

I would suggest going to the Anchoress site and reading the whole thing as opposed to say Morning Joe trumpeting the BS class action case against the pope is a great example of this nonsense propagating the “big lie“:

Which brings us to Crimen sollicitationis. The document was crafted to ensure that if a Catholic were solicited to commit a sexual sin by a priest while going to confession, he or she could denounce that priest without being exposed to public scandal. Sinead O’Connor (and many, many others who have been flogging this particular Big Lie) have it precisely backwards. Crimen sollicitationis was not written to protect sexually abusive priests from punishment; it was written to enable the Church to get to the truth about predatory priests without embarrassing their victims or breaking the seal of confession. In fact, the protections required by Crimen sollicitationis encouraged victims of abuse to come forward. By requiring secrecy of the bishop and priests who handled any complaint about a priest-confessor who was a sexual predator, the Church tried to protect the confidentiality of the confessional and the privacy of the victim, not to prevent the crime from being reported to the police by the victim, who was never under any obligation of secrecy. The appropriate analogy is not to some Mafia-like international criminal conspiracy, but to the secrecy of those newspapers that choose not to print the names of rape victims.

The ignorance of American Catholics concerning their own faith in criminal, ironically foes of the church are using that ignorance to allow the former Bishops in Milwaukee to pass onto the pope their responsibility for turning a blind eye to their own problems.

Any Catholic who uses the New York Times in general and Maureen Dowd in particular as a source for their opinion of their church has real problems. Perhaps if they talked to the actual priest who served as the Judicial Vicar in the Milwaukee case they might learn something, oh sorry the NYT didn’t bother to even ask for an interview.

The fact that I presided over this trial and have never once been contacted by any news organization for comment speaks for itself.

My suggestion to Mika and Barnicle is to read the whole thing until they have done so their comments on the case are simply uninformed gibberish. Perhaps they should try talking to or interviewing Fr. Thomas Brundage themselves before they jump on the Dowd bandwagon.

Update: I of course meant the “Dowd” bandwagon rather than the “Down” in the last sentence. I’ve corrected it.

Jon Meacham on Morning Joe insisted that the lack of evidence despite people actually filming and recording that somebody called John Lewis a Nigger is totally irrelevant to if it actually happened. He, in his words believes American saint John Lewis. For some reason Andrew Breitbart’s $10,000 (now $100,000) offer to anyone who can prove it not withstanding. Mika to her credit challenged him on that. This produced his statements. Kudos for her.

I wasn’t aware it was the job of an American Journalist to accept things on faith.

I say that the lack of evidence that Jon Meacham is deeply involved in efforts by the planet Vorslat to conquer earth and turn all humans into their sex slaves it totally irrelevant to if it actually happened.

If you want to know why the main stream media is dying, this is it.

the Fishbait Miller theory of Nancy Pelosi:

“The Speaker always carries a number of votes in her pocket,” he said, meaning that some members who voted ‘no’ would have voted ‘yes’ if needed.

“I had a number of members who thanked us after because they could vote no.”

I think we should follow Tom Blumer advice on this.

Well, okay Bart, who were these Dems who didn’t have the courage to vote their convictions, and instead wish to go back to their constituents and claim they didn’t support the ObamaCare monstrosity? (crickets …)

Better yet, pal, don’t tell us. It would be much more convenient for November voters to presumptively assume that their no-voting Democratic congressman really was a “yes” until Bart bailed them out. That works for me, and it would work for many other like-minded Americans — which is why the press will more than likely pretend that the CNA-Stupak interview doesn’t exist.

Works for me.