USC GOP

Commentors, especially on the BBC and on conservative talk radio in the United States, have been calling British Prime Minister Tony Blair "Churchillian" for his attempts and shaping the future with a British stamp. Blair's recent proposal on expanding the United Nations Security Council's permanent members (to include Japan and India) can only sound Churchillian to someone who doesn't understand Churchill.

If one defines Churchillian as a British PM who proposes ideas that have world-wide impact, then Blair indeed is Churchillian. However, if one truly understands Churchills Sinews of Peace speech and his idea of the Special Relationship, one looks at the latest proposal as a betrayal of Churchill's ideas and legacy.

Unfortunately, Blair seems to be looking to repair his liberal and global credentials as he heads into the sunset. When leaders start focusing on their legacy, bad ideas and actions follow all too often.

And that is definitely not Churchillian.

I have recently created my own my space account (myspace.com/mjmckinley) so that I may blog on topics of interest to my students and give them a space to respond to issues should they so desire outside of the classroom. Hopefully, this will allow them to better express themselves, think more clearly, give them a place to vent, and teach me a thing or two about what it is like to be a teenager in So Cal today.

Myspace has come under increasing criticism, rightly so, of late. However, its positive aspects need to be reinforced. Hopefully my new side project will do just that.

Additionally, you can check out by other Blogger blog about the clan (as in my family tree) here.

Happy Surfing!

The church that owns the Forum in Inglewood allowed its facility, on a Sunday night, to host the opening of the Madonna tour which included the performer's faux crucifixion as well as the need for her and her fans, including the liberal Rosie O'Donnell, to cross the picket lines of striking labor members.

This church should be ashamed of its collective self. If there is a silver lining in this cloud, at least Cardinal Mahony wasn't there to get notes on his next REC liturgical dance session.

Well, so long as those are secular "if it feels good, do it" values if your are the Catholic University in Washington D.C. The school officially condemns the behavior of the young ladies at the initiation party. I think that the coach and players need to take a break from their vacation and apolgize immediately for this rude behavior.

Click on the title above; AP has some interesting pictures.

As for the President's suggestions about the National Guard, note that he left it up to the Governors of the four states involved, so... no real Federal solution has been offered to support the Border Partrol.

Talk about the The Church Militant!

I am sure that the wacky open border crowd will hail the Pope's pronouncement (which actually is directed more at Christian-Muslim relations than anything else) as supporting their position.

Hardly.

Check out this section of his speech:

"In this activity of welcome and dialogue with migrants and itinerant peoples, the Christian community has as its constant point of reference Christ Who left His disciples, as a rule for life, the new commandment to love." For this reason, the Pope added, "believers are called to open their arms and hearts to everyone, whatever their country of origin, leaving the task of formulating appropriate laws for promoting healthy coexistence to those responsible for public life."

In the United States of America, the ultimate authority and responsibility for making laws or for the assignment of others to do it is with the people - in other words, us. In the analysis of this author, a healthy coexistence is one that is founded on a healthy respect for the reasonable laws of the land especially those that deal with border security and national security.

Build the fence!

Until very recently I have been a strong proponent of a Catholic primary and high school education for Catholic children in Los Angeles. Although the jury of my mind is still out on high schools, the decision renedred for primary schools is "no more" due to the introduction of the Virtus program in the schools. Rather than adopt a program to deal with improper touching and molestation in the wake of the sex-abuse scandals in the Church, the USCCB has adopted the Virtus progam that has sprung forth from groups and individuals with ties to organizations that are directly hostile to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Two priests in Minnesota has gone so far as to publicly denounce the program and to refuse to implement in their parish. Their reward for standing up for the teachings of the Roman Church has been to be punished by the Bishop.

It should come as no shock that Cardinal Mahony has foisted this wolf upon the unsuspecting flock of Los Angeles along with the Good Touch/ Bad Touch program that has been explicitly rejected byBishop Vasa of Oregon for not being in line with Catholic teaching although he is in the minority.

What it comes down to is that the Church's explicit teaching on letting children be children in the early stages of life (as mentioned in one of the links above) is being ignored. A program of thinly veiled sex education is being foisted on Catholic children in Catholic schools.

So, why might a public school be better? Certainly many have similar programs in place. The difference is that parents have an easier time of opting out of said programs in a public school. Even when that might be difficult, it is much easier to explain to a child (although by no means easy overall) that a public school does not speak with the authority of the Pope or the Church. However, it is very confusing and damaging for a child to hear that same argument when the school is a Catholic one. Thus, "deprogramming" and/or protecting your child's innocence may actually be easier in some public school systems.

This appears to be true in the area in which my family now resides. Unfortunately, this is not the only theological abuse found in Catholic schools in Los Angeles today, but it is one of the more serious ones. Parents who think that the Catholic schools have their best interests in mind need to think again.

Andrew Sullivan's grasp on reality has officially been lost, and he chose the pages of Time magazine to let the world know. In his latest missive in the speudo-serious news magazine, Sullivan has coined a new term, "Christianist," to describe political movements (of the conservative side only) that espouse Christian views that should be politicized in that those folks cannot split their Christian identity from their political identity.

Sullivan is tired of Christianists co-opting all Christians into the world of right-wing politics as he sees it. In fact, in his proof by selected instances manner, he claims that many (if not implying that most) Christians who are devout are liberal. He also implies that no Christianist or conservative Christian could tolerate living next door to someone who does not share his views.

What a bunch of nonsense!

If Sullivan had bothered to do any research, he would have seen that the turning point in the last election was on morals and values which would seem to imply (or at least cause one to research the matter) that the majority of Christians are conservative and think that their public political actions should reflect their values (I cannot believe that Sullivan doesn't think that his political choices do not reflect his values). Additionally, the most devout church goers tend to be more conservative according to poll after poll, thus disproving his claim. Just looking at a Gallup poll on church attendance shows that the more conservative denominations have higher average attendance which would seem to indicate a more "devout" position.

Sullivan also implies that since Christ said that his kingdom is not of this world, that Christians should tolerate almost any behavior conducted by thy neighbor. Obviously, he has chosen to ignore the Ten Commandments, the New Testament Commandent to love thy neighbor, and that little admonition about not harming the children (oops... that might include those pesky abortions, huh, Andy?).

Here is Sullivan's final rant:

"That's what I dissent from, and I dissent from it as a Christian. I dissent from the political pollution of sincere, personal faith. I dissent most strongly from the attempt to argue that one party represents God and that the other doesn't. I dissent from having my faith co-opted and wielded by people whose politics I do not share and whose intolerance I abhor. The word Christian belongs to no political party. It's time the quiet majority of believers took it back."

Translation: I dissent from the commands of Christianity as they apply to the world. I dissent from anyone who claims to be a Christian but does not agree with my politics. I dissent from reality since I offer no substantive proof that any political party actually claims that it represents God. I dissent from publicly recognize that there is a difference between right and wrong that might actually find its way into legislation so long as I disagree with it. I dissent from the need to back up my assertions with any real evidence. I dissent from reality.

Just in case you thought I was the conservative's conservative in Church matters, allow me to lambast the heretics at Traditio. These folks refer to the Novus Ordo as the "New Mess" and the Holy Roman Catholic Church as the "NewChurch." Although the site does do an excellent job of pointing many of the more heinous abuses of the left, its refusal to recognize Petrine Authority is an abomination.

I'll gladly trade Bishop Bruskewitz for Cardinal Mahony. Check out the interview from April in the The Wanderer with the good Bishop. Perhaps the best line, and one that Cardinal Mahony should paste on his mirror is the following:

Q. Why do you object to pro-abortion Catholics serving on the lay board? Aren’t a lot of prominent Catholics supporters of partial-birth abortion? Don’t they deserve representation too?

A. It’s a standing disgrace that some of these people who call themselves Catholic don’t understand the heinous evil that they support. That we should give them a position of prominence in the Church is an outrage.

Mahony's cavoring with pro-abortion political leaders like the mayor of Los Angeles (to name just one) is increasingly infuriating.

For more information on the good bishop, visit this "fan" club site.

I had to send an e-mail to the person who's leftist post is in the post below:

Dear Mr. Waldrop:

As a public high school teacher in Southern California I try to avail myself of the many sources on the internet for the issues that arise in my social studies classes. I read with interest your recent post on "The War on Immigrants."

As a Catholic and Fourth Degree member of the Knights of the Columbus, I, too am against policies that might lead to more abortions. Unfortunately, your claim that immigration policies that will stem the flow of illegal immigrants into our country will result in more abortions because the policy will create more economic stress on the immigrants simply does not make any sense.

The problem is one of simple supply and demand. Since the supply of low-wage immigrant workers is increasing and far outstrips the demand for said labor, simple market forces cause the wages paid to fall. A recent issue of Time magazine had a cover story that addressed this very topic. As such, migrants, legal or not, are seeing the wages they receive drop which increases their economic stress.

I have serious misgivings about many of your conclusions for which you provide no real world evidence to support. I am also concerned that a Catholic organization such as yours (which seems to be doing God's work in helping the poor in tangible ways in Oklahoma) would seem to be on the same side as the atheistic communists who are pulling the strings in the organization of these events (workers.org). Additionally, I believe if you make careful study of Gramscian-Marxism (Antonio Gramsci), you will see that your positions put you on the side of the multiculturalists who wish to tear down the positive remnants of Western civilization that very much includes the Holy Roman Catholic Church (a simple Google search of "gramscian marxism" will set you on your way).

Your post also ignores the comprehensive nature of the Catholic Catechism as it relates to immigration which states:

"2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens. (emphasis added)."

Given the number of immigrants who have flooded the country since the change in immigration laws in the 1960s, it seems America has done quite a bit to welcome them including offering free schooling, emergency health care, welfare benefits, etc. The open border policy spouted by the communists directly contradicts the italicized portion above.

I prayerfully hope that you will reconsider you association with Marxist philosophy whether intentional or not. I also pray that you will continue your good works in Oklahoma tending to the needs of the least of our brothers.

Vivat Jesus!
Matthew J. McKinley PGK/SK

UPDATE May 6: Neither of his e-mail addresses is real!

It's been a while since I have read something as silly as this, but it's nice to know that my conclusions about the loony Catholic left are correct. The author of the piece may indeed do good works for the poor in Oklahoma, but his tenuous grasp on reality is amazing. I could go on and on about the fallacies presented in his diatribe (from which evidence to support his conclusions about world events is sorely lacking), but I shall focus solely on the statement below about abortion and illegal immigration:

"One of the great evils that flows from harsh immigration laws is an increase in abortions. Many women cite "economic desperation" as a reason for seeking an abortion. The more economic stress we put on the poor, the more women will decide to choose abortion, because they feel they simply cannot afford another child. If harsh immigration laws are passed, they will increase the economic stress on immigrant households, and thus they are likely to produce an increase in abortions. Supporters of these laws must ask themselves: How many unborn children am I willing to kill to make my political points and curry favor with the mob?"

The constant influx of illegal immigration undercuts wages made by the poorest of people in areas where immigrant labor is in high demand. Thus, not controlling immigration and allowing the market forces of supply and demand to determine wages where the demand for workers does not come close to the ever increasing supply of workers will create more economic stress for the poor. So, how many unborn children is ol' Bob willing to kill in order to make political points and curry the favor of the Marxist mob who is behind the protests? And since when is being on the same side as the atheist-Marxists a good thing for Catholics?

I wonder how many of those goofy Amnesty International Catholics will cancel their membership when presented with this news about their organizations attempt to decriminalize abortion worldwide. My guess is that they will lament how "out of touch" the Church is with modern man.

Blech!

The great Cardinal Pell is back to his old tricks... telling the truth about Islam. What is laughable about this story is the spokesman for Islam who claims that Pell's comments are "off the cuff." Hardly. Pell is a learned man who studined the Koran and found countless parts of it that advocate violence. The only thing that is shown by the comment of the defender of Islam is that he is a liar.

Okay, they will be here until Saturday. Now why won't the INS be there too?

Remember when Cardinal Mahony uttered nonsense about how Arab or Muslim terrorists wouldn't try to enter the United States from the south. In fact, he implied that no one other than Mexicans and Central Americans would attempt to enter the United States illegally from the South.

Ooooooops!

What the folks did yesterday in the streets of many American cities is illegal in Mexico.

If you haven't figured it out yet, haven't been reading this blog regularly, or haven't had the fortune (or misfortune) of hearing my personal rants over the last month, I have constantly argued that the Gramscian-Marxists would continue to foist multi-culturalism on us until they could break us through Balkanization.

The events of today are being orchestrated by ActionLa in conjunction with A.N.S.W.E.R. which is a part of International Answer group that is funded by communists. It is run by the Workers World Party that favors abolishing private property and the introduction of communist rule that is publicly promoting the May 1st nonsense.

If you know of anyone who is supporting this nonsense, confront them on the communist backing facts. See how they react!

BTW: Here is Michelle Malkin's vent!

Why is it that most of the students who have skipped classes today (for me) are ones with horrid grades?

Oh, well... I am sure (not) that there participation in the protest was much more important than today's class on Cesar Chavez and farmworkers.

Don't forget to spend money today! Boycott the boycott!