Sylvia C. McKinley Award

My sister, Maureen, has instituted along with Dad the Sylvia C. McKinley Service Above Self Award to be given annually at the Las Vegas All-American Classic which is a Senior Bowl game for collge football.

This year's game saw the presentation of the first award.

Shut Up and Sing?

Laura Ingraham's book title, as referenced above, is the idea I've held in my head for many years as I have listened to artists whose music I have liked, but whose politics were either leftist or idiotic leftist.

Now there is the on-going hypocritical with Devo. Under the direction of co-founder Gerry Casale, Devo has created a teeny bop miniature version of itself called DEV2.0. Although the music is fine, the vocals are atrocious.

But that is not the worst of it. Casale, who constantly berates Republicans in general and President Bush in specific, has teamed with the Disney corporation to produce his little venture. DISNEY! - one of the giants of the "corporate feudal state" that Devo has railed against since its conception.

Devo's partnering with Disney is not a surprise since Mark Mothersbaugh, the other founder, has been selling his soul and talents for commercial ventures for sometime. But now, with the Smith's concept of "repackage reissue" ringing in my brain, it is time to call the hypocrites out.

Devo: Shut up and sing!

Quayle Hunt

Always walk side-by-side with your partner.

Don't shoot if you partner is not nearby.

Expect the worse from the press if you don't have crime scene like pictures available to the press for immediate use by the MSM.

Come off it folks. ANY VP from ANY party would have been handeled by his staff this way.

Did you notice that Iran is enriching uranium... or are you too busy worried about an unfortunate hunting mistake?

BTW - my internet access is quite limited these days, so the blogs have come few and far between. I hope to rectify that in the near future.

The Liberals' Counterproductive Funeral

After listening to some conservative talk radio announcers bemoan who President Bush was treated at Coretta Scott King's funeral, and after listening to Stephanie Miller crow about the treatment on her Air America show the next morning, I came to the conclusion that neither the folks on the left nor the right really understood what happened.

Having grown up in a funeral business family and having briefly worked at one of the homes in Inglewood, I am very familiar with the type of funerals that many, though not all, African Americans have. Now they don't normally last six hours like King's did, but the feel, emotion, music, etc. of the event was not surprising. When you couple that with the fact that it was held in a 10,000 seat church full of liberal activists, most of whom appeared to be African-American, the fact that the "euolgies" were like they were was not surprising at all. In fact, I expected it (although I did not expect it from Carter since W was in attendance; the ex-president has no shame).

But, since W was there and took the bashing with grace, the loony left's expected fit at event shows them to be ungracious and contemptuous in the eyes of Middle America - that same Middle America that keeps voting Republican!

Hello!!!!!!

Goofy ol' Hugh Hewitt is at it again:

The debate begins with these questions: Are we at war with Islam? Do you want a war with Islam? He answers "no" to both.

Real answer to #1 is here. Notwithstanding the attempts of some Muslim clerics to quell the nonsense, it is obvioius that a faction of Islam is at war with us (or did Hugh miss 9/11 too?).

Of course, we don't want a war with Islam, but it appears that many in Islam want a war with us. London's Cadinal understands, and rightly asks who is the god of these evil men? Are all Muslims evil? Of course not... but the ones bombing churches, slitting throats, torching Danish embassies, etc. are.

And we are at war with them

Is This Charitable Love?

Pope Benedict's encyclical released yesterday makes for an intersting read. to summarize it simply: Follow Jesus' command to love one another as I have loved you. This command certainly includes charity. But is there a reasonable Christian limit to charity?

For example, is it charitable to erect "shooting-houses" as one group of nuns did in Sydney, Australia so that drug addicts could be assured of using clean needles so as to lessen the risk of contracting AIDS?

I would argue that true charity would be to erect homes that help people kick the habit.

Is it charitable to coddle law breakers and allow them to prey on society rather than reforming the system to prevent them from roaming on our streets even if they come form hardship?

I would argue that true charity would be designed to protect those who follow the laws. However, there are many groups and people who disagree with my position. Perhaps the most noticeable are Catholic Charities and the three Bishops of Arizona. Recently the Bishops of Arizona's 2004 letter to President Bush on illegal immigration (ooops! they call them migrants, has popped up again in the news.

The Bishops, in passing, recognize that there exist "economic inequities and other social factors which (sic) force individuals to leave their homes, at great risk to themselves." It is not clear if the Bishops are blaming Mexico, the United States, or the governments of both countries for these problems.

What is clear in the Bishop's letter is that they have absolutely no regard for those people in the United States who have been victims of crimes of illegal aliens. The Bishops refuse to call these aliens what they are: illegal. The Bishop's choose to redefine the debate by calling the illegal aliens migrants, as if they were legal United States citizens relocating from one state to another.

Additionally, they want the United States government to reward the law breakers with legal status, and they want to make it easier for these law breakers to bring their families into the United States thus causing further problems for our already social service systems including hospitals and schools. Additionally, as pointed out in a 2001 University of Arizona study, the cost of dealing with the illegal aliens who break laws once they get here has hit $125 million per year and is growing.

The Bishop's charity is going to get more people killed, hurt and robbed. it is charity the United States can do without.

Note at 7:58 p.m. Then there is this.

Irritants

Ok, it's time to be extra screedy:

1) While driving at about 15 mph making a U-turn on a cul de sac A woman who was parked illegally and getting in to her large truck glared at me and began flapping her arms like a goose. I backed up to see what she wanted, and she said, "Next time please drive slower because we normally have kids around here."

Slower? Lady, if you are letting your kids play in the street you should be arrested for child endangerment. City streets are not your personal playground.

2) Evo Morales, the new and first indigenous president of Bolivia, popped off and told the United States not to try to dominate the region.

Come on... I guess he prefers to be Hugo Chavez's hand puppet rather than be our friendly ally that will, for the most part, leave him alone. The silly anti Yanqi nonsense might play well with the people of Bolivia, but that only means that he needs to revamp the education system since his populace is uninformed about reality.

Render unto?

Catholic Charities of Los Angeles currently has a contract with the City of Glendale to run a day laborer center across the street from Home Depot. The site has seen two protests in the last two months on illegal immigration. As of last week Catholic Charities of Los Angeles now operates a site across from the new Hope Depot in Burbank. Home Depot was forced to build the center, deed it to the City of Burbank, and contribute $100,000 per year to the city to run it (or contract it out).

On the KCET show Life and Times (I think on Thursday last), this new contreversial center was featured. The libleral LaT show stated that day laborers account for 50% to 85% of the laborers. Thus, Catholic Charities of Los Angeles is aiding and abetting law breakers. As pointed out in this blog before, many serious and deadly crimes are committed by illegal aliens.

How charitable is it to promote the breaking of United States law that very may well lead to the deaths of United States citizens?

Catholic Charities of Los Angeles should be ashamed (and its leaders jailed for aiding illegal aliens).

Cephas

I went to a different parish for Mass last night as it fit the schedule better since I was coming back in from out of town. The pastor prayed the Mass, and I should note that he was the associate pastor at my parish until July 1 of 2005.

He made an interesting point about Cephas, the rock, and the teaching authority of the Church. Unfortunately, he is a medjugorje nut (and doesn't seem to know that Cephas, a Greek term, can be interpreted to mean rocks whereas the Aramaic "Kipha" is crystal clear about being a singular rock/cornerstone). It seems the authority of the Church only goes so far. He attacked those who claimed that they believe in Jesus but not what the Church teaches or holds. He, however, is quite comfortable picking an choosing where it is convenient for him.

It really is too bad. I am disappointed in him whereas the bicycle Irishmen who took over my former parish is a Mahony hack bent on ignoring Rome where it is more politically proper to do so according to the corporate office on Wilshire. Given last night's pastor's otherwise conservative leanings, I can only assume that he got the pastor's position since Mahony tacitly endorses medjugorje in The Tidings by advertising illicit jaunts there.

It is very unfortunate that we must suffer the priests as well as the bishops in Los Angeles, especially when the former could be so easily fixed by a boss with his head screwed on straight.

Suffering the Bishops

As pointed out in the January edition of First Things, "we will during the scriptual readings at every Mass have occasion to remember Flannery O'Connor's sage observation that we frequently must suffer more from the Church than for the Church." If only this suffering could be isolated and associated with the new and poor translation of Biblical texts found in the New American Bible. Many educated and observant Catholics suffer almost every time that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops opens its collective mouth. To paraphrase President Reagan, "there they go again."

Bishop Gerald Barnes of San Bernardino (acting for the USCCB), has issued a statement in support of the upcoming week of Journey to Justice (Jan. 8 - 14) citing a joint Mexican-U.S. Bishops pastoral letter of a few years ago that begins:

"From its founding to the present, the United States remains a nation of immigrants grounded in the firm belief that newcomers offer energy, hope and cultural diversity."

Sorry, Bishop Barnes, but you could not be more wrong.

The United States was founded by Protestants with a specific Judeo-Christian concept that included the evolutionary and revolutionary English based concepts of democartic government. Immigrants who agreed to shed their old ways and adopt the "American" way were generally welcome over time. Those who clung to the old ways were shunned.

Even the early bishops of the Roman Church in America understood what it was to be American by supporting the Revolution and the Constitution. Just over one hundered years after the founding of the nation, the Knights of Columbus understood that immigrants needed to help one another, but also needed to become "Americanized" in order to be accepted in this country. The blatant anti-Catholicism of people like Senator Blaine and the No-nothings was only overcome by Catholics who "out-Americaned" the Americans. The Knights' Fourth Degree was instituted in 1900 to instill and reinforce patriotism in the hearts and minds of its American members. Many other examples (most not related to the Knights) from the two World Wars including calls for enlistment, public and financial support for the soldiers and the cause, and prayers for the troops and for America's victories from the pulpit show that American Catholics, both lay and clergy, understood what it was to be an American and a Roman Catholic.

Alas, Bishop Barnes and the USCCB seem to either not know American history or are intentionally rewriting it. Those of us who know better are left to suffer from their polices and statements now and, unfortunately, in the future unless they choose to be more honest with themselves and us.

Let the Pranging Begin

Outcoached and outplayed in the first half, the USC Trojans eventually fell to the Texas Longhorns in the Rose Bowl last night 41-38.

Conclusions?

1) Congratulations to Texas!

2) Ol' Pete needs to check his ego. Get the field goal early; manage time outs better; and finally, and most importantly, hire a real offensive cooridinator and stop the Yes-man pseudo play calling by group think nonsense... Hire Norv Turner and get out of his way.

3) Unless Reggie Bush immediately comes to understand that he needs to hit more holes and shake-and-bake less against teams with speed, he should stay another year. He won't stay, but he needs to wake up.

4) If Vince Young comes out early, he is drafted before Leinart.

5) Focus on the defense in recruiting after the dead period is over.

6) Move on. It's over. There are dead miners in West Virginia. Last night really was just a game.

More on the Separation of Church and State

The blog below is taken from an e-mail in response to a question about the fictional wall of separation.

------------------

The original concept of federalism was to erect a governmental system that shared power between the national government and the individual states. The Bill of Rights was added to pacify the claims of the anti-Federalists that the new Constitution would trample all over the rights of the states and individuals. Thus, a proper reading of the First Amendment would show that there is no conflict on the issue of school prayer since it was not the national government that created or mandated it.

As Justice Potter Stewart wrote in his dissent in Engel v. Vitale:

"With all respect, I think the Court has misapplied a great constitutional principle. I cannot see how an 'official religion' is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our Nation." (Justice Potter Stewart)

We do know that the activist Warren Court established in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS et al. the principle that the Constitution is a living and breathing document that needs to be interpreted in context of the present times. This idea has held force in many cases since so long as the outcome is liberal. Thus the liberals would be in an odd situation of arguing that precedent holds if today's court sought to reverse Engel, (or Griswold, or Roe) even though the current court might say that the nation believes otherwise. In reality, a conservative court would go back to the original intent of the Founders and the Congress that brought in the 13th and 14th Amendments.

Liberals today like to argue that the Fourteenth Amendment extended the Bill of Rights and imposed them on the States. This is pure fabrication. The Fourteenth Amendment was designed (intent) solely to protect the recently freed slaves and their basic rights as individuals:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The sticky bit is in section 5 as it appears to give Congress sweeping powers in light of today's liberal concept of government. But when compared with the texts of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and with the fact that the Blaine Amendment of the late 19th century (that specifically would have extended the First Amendment to include all states in that it would deny public fund support of sectarian schools and was thus part of the anti-Catholic bigotry prevalent at the time) was consistently defeated, liberals can only argue the "time and place" interpretation of the Constitution which means that there are no constants. This, of course, fits nicely with the liberal idea of moral and cultural relativism. If Congress and others thought and believed that the Fourteenth Amendment meant that the Bill of Rights now trumped any state laws in the respected areas, the Blaine Amendment would never have been proposed. But the history of the Blaine Amendment shows that Congress did not believe that the Fourteenth Amendment had imposed the Bill of Rights on to all states.

In Griswold, Justice Douglas rambled on essentially making up the right of privacy and rested his argument on his creation of said right by the Ninth Amendment. His argument is flawed since the Tenth Amendment specifically gives the States rights to regulate actions and create laws. If any state should choose to be silent on a given matter, then Douglas' argument would seem to hold, but since the state of CT legislated against contraception as it was entitled to do under the Tenth Amendment (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people), Douglas made himself a Cafeteria Constitutionalist.

Unfortunately, some states, especially Western ones, added Blaine amendment type language into their charters and constitutions. These may be removed through the political process.

Are anti-Christian Crimes Hate Crimes

Someone stole our nativity scene last night. All that are left are a few small pieces that were broken off of the corner. Despite this act, I doubt that the ACLU and other lefties will want to view this as a hate crime. However, with Christ, we will continue to keep Christ in Christmas.

News Press prints Edited version of Seeley Silliness

Click here if you are curious as to what was kept.

Seeley Silliness

Dick Seeley, a local resident, wrote a letter to the editor of the Glendale News Press this past Sunday attacking someone who had attacked the ACLU and the latter's constant anti-religious bent.

Mr. Seeley wrote, "In essence, religion is a private matter, a matter between an individual, his church and his God. The basic thrust of the ACLU is to support freedom for all religions by prohibiting singular religious displays on public property, property such as city halls, public schools and other public buildings and areas. This objective, and others, lead the author to state in his article that the ACLU 'is the most dangerous organization in America!'"

Mr. Seeley's grasp of U.S History is shoddy, at best. It was not until the bizarre decision of Engel v. Vitale (1962) when the fictional wall of separation between church and state was erected and forced on local and state levels of government. Seeley rests his argument for the separation on the words of James Madison, the primary author of the U.S. Constitution. But until 1962, the courts, states and local governmental bodies correctly interpreted the First Amendment to apply solely to the federal government.

As Professor Thomas E. Woods notes in his book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, the Blaine Amendment of the 1870s attempted to extend First Amendment restrictions to the states, yet it failed to garner enough votes on several occasions. Later, "in the early twentieth century, issues of church-state relations arose in the supreme courts (of six states) and, in each case, when the court mentioned the federal Constitution at all it was to deny that the federal government had any role to play in church-state issues at the state level."

The actions of the ACLU in its attacks against public displays associated with Christmas logically find their roots in the Engel decision of 1962. Those who understand United States history in its totality are correct to argue that the ACLU's actions in question run afoul of the great traditions of the United States of America and the intentions of the Founding Fathers as a whole. Local governments that decide to erect nativity scenes would be acting in a way that the Founders would have deemed to be consistent with the United States Constitution in general and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in particular. However, challenging the Engel decision is probably cost-prohibitive. So, I hope those who drive by my Glendale home and similar homes appreciate the nativity scenes that are keeping Christ in Christmas.

Whoa! Canada!

The embattled prime minister of Canada, Paul Martin, has recently proposed getting rid of all handguns in Canada. Whether or not this is a politically popular idea is irrelevant so long as Canadians still believe that one of the primary purposes for government is the protection of lives. Countries, such as Australia, that have recently banned different types of guns have seen an overall increase in violent crimes. Why? Crimimanls don't surrender their weapons when law abiding citizens do. What is even more frightening is that I cannot find any stats on Australia through a simple Google search from the Australian government post 2002. The Fraser Institute shows that silly gun laws actually lead to more violent crimes. P.M. Martin should pay attention.

Arnie's Choice

I'll make this brief - no one should be surprised by Arnie's choice for his new CoS. I've said and written it before, but I'll do it again: you cannot trust politicians who have either left the Catholic Church or are pro-choice. They, generally speaking, have traded their eternal values for temporal ones.

Smacking the Pac-10

As a traditionalist, I argue that USC should be playing Penn State (well, actually Ohio State since I would have never let PSU in the Big 10) in the Rose Bowl.

But we are stuck with the BCS that only assures us that it will, by its generally controversial ranking system, match the top two teams in its championship game.

Oregon, by virtue of its position in the BCS final standings, should be in the Fiesta Bowl. I think that in the future, if a team like Oregon is not picked due to its perceived weak travel-fan base, it should still receive the BCS money, and the school that replaces it (Notre Dame) should receive whatever money Oregon gets in its game (this year it is the Holiday Bowl). This rule would apply to all conferences. Thus, the Fiesta still gets its draw, but the better team earns the cash.

And, by the way, anyone who thinks Penn State and "the" Ohio State University are better than Oregon are nuts. Oregon's only loss is to the #1 team in the country. Neither PSU or "the" can argue that!

Captain B's Latest

Click on the link above to read the original and see the VERY funny picture!

Thank you too, Capt. Bourland

I sent some cigars to Captain Bourland, USMC in Iraq for him and his him per his request. Here is his thank you note:

Matthew:

Thank you so much fo the stoags! With Operation Steel Curtain finishing up we have begun to enjoy those cigars you sent. (The enemy) is on the run (and) our last op has dealt the insurgents a severe blow. Because of great Americans like you we can do what we do so well. Thank you for your support.

"Semper Fi"

Gary Bourland
Captain - USMC