Hey, Dude, So Obama’s Not Liberal Enough? Jon Stewart, the Insolent Ultra-Radical…..One Judicial Endorsement—No on Kilbride. More.

                                       Jon Stewart.

       No one likes to see a sitting president of the United  States humiliated—and although I’ve been a critic of Barack Obama from the very first day I met him as a candidate for the Illinois state Senate, I must say I felt the treatment he received at the hands of Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz (aka Jon Stewart) was disgusting.  Who the hell does this schlock-meister think he is calling the president “Dude”?  His lack of reverence for America is disgusting.  He’s been a Lefty radical all his life and has developed a perverse reputation for being funny.

      He quipped on the day after 9/11 that now at least the smoldering Trade Center carnage where 3000 were killed has opened up the vista from his Manhattan window so he can at last see the Statue of Liberty. No, I don’t want him censored.  I just want to see this country develop a little pride in itself so that this clown’s popularity diminishes out of personal choice so he can go back to the venue where he belongs—onstage at Star and Garter where he pours seltzer down somebody’s pants.   His line of smut belongs there anyhow, spewing words on TV like f**k, p**s. 

        His earlier contribution included the suggestion for which he had to  apologize: that Harry Truman should have been put on trial as a war criminal for dropping the atomic bomb.  Were these things supposed to be funny?  Why is this anti-patriotic lanky goon who’s about as funny as a cerebral palsy patient patronized by presidents, candidates, journalists and as happened not long ago the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?   The direction of his questions represented snide questions from the ultra-Far Left, rebuking Obama for not taking this country over a cliff.

        The kids think Stewart’s cool.  He is. So’s the late  Ted Williams standing in a vat of cryonics-chilled fluid.    Come to think of it, both are headless.

                   Vote to Take Out Kilbride, PI Bar’s Darling.

        Illinois Chief Justice Thomas Kilbride’s 10-year term is up and he’s seeking retention.  In this state where judges are elected, voters are asked whether or not they should be retained (there’s no opposition candidate to vote for;   just vote him up or down).  I say vote him down with enthusiasm.. He’s the darling of personal injury lawyers and one principal reason why doctors and specialists are fleeing Illinois and big unions.

           Kilbride joined with other Dems on the Court to overturn a state law that placed monetary caps on damages awarded in medical malpractice cases. He’s the liberals’ darling—having backed McGovern for president in 1972…went to California to help some of the most radical labor forces in U.S. history…has received $650,000 from Mike Madigan in campaign cash which added to the total he’s already pocketed from the Dems is $1,250.00…plus $250,000 from the Illinois Federation of Teachers, $90,000 from the Illinois Education Association PAC. Armed with bundles of PI lawyer cash, he’s an automatic vote to screw the medical profession and is notoriously soft on criminals.

     This Nov. 2 make  it a clean sweep.  No Illinois Supreme Court Justice has ever been voted off the Court—a great incentive to make Illinois history. Be the first on your block to vote “no” on retaining Kilbride.  No I’m not getting paid to write this.  As one who’s benefited from good doctors, I just want `em to stick around Illinois—not be driven out by such as Kilbride.

                                      Mark Kirk.

          I’ve gotten some heat for saying that despite his views are on a swivet  I’m endorsing Kirk because I don’t want a mob banker in the Senate which indubitably we will get if people run to the Libertarian candidate—no matter how nice he is.   Well you’d think I wiped my nose on the American flag from the tone of some responses.    I’m a has-been…the host of a very boring radio show…have been snotty to my old mother before she died…and am a tool of Lucifer and his demonic hosts in hell.

       I hate to bring this up but are these critics happy that we finally got two conservative  jurists on the U. S. Supreme Court—John Roberts and Sam Alito?   Do you know how we got them confirmed?

       In the campaign of 2004 where Bush was running for a second term the question was whether or not he would endorse for reelection the Chairman of Senate Judiciary, Sen. Arlen Specter the Kirk-like liberal.  Specter was opposed  in a very close race for the Republican nomination by Pat Toomey, an inestimably better man—pro-lifer and all.

      This will cause some of your soft pink ears to redden because it will remind you of what Bismarck said about politics and sausage making: you don’t want to witness the details of both.

        Surrogates for Bush sat down  with Specter behind the scenes and said: Listen, Arlen—you’ve been a pain in the neck to this administration but we’ve got a deal for you.  If  you vote to confirm the Supreme Court nominees and help guide them through the committee to confirmation  and help us on the floor, we send up to the Hill, we’ll endorse you now. If you can’t say this, well, we’ll endorse Toomey and it’ll be goodbye Arlen.  What do you say?  Remember we’re going to have to take you at your word which on some things has been notoriously bad—but we’re willing to make this deal.  What’s your answer?

         Specter said: Who are you going to name?

         Their answer: We don’t know and you don’t know Arlen because there are no vacancies yet.

         Specter:  You’re asking me to give you a blank check on this one?

           Their response:  Yeah, Arlen that’s right….just like we’re going to take one from  you that you’ll honor your commitment.  So two blank checks.

           Specter:  You’re suggesting my word to  you is no good?

            Their rejoinder:  We’re not suggesting, Arlen. We are maintaining that as a goddamned fact.  Do  you want us to enumerate chapter and  verse from the past?  Understand we’re going to  take a lot of heat from the conservatives of  our party when we do….so it’ll be no cakewalk.

            Specter:   Er, uh, no.  Okay, I’ll trust you and you’ll trust me. 

            Their summation:  We want you to repeat this deal now Arlen in front of us so that we hear you say it.

             Specter (outraged): WHAT?  YOU MEAN…?

            They: Repeat it, Arlen.  And remember if you break it a friend of ours will divulge [private details on an earlier negotiation in Harrisburg].

            Specter: I resent that you [descriptive words redacted].

             They:  Ok, we take it to mean no deal. Deal’s off? 

             Specter:  I didn’t say that, did  I?  Okay, the president endorses me for reelection.   Then er,uh--.

             They:   Yes, Arlen.  Continue.

            Specter:   I will definitely endorse them.  How many will there be?

              They:   How do we know?

             Specter:  You’re going to put my integrity in handcuffs for every federal court appointment for the  next four  years?

             They:   No.  Just  the Supreme Court.

            Specter:   Okay.   Resuming—the president endorses me for reelection and I will support his Supreme Court nominees and do all I can to get them confirmed—in committee and on the floor.  One thing.

             They:  Yes, Arlen.

            Specter:    At least I will get to have my input on the names before they are announced?

             They:  Yes.   Now repeat it again.

            Specter:    Oh God do I have to go through all this again?

             They:  You do.

            That was the deal—and it was kept.  The appointments were John Roberts for Justice….later for Chief Justice…and  Sam Alito.  Specter cooperated fully. 

             The point of this is: We have two major supporters of  Life and conservative principle because this was done…and we wouldn’t have if the White House wouldn’t negotiate and held firm for
Toomey.    As you know, the wily Specter years later left the GOP when he was due to face Toomey again…became a Democrat…was endorsed  by Obama…and lost.  I don’t cite this to endorse all negotiations when principle is at stake but to say once again there is in politics such a thing as Aquinas’ principle of double effect…where you balance one disadvantageous action for a countervailing good effect that overweighs the disadvantage.

          I got this information from a very prominent House member who was informed of the deal and checked it out with Specter (who cursed and said “You’re right but goddam it you’re not going to make me run through it again now, are you?”

            

Continuing with Candidate Endorsements…and More—Tom Dart’s Withdrawal…Why Nov. 2 Will Be Much Better than We Think.

                    Endorsements for Cook County and Legislature.
   FOR COOK COUNTY BOARD OF REVIEW. DIST. 1—DAN PATLAK (R).

             This is an important post because it’s a property tax appeal board. The Squid by controlling this mechanism has been able to manipulate the property tax system to square with its political agenda.  That’s why the election of Dan Patlak (whose lawn sign is in my yard) is essential.  He has superb credentials to be a major force as a suburban member to blow the whistle when the property tax system is in danger of being jiggled to reward the Squid’s friends and punish its enemies.  He spent three valuable years as a staffer working under the late Maureen  Murphy (of sainted memory) and following that has been Wheeling township assessor.

     FOR ILLINOIS STATE SENATE.

          Cedra Crenshaw R-43^rd the brilliant African American mom who was threatened with political extinction when The Squid’s attorneys used legal artifice to try to invalidate her petitions.   She won national attention with her fight and winning it came what is usually a blue-collar Dem district a refreshing jolt of conservatism.

        Steve Rauschenberger (22^nd) whose making a comeback to the Senate to renew a distinguished career as one of the most knowledgeable conservatives on economic and budgetary measures I’ve ever met.  When Steve was a  high ranking chairman I was astounded to see him quote the budget by rote without a staffer sitting by. 

     FOR  ILLIINOIS HOUSE.

        Barbara Beilar R-35^th who at age 63 has the most stunning aggregation of resume qualities I’ve ever seen.  She was a Catholic nun; an exemplary Catholic still she is a retired Army major.  She is a physician. She is a lawyer.   For cryin’ out loud to deny this one-woman intellectual genius a seat in the General Assembly would be an egregious waste of talented resources and capital.

       David Harris R-66^th.    Outstanding credentials and much-much smarter than incumbent Mark Walker for a district that by all odds should be represented  by a Republican.

      Tom Morrison R-54^th.   The fact that I have known his family  for many years is incidental.  Tom is a small businessman-entrepreneur who with his brother runs ServePro and in a delightful coffee shop hour with him I was highly impressed.

     Dan Sugrue (59^th).   I’ve watched Dan, a young lawyer, for a good number of  years and to test him out put him on my radio show with one of the most accomplished debaters the Dems have—Bob Creamer. Let’s say Dan acquitted himself brilliantly.  He has the makings of an outstanding conservative lawmaker.

                            Tom Dart Withdraws from Mayoralty Race.

         The withdrawal  of Cook county Sheriff Tom Dart (a guy I personally like and admire albeit we’re in different parties and don’t agree on social issues) gives the Chicago mayoralty kaleidoscope a hefty shake.  I think what it will do will be to prompt The Squid to beg Lisa Madigan to enter. I suspect she has been mum about it and has laced her comments with soft denials because she wants to get the AG election behind her.  Because her very worthy Republican opponent Steve Kim has been starved for cash he has been prevented from waging an effective campagn….which means that Lisa will win by double digits.

          I would not be surprised if Lisa gets into it now that Dart is out.  Many of her advisers told her the safest route is to challenge Gov. Bill Brady (who’s sure to be elected Tuesday) when he seeks a second term and presumably will be scuffled up after trying to clean up the Dems’ mess they left behind.   But…and this is important….I don’t think many of her well-wishers understand what Lisa has in mind.  She wants to be President.  The Chicago mayoralty… if she is successful and puts the city’s finances in the black and rehabilitates  it’s police structure, lowering the crime rate…is 10 times more influential than being governor.    She could campaign as “America’s Mayor” as did Rudy Giulianni who was handicapped by having a checkered marital history (3 wives).

        It seems clear now that the black favorite for mayor is going to be former Sen. Carol Mosley Braun.  It seems clear that Rev.-Sen. James Meeks will enmesh himself in contradiction.  How can he be pro-life and anti-gay rights on the pulpit while seeking to cut a deal with Rick Garcia in politics?   He can’t and his credibility will suffer.

         With Meeks trailing off and the luxuriant baritone-voiced Danny Davis intoning his standard banalities, it seems reasonable that Mosley Braun will emerge as the Minority Candidate. That gives Chicago big problem if it wants to avoid being another Detroit.

         All of us remember the Old Carol who was the girlfriend of Kogie (pronounced “Cosy”) Matthews who ran her campaign and who no sooner was she elected became the  chief lobbyist for Nigeria and took Carol there to meet with Dictator-President Gen. Sani Abacha who got rid of his political enemies by having his  troops line them up against a wall and run a machine gun hot….turning each man into a crowd.

        Carol advocated for Abacha’s ahem “great human rights record” to the State Department only to find out too late….characteristically…that what she did was in serious violation of the law.  When George Will called her on it in a column she called him a “racist”—natch.   She uses that charge to answer everything.  The compliant media here cowed obediently.

       Most observant people…those who knew her as Recorder of Deeds and as Senator…understand she’d be a disaster as mayor. Nevertheless it’s a good bet she’d make the runoff because of race and a 50,000-watt smile supported by the formidable black bloc—and the politically correct media with spines of Jello couldn’t bear to criticize her horrendous lack of judgment and proclivity to  maladministration because…gasp!.. they would not want to appear racist. 

          If Lisa doesn’t run it’d be almost a sure thing that Emanuel would face Mosley Braun in the runoff April 4.  If Lisa runs a battle between she and Emanuel could easily leave the black bloc vote sacrosanct and elect Carol  on Feb. 22.   I personally think the foul-mouthed little guy whom I knew well 30 years ago and who have derogated ever since would be desirable than anyone else mentioned for one reason alone. He’s so tough, mean-spirited and intellectually resourceful he  could defeat the Grey Wolves in the Council headed by Blago’s father-in-law who want to retake control of the city making use  of a charter which naturally favors Strong Council-Weak Mayor.       

                      I Think Nov. 2 Will Be Far Better Than We Think.

       If you’re like me you suffer the hiccups every day you look at the polling figures.  Here in Illinois the lead between Kirk and  Giannoulias has see-sawed by one or two points and then suddenly—lo!—a poll will come out of the woodwork that’ll show Kirk 5 points up….only to be contradicted the following day.  The same with Quinn and Brady though now it seems to have stabilized in a comfortable Brady lead.  Over in California the  two women Republicans running for the Senate and governorship seem to be slipping although by any rational observation Jerry Brown who was a dismal governor and  nicknamed by Mike Royko “Governor Moonbeam” and Barbara Boxer don’t seem to inspire by any rational observation that they’re  anything more than tired retreads from a liberalism that has gone to seed.

         What’s happening?   I think the country’s change of  heart on the ruling philosophy of governance has failed to be measured by the polls.  A pollster told me the other day  “You see, when we prepare to take a poll we try to use the same degree of mix from  2008…same number of African Americans,  Hispanics, women,  men, ages etc. But in reality things have changed so much from the disillusionment with  liberalism that the same mix doesn’t work—all except the blacks whose numbers are unchanged.  People are lying to us about how many will be motivated to vote.  Also the number of cell phones has greatly multiplied and pollsters are using land-lines.  I frankly think we’ll all be surprised by the enormity of the Republican landslide there’ll be.

      “We’re hearing Brady will edge it out. Nonsense I think he’s likely to be elected by acclamation!  I think Giannoulias  will be out very early in the night. I think there’s  bound to be  other surprises. For example we’re thinking about GOP House  victories over Halvorson, over Hare,  over Foster  I believe Dold will take it.  I think there’s a very good chance Bean will lose because she’s been taking it easy and running TV against Walsh because he’ a pro-lifer! That issue is far down the list.

       “As a matter of fact I think Schakowsky may be toppled.   She’s been riding on polls that tell her she’s safe. I don’t believe she is.  In short I think the Dems will lose a minimum of  60 seats in the U. S. House.   I think Republicans will take over the Senate as quick as a wink. I feel the polls showing Reid and Angle neck-and-neck are far wrong.  I think Harry Reid is history. I think Rand Paul will be elected so early in the night it’ll make our heads spin.  I think we’ll marvel at how many votes Christine O’Donnell will get.  I don’t think the election will be a Republican tsunami—I think it’ll be the equivalent of Hurricane Katrina!”

           I agree with him and pray he’s right. 

More Illinois Endorsements, Sweetness Mingled with Vinegar.

               We go now to the top Cook county office.
               PRESIDENT, COOK COUNTY BOARD.  ROGER KEATS (R).

               Unsurprisingly I’ll vote for Roger Keats for many reasons—his independence when he was a state senator, his good business background, his military experience which gives him intellectual discipline, great on my radio show….and sentimentally because as a staffer `way  back in 1972 when I was 10^th district chairman for Nixon, he helped immeasurably…before he went to Springfield and became a big success in business.

              I’ll vote Republican for all other county offices…with regret.  Why regret?  Regret that extraordinary candidates as they are, they didn’t get enough funds to fully advertise their abilities.  This goes for Roger as well.   A dearth of money has always been Republicans’ problem in county races.

            On to the Congressional races.
            3^rd DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS:  DANIEL LIPINSKI (D).
           Dan and I stand together on life issues.  What’s more I know the heat and pressure he gets from his party to rent out. Well, he hasn’t—and I want to encourage more Democrats to imitate his courage. 
         6^th  DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS:  PETER ROSKOM (R).
           Peter is a worthy successor to one of the greatest Illinois Congressmen: Henry Hyde.
          8^th DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS:  JOE WALSH  (R).
         Listen-- if everyone who’s had trouble at one time or another with mortgages votes for Walsh, he’s in.  Intellectually acute,  instinctively courageous he’s probably the best stump speaker on the ticket, millennium miles ahead of Melissa Bean and was great on my  radio show.
        9^th DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS:  JOEL POLLAK (R).
           This brilliant young man is really something. One of the finest debaters in Illinois….an intellectual but far from a boring ,abstruse speaker….excellent writer of  books and thoroughly conversant with domestic and international issues (as he demonstrated on my radio show and will once more this Sunday).  Even if he were none of these things I’d vote gladly to get rid of Jan Schakowsky who is my Congresswoman who is one of the most radical Lefties in Congress.
        10^th DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS:  ROBERT DOLD (R).

          How the 10^th District hasn’t wised up to Dan Seals yet is beyond my ken. Who does he remind you of two years ago? Speaks the same sweet generalities, Seals hasn’t really had a job in three years….lists himself as a “business consultant.” He’s a professional liberal stick-figure.   Dold wasn’t my first choice in the primary: it was Arie Friedman but Dold is truly representative of what the 10^th should be sending to the House and was very impressive on my radio show.  This is the 3^rd time for Seals.   Third time and out I say.

        11^th DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS:  ADAM KINZINGER (R).

         When she carried the title Majority Leader in the Illinois House, some people thought Debbie Halvorson  was doing heavy lifting in that body. Wrongo.  When the heat would come  on she’d vote “present.”   Her time in Washington didn’t even warrant an endorsement from the Illinois Pravda, the Sun-Times. Adam Kinzinger is a bright young military guy who served as a county board member.  I endorse him heartily even though his top campaign aide, Brad Hahn (whoever he is) has adjudged one full hour on my WLS radio show doesn’t warrant his appearance.  Kinzinger was the only GOP congressional candidate from Illinois not to do so.  Well the real  reason is this: Hahn used to work for Denny Hastert and apparently took umbrage at my panning the Speaker.  I’m enthusiastic about Kinzinger—hugely so.   Not in the least about Hahn (“Don’t call us—we’ll call you”) however. 

           14^th DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE  IN  CONGRESS:  RANDY HULTGREN (R).  A very good candidate, truly emblematic of the district, a state senator well equipped to replace Harvard Ph.D liberal nuclear scientist Bill Foster who has no religious affiliation and has a 100% rating with the ACLU: tell you something? Hultgren was outstanding on my radio show and will be in the House.

      17^TH DISTRICT  REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS: BOBBY SCHILLING (R).

             Pizza restaurant owner and former factory worker Bobby Schilling has turned out to be one of the best campaigners in Illinois…a distinct surprise to the take-it-easy ex-staffer who holds the seat Phil Hare and planned on cruising to victory with the same-old, same-old liberal formulae. Schilling was very impressive on my radio show.               

      

Candid Endorsements and Dissing of Candidates for November 2.

               This will be a very different list of endorsements because I’ll tell you about the misgivings I have about some of them.

         FOR U. S. SENATOR—Mark Kirk (R).   I swore I’d never vote for Kirk whose principles are on a swivel and whose beliefs if he ever had any are indistinguishable from his personal expediency.  Imagine a guy who votes for Cap and Trade in the House because it suits the political temperament of the Libs in his North Shore district but who promises to vote against it if it comes up again in the Senate and he’s there (which it probably won’t since it’s all but interred).

       What did Edmund Burke write to his constituents in his Letter to My Bristol Electors?  I will vote not as you want me to…but from my conscience. If  you disagree with me, you are welcome to defeat me at the next election. Kirk is a nominal Republican, not conservative, not libertarian.   He is a political survivor—as constant as fluid mercury in a glass.   He once told me: I know you disagree with me on social issues, Roeser—but you must agree with me on national security issues.  I said I understood.

          Then the public tide turned against the Surge in Iraq and Kirk formed a House caucus to oppose the Surge.   When the Surge proved out, it seems Kirk is on board again. 

           During the primary campaign I contributed $1,000 to Kirk’s Republican opponent who lost.  In the general campaign it was discovered that Kirk who has a very laudable military resume in the Naval Reserve, exaggerated his exploits.  He said he was a manager of the Situation Room in the White House but in reality he was far down the pecking order of staffers—maybe the guy the Joint Chiefs sent out for coffee. Why the hell will I vote for him then?

          Because his Democratic opponent, Alexi Giannoulias, was a certifiable banker to the Mob—a proven case. The choice then has become voting for a chronic exaggerator and resume-puffer or a mob banker.    Why won’t I vote for a third party candidate?   Because he has absolutely no chance of  winning. Originally I said I would not vote for Kirk which meant I’d vote Libertarian---but that was before Giannoulias was nominated and before we knew about Giannoulias’ horrific record.  Voting for a third party candidate who can’t win would be a vote that would redound infinitesimally to help Giannoulias go to the Senate.  Also there is a chance Republicans will control the Senate and if they fell short by one Senate vote or a handful of them as appears likely, I could never forgive myself. 

        This is a case which Aquinas would call the  principle of double effect illustrated in his defense of homicide to spare other lives…such as killing a berserk mass murderer before he kills more.   Voting for Kirk would reward duplicity but might also support goodness since a change in public temperament and voting habits would cause Kirk, a wind-sock, to vote right.  And I conclude not voting for him and ipso facto helping Giannoulias get in would be irredeemably worse. Moral:   Voting is far more than not deviating from the perfect; it is summoning up the responsibility to make an imperfect choice. Voting Libertarian in this instance would be bailing out and dodging the responsibility to the nation by summoning up the guts to make an imperfect choice.

          For Governor of Illinois—Bill Brady (R).   I supported to the limit of my ability Kirk  Dillard for the nomination.  Dillard has not just the philosophical credentials but also the experience to have been a first-rate governor.  But a late entry of an elderly cancer-victim, a former state Attorney General, with a popular name who gleaned justifiable sympathy by enduring a life of personal familial tragedies complicated the mix.  The former AG is a board member in good standing of a public policy committee known for knee-jerk espousal  of higher taxes, the Council for Tax and Budget Accountability.  His latter years as AG were marked by his moving Leftward on gay rights.   I suspect without being conspiratorial that his entry was a ploy by Republicans and some Dems to defeat Dillard.   What happened is that whoever “they” are,  they outsmarted themselves and got a real social conservative, Bill Brady, nominated.   Now Brady may very well become governor showing that in politics maneuvering can be too  cute. Hence I am happy to vote for Brady and his  lawn sign is in my yard. 
     

      FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL—STEVE KIM (R).  Of South Korean birth and extraction, Kim is woefully short of money in opposing Lisa Madigan but he is an inestimably better lawyer, a former senior vice president of Time-Warner Cable and a special assistant to Gov. Jim Edgar.  His support of basic constitutional principles of law and experience in business make him highly if not superbly qualified.

        FOR SECRETARY OF STATE—ROBERT ENRIQUEZ (R).   He was born in Honduras and graduated from the U. S. Marine command school, Enriquez is far better than the aging, slipping Jesse White who has been cashing in on the Tumblers too long.

          FOR CONTROLLER—JULIE FOX (Libertarian Party).  She’s a very bright CPA without a partisan axe to grind who passionately believes in latch-key abstemious government leading to a consolidation for efficiency of Treasurer and Controller.  Far preferable to the Republican candidate, Judy Baar Topinka, an old warhorse longtime pro-abort Catholic who is a regular rider in the Gay Pride parades blowing wet kisses to the crowds…who has been on the public payroll since 1980, having served with maximum pragmatism in the state House, state Senate, State Treasurer and now…because she can’t stand to miss a payday from the taxpayers, board member of  the RTA.  Topinka is noted for refusing as State Republican Chairman to support Sen. Peter Fitzgerald when he was determining whether or not to run for a second term—her failure to do so being a stunning departure from tradition and clear notice that she was opposed to his signal efforts to make the party responsible by bringing in reform U. S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald (no relation).         

        FOR TREASURER—DAN RUTHERFORD (R).  Excellent legislator with a superb business background, articulate and forceful with encyclopedic knowledge of  state government.  

        More tomorrow.

From Chicago Public Radio: USCCB Ready to Elect Former Chicagoan Kicanas, Soft on Priestly Pedophilia.

                     Ex-Mundelein Rector Said He’d Ordain McCormack Again.

         Chicago public radio station WBEZ Friday aired a straight-from-the-shoulder assessment of upcoming leadership change in the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops…a refreshing tell-it-like-it-is news story and interview conducted by Chip Mitchell, chief of the station’s West Side bureau. It’s far different than what we’ll get from the other so-called religious reporters…Tribune’s soft-as-a-cupcake know-nothing relativist “seeker of truth” Manya Brachear and The Sun-Times whichoutsources Catholic coverage to mostly liberal (far Left with  Margery Frisbie, center with friend of this blog Jim Bowman) Chicagocatholicnews.com.

        Here’s the full test of Mitchell’s story including an interview with the father of  a child pedophile victim of the convicted and defrocked former priest Dan McCormack.  The story contains unpleasant sexual genitalia particularities which may upset some readers here but which should be absorbed anyhow to get the full extent of the lamentable dereliction of duty by Chicago archdiocesan authorities all the way up the ladder to the Cardinal—all of whom were promoted one way or another following the all-too-late punishment of McCormack’s clerical pederasty on a young man under the age of consent.  I’ve entered comments to square with authentic doctrine.

        _____________________________________________________________

       WBEZ:  The nation’s Catholic bishops will choose a new leader next month [president of the USCCB]. Both their outgoing president [Francis Cardinal George] and the bishop [Gerald Kicanas  of Tucson) likely to take his place have strong ties to Chicago. That’s not all they have in common.  Both clerics advanced the career of a priest who molested as many as 23 boys.  That’s despite receiving allegations about his misconduct.  If the election goes as expected, it’ll provide ammunition to people who argue there’s no accountability for bishops who protect abuses.  We report from our West Side bureau:

    MITCHELL:    Daniel McCormack went to prison in 2007 for abusing boys when he was pastor of St. Agatha’s.  That’s a parish in Chicago’s North Lawndale neighborhood.   To learn more about McCormack, I sat down with a father whose son attended the Catholic school next to the parish.

      FATHER:   You would try to get to the bottom of it but there was no real way to figure out what was going on.

      MITCHELL: I’m keeping the man’s name to myself to protect his son’s identity.   The father says his boy started acting out around age 11 after joining a basketball team McCormack coached.  The man didn’t find out what was going on until recently.  His son’s now 20.

       FATHER:  He was like “Dad, there’s something I want to talk to you about.”

      MITCHELL:  The father says McCormack was fondling his son at basketball practice.  The abuse didn’t stop there.

        FATHER: He would have the children doing tasks around the building.  He’d pay them.   And there was one incident specifically. It had started raining. My son was out in the yard doing some yard work. He had gotten muddy.   After getting done with what he was told to do out in the yard, he came inside. Dan told my son to get out of his clothes: “Go and take a shower.” As my son was getting out of the shower, he would bend him over. He inserted…he inserted his penis in my son.  And this happened more than once.

          MITCHELL:  The man says McCormack abused his boy for more than three years. The family’s now hired an attorney to see if the Chicago archdiocese will agree to a settlement.

          FATHER: I really feel betrayed. We entrusted these people with our child. 

         MITCHELL:  You ever heard of Gerald Kicanas? He’s the bishop of Tucson, Arizona now.

          FATHER:  No.

          MITCHELL:  I tell the North Lawndale father how Kicanas helped get McCormack’s career off the ground. This was in the early `90s.  Kicanas was Rector of an archdiocese seminary where McCormack studied. Here’s what happened.   Kicanas received reports about three McCormack sexual misconduct cases, one involving a minor. But Kicanas still approved McCormack for ordination. 

        FATHER:   How do you do these things in the name of God?

       MITCHELL: I tell the North Lawndale father that how the Chicago archdiocese assigned McCormack to other parishes before St. Agatha’s.  McCormack attracted more allegations but Cardinal Francis George promoted him in 2005 to help oversee other West Side parishes.  Around that time the police arrested McCormack on suspicion of child molestation but they released him  without charges.   Cardinal George kept McCormack in his posts even after the archdiocese sexual review board urged his removal.  The father can’t believe this.

        FATHER: How is it that you’re notified that someone in your parish is doing something to children and these people are still getting higher appointments?

       MITCHELL:  It wasn’t until Mitchell’s second arrest—more than four months after the first—that George finally yanked him.  The delay outraged victim advocates.  But George’s peers still elected him president of the  U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2007.  And who did the bishops elect as vice president? Kicanas, the man who approved McCormack’s ordination in the first place. 

        DOYLE: They’ve looked the other way.

      MITCHELL:  Thomas Doyle is a priest and canon lawyer who helped write a 1983 report about clergy sexual abuse.  He split from  church leaders saying they weren’t following his recommendations. Doyle said bishops kept handling abusers the way Kicanas and George handled McCormack.

        DOYLE:  They’ve maintained secrecy. They’ve secretly transferred the priests. So they have aided and abetted the commission of crimes.  But there has been no instance where the Pope has called any bishop accountable.

         MITCHELL: Now U. S. bishops are getting ready to elect a president to succeed George.  If they stick with tradition, they’ll elevate the vice president. Again, that’s Bishop Kicanas, the former Rector of McCormack’s seminary.  I left several messages for Kicanas about the election but he didn’t call back. I called the Chicago archdiocese to speak with Cardinal  George or a spokesperson.  His staff referred me to the U.S. Conference of  Catholic Bishops. A spokeswoman there said child  sexual abuse is not an election issue [sic] and no one else would  be commenting. So I called up Jeff  Field of the New York-based Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. His group often defends how church leaders handle sex abuse cases.

        FIELD:  To deny a bishop a promotion because of what some deem is improper—when what they do is in line with the church—is wrong.  It is ridiculous.

        ***Let me break in here! Wait a minute-wait a minute!  “Because of what some deem is improper”?  Somebody tell this guy that pedophilia is more than improper and ecclesial winking at it the same.  Where did they find this guy?***

       SLATTERY:  Much of the research on sex abusers really began in the `90s.  It’s a relatively new body of research.

       *** Nope.  Sin is sin and goes back to the beginning of time.  In modern times manifold priestly sexual sins and crimes goes back to the 1960s and large-scale American church….with few exceptions…to accept Humanae Vitae which labeled contraception a sin… including large-scale denunciations of it from such people as Theologian Rev. Godfrey Diekmann OSB and the then columnist-commentator Fr. Andrew Greeley both of whom far from being censured by American hierarchy were lavishly praised.   It verifies what another theologian, the authentic kind, told me years ago describing the priestly critics: When you don’t practice chastity  you don’t practice obedience.***

        MITCHELL: Jan Slattery heads Chicago archdiocese programs for victims and child safety.  She says the way church officials used to deal with McCormack used to be routine.

       SLATTERY:  We were very quick to take the word of lawyers and psychologists.  At one point in time even criminal systems were not putting men in prison for this.  They were getting them treatment. But that’s changed.

      ***  Homosexual actions have always been attested as a mortal sin and doubly so when it is inflicted on defenseless children which is categorized as pederasty—so there is no need to consult lawyers and psychologists solely for guidance for “what to do.”   What to do is clear.   A cleric or anyone else who abuses children should be removed instantly, fired. unhorsed—kaput. Beyond that: The Church has always  taught that homosexual tendencies  in any person are within the normal range of human nature, whose fallen condition includes every conceivable kind of impulse that with sincere effort and divine grace can be controlled.  When the condition is pathological the offender is to be removed from his/her station of power and requires therapy.  Active homosexuality is morally indefensible and has been many times forbidden in revelation and the teaching of the Church.  The most extensive declaration on the subject was by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved by  Paul VI, November 7, 1975.*** 

       MITCHELL: And Slattery’s right.   A Church audit found U. S. bishops received fewer clergy sex-abuse accusations in 2009 than in any year since 2004. Most of the alleged incidents happened decades earlier.  But that’s why McCormack stands out.  He was abusing the North Lawndale boys just five years ago.  And just three years ago a newspaper [The Chicago Sun-Times] quoted Bishop Kicanas as saying he was right to allow McCormack’s ordination.  I asked Slattery how she likes the idea of bishops electing leaders who advanced McCormack’s career. She didn’t respond. I asked if she’s aware of any discipline for McCormack’s supervisors.

         SLATTERY: I’m not going to be privileged to that if that happened.

         MITCHELL:  There are people taking a big-picture look at the Catholic sexual abuse crisis and whether the  Church should reconsider leadership.   Here’s Boston College theologian Thomas Groome.

        GROOME:  Celibacy is part of a complex culture that gives priests a sense of deference and entitlement and elitism that can lead to perverse behavior, apparently [sic]. 

       ***Breaking in again.  The usual liberal line is that “celibacy causes it” as if no non-celibate or married man i.e.  athletic coach, youth counselor, ever abused children.   Initially clergy need not have been celibate [i.e. Peter who was a married man when he found Christ]—and is not in absolute terms a requisite for clergy.  Vatican II conceded that celibacy is not required by the nature of the priesthood itself-- as Eastern Rite priests can marry (but not become bishops)…but the Council promulgated that celibacy is highly desirable,  stemming as a virtue stems from Christ’s own words in Matthew 19:10-12].  Celibacy was a feature of the earliest hermits and a requirement of the first monastic foundations under St. Pachomius [c. 290-346].  The Second Vatican Council named it first among the evangelical counsels to be practiced by religious and declared that “it is a special symbol of heavenly benefits and for religious is a most effective means of dedicating themselves wholeheartedly to the divine service and works of the apostolate.” [Decree on the Up-to-Date Renewal of Religious Life, 12]. ***

         MITCHELL:  Groome says making bishops accountable would require changing how the Church is governed.

          ***This implies bishops as a class now and in the past are not and have not been accountable.  They always have but loose and weak-willed governance has been the culprit.  True, in the beginning bishops were elected by their fellows…the first one being Matthias, elected by the apostles to fill the vacancy left by Judas.   The Pope always had sovereignty over the selection of bishops but as Catholicism grew world-wide it was not practicable in the very early days for the Pope to know whom to name in a faraway diocese.  Also there was the danger that kings would take over the process totally (some did)… so the practice in the very early days was for election of  bishops in some faraway dioceses by the congregants. The great St. Augustine was ordained a priest, was appointed coadjutor and finally elected bishop of Hippo in North Africa as a kind of ratification for one whose reputation as philosopher and theologian had spread throughout Christendom.  With later years and the rise of counselor bishops to the papacy,  appointment of most bishops gravitated back to Rome.***

         GROOME:   There are ways available, even within canon law. The canon law of the Catholic Church calls for parish councils—priests and lay people having voice and representation.  We’ve never implemented that [sic].  And some of it will be reform and some of it renewal.   For example when you go back into the history of the Church you find that the priests of a diocese had a real voice in choosing their bishop.  And, if you go back far enough, in certain places, even the people had a real voice in choosing their bishop. 

          But, for now, the faithful don’t have that voice.  And only the bishops can vote in next month’s election.   So, barring the unforeseen,  their next president[Kicanas]—like the one stepping down {George]—will have ties to the man who abused the North Lawndale boys.

      ***The assumption here is similar to the premise of the radical Fr.Greeley when his mind was intact and consciousness fully with him (before he suffered an unfortunate accident in 2008—his coat caught in a taxi door as the vehicle gunned away--that crushed his skull) that there should be widespread elections and campaigning diocese-wide by various competitors for the post of bishop…the thought being later taken up by the radical Leftwing “Voice  of the Faithful” that the church governance should be replaced by pure democracy—which it hoped would lead to women priests, gay priests and the sanctification of  same-sex marriage: hence the end of the institutional Church.   Return of the clergy to orthodoxy necessitates no change in  governance but the re-inculcation of doctrine already formulated on the moral law.   Rectors of seminaries must guard that admissions not gravitate to a lavender clergy as regrettably is somewhat the case now.

         Moreover, Rectors and prelates must be cognizant of the evil of pedophilia.   The Chicago Sun-Times religion reporter asked Kicanas if he had to do it over again would he ordain McCormack who at that time was charged with child abuse. Kicanas’ stunning answer:  Yes; he was just worried that McCormack drank too much. It’s this man, promoted afterward by this archdiocese, sanctioned by his fellow bishops to run as vice president, who is likely to be elected president of the USCCB next month.    WBEZ and its reporter Chip Mitchell have done great service to report this now. Will other media now do the same?  Don’t bet on it.*** 

NPR Didn’t Mind Its Correspondents’ Opinions Like Hoping Jesse Helms Would Get AIDS, Wishing 4,000 Christians Die Which “Would Make the World a Better Place."

                                     NPR Hypocrisy: Suspecting Muslims a No-No.

          Gee, the same NPR which fired Juan Williams for so-called “anti-Muslim bigotry” didn’t get upset earlier when its legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg declared that if there were such a thing as “retributive justice,” Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) would “get AIDS from a transfusion or one of his grandchildren would get it.” Nice, huh?  Williams was until Wednesday a contracted news analyst for it while Totenberg is higher on the pecking order—a correspondent. Of course NPR follows the elitist model of commentary….meaning that liberal opinions, even if expressed in derogatory terms, are warranted but those that aren’t reflect a conservative mind-set which to this partially federal funded “news organization” is unacceptable.     

           Anti-Christian views are okay—as when on the network so-called leftwing humorist Andrei Codrescu called “the evaporation of 4 million [Christians] who believe” in the doctrine of the Rapture…the belief of some Christians that on the Last Day all Christians would be gathered in midair to greet the returning Jesus Christ… “would leave the world a better place.”   That’s just sophisticated humor, my friends…straight from the Harvard faculty lounge (where I used to hear similar outrages prompting snickers from those whose secular religion is relativism—the belief that no belief is certain: the contradiction Socrates punctured 5,000 years ago but which still endures among the trendy). No, being anti-Christian is not bigoted…just recognition that professed Christians are-are so gauche. 

           Nor is being anti-Semitic if you qualify your views by becoming a bleeding heart for the poor Palestinians who have been treated so rudely by the Jews and where dispossessed of their land to make room for the new arrivals—forgetting that Jews had original claim.    Bigoted is worrying about fellow passengers in Muslim dress on your airplane… notwithstanding that 97% of terrorism today doesn’t come from the IRA or the German Communist Bader-Meinhof Groupbut from Islamist extremists who are…sorry!....Muslims and dressed like those on your plane.

             And get the classy way the CEO of NPR Vivian Schiller saluted the departure of Juan Williams in a speech to the Atlanta Press Club:  He should have kept his feelings about Muslims between himself “and his psychiatrist or publicist.” In other words Williams is mentally or emotionally disturbed. Well she apologized publicly afterward via her own publicist.  She is a former senior vice president of The New York Times—and, of course, that figures.  Her follow-up statement is interesting although illogical.

            It says:  “A critical distinction has been lost in this debate. NPR News analysts have a distinctive role and set of  responsibilities. This is a very different role than that of columnist or analyst. News analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts and that’s what’s happened in this situation.”

          Hold it Ms. Schiller. In the hierarchy of  NPR,  a correspondent…such as Nina Totenberg…is a major rung higher than a contracted analyst.  How did Totenberg escape unscathed from expressing the wish that Helms and/or his grandchildren get infected with the AIDS virus?

         “As you know we offer views of all kinds on your [sic] air but those views are expressed by those we interview—not our reporters and analysts.” Big whopper there.

         Here are the facts on NPR’s funding as per Schiller.  The Corporation for Public Broadcasting receives $90 million a year and the greatest part of it goes to member public radio stations.  NPR applies for grants from varied sources including private foundations and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.  It represents from 1 to 3% of its total budget. It exists on $160 million a year from station fees and dues, corporate underwriting and philanthropic contributions from individuals, corporations and earned income as well as earnings from its endowment.

       The point here is this: Why with the multiplicity of news outlets operating in the private marketplace should the taxpayers fund either public radio or public television?   Is it a coincidence that public taxpayer-funded stations and networks have adopted a liberal, Obama-like stance on public issues?  No.  I defy anyone to find a public radio or public TV outlet that does not shade the news leftward. WTTW is a case in point. Carol Marin the ace liberal propagandist…the ring-bearer for same-sex weddings…is paid handsomely, partially with taxpayer dollars. Terrific! 

       The answer should be to unhorse…defund…them and let them get their funds totally from “people like you.” Carol would just have to struggle along and make do with her two other salaries:  from The Sun-Times and NBC-TV Chicago channel 5.  Gawd are we so bereft of journalistic talent that we have to rely on one near-60 female circa 1960s activist to cover politics?  But that’s another issue. 

           

Juan Williams Firing by NPR Should Presage Banning Taxpayer Funding For Public Radio-TV in Next Congress. .

                                               Juan Williams.

       It’s inappropriate for this country…which touts freedom of expression under the 1^st Amendment…to sponsor public i.e. taxpayer funding…fully or partially… of a news network anyhow—but it is doubly offensive for that network supported by government funds to inflict a doctrine of liberal political correctness on one of its journalists. That’s what happened to Juan Williams yesterday.   An NPR news analyst, he was summarily fired because he said that the United States is facing a “Muslim dilemma.” Williams was a guest on The O’Reilly Factor Monday and had the temerity in NPR’s view to agree with O’Reilly’s comment that “The cold truth is that in the world today, jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations is the biggest threat on the planet.”

         The words that got Williams, an African American, were these:
“I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot.  You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country.  But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”   Referring to the Pakistani immigrant who pleaded guilty this month to trying to plant a car bomb in Times Square,  he said:  “…[T]he war with Muslims, America’s war, is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts.”

          NPR said these remarks are “inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his [Williams’] credibility as a news analyst with NPR.” Actually if anyone’s credibility is ruined, it is NPR as a supposedly  objective news gathering and analyzing body (although few had any doubts that our own tax money has been subsidizing an official government view in the same way radio networks are regimented in China, Russia and Cuba. If by expressing the view that in an analyst’s opinion a war with Muslims is brewing one can get fired, NPR has itself severed its connection to supposedly even-handed expression of opinion in the news in favor of one line—the government’s.     Williams’ firing is a chilly draft of wind reflecting the heavy silencing of opinion, reflecting a variant of liberal fascism.

            This episode should propel a future Republican Congress to move immediately to kill in totality federal funding for the network.  If vetoed and unable to be re-passed, it is mandatory that a future Republican president and Congress to end the subsidies for government sponsored “news” operations forthwith.   There are many instances where networks are supported entirely by private funding….notably radio broadcasting supported by  churches where no public largesse is involved. NPR should never have been started in the first place because the line is too vague to avoid tangling with the 1^st amendment.  If a newsman can’t express an analysis which is wholly within the realm of reason without being fired because his insights are inconsistent with the network, it  is sufficient proof that a government radio network…whether wholly or partially funded…nothing less than an experiment in federal thought control, should be ended forthwith.   There is no earthly reason in God’s world why the American people should risk being propagandized by their own government, federal or state.

           The firing of Juan Williams may well have been the worst mistake this government-liberal dominated “news” network ever made.

                               

Listen, Libs, Christine O’Donnell Was Right: Separation of Church and State Appears Nowhere in the Constitution! More.

                                  The Smug Liberal…Ignorance & Audience. 

       In their debate the other night Christine O’Donnell, the Tea Party GOP Delaware Senate  nominee tangled in debate with the Dem Senate nominee, the state attorney general, Chris Coons.  The question came up about the concept of separation of church and state. O’Donnell asked where church-state separation is spelled out in the Constitution.   Coons said from the 1^st amendment. Elitist liberals like The Daily Kos and the Yahoo news service thought it outrageous that O’Donnell didn’t know this…evidence of  her stupidity and ignorance where she was  allegedly set straight by a  Yale lawyer. 

         But the Yale lawyer was wrong. There is nothing in  the 1^st amendment that prescribes separation of  Church and state.  The “establishment of  religion” clause was not enacted to  secularize government and keep it pristine from religion, it was written to ban adoption of an official  state religion as it was then and is now in Britain.   It was not even enacted to ban official religion in the states but was regarded as pertaining to the new federal government only.   Indeed when the amendment was adopted, six of the original 13 states had established religions which the amendment was specifically not designed  to override.

            Madison believed that with respect to the federal government and  religion that far from banning it, there should be a welcome plurality of religious practice not the requirement that one religion and one religion only should be installed as an official religion.   In fact the popularly cited “wall of  separation” phrase came from not from the body of the Constitution or from amendment language but from a private letter written by Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association.  Jefferson himself welcomed church worship involving various sects to be held in the U.S. Capitol during his administration since the village of Washington,  D.C., erected on a former swamp had few churches.

           Popular liberal mythology has held that conservatives are dumb and liberals are the smarter,  more educated class….witness jokes that Eisenhower was dumb, JFK smart,  LBJ smart,  Nixon dumb (and evil), Ford dumb because he supposedly played football without a helmet, Carter very smart, Reagan a dumb ex-actor, Bush I unacquainted with ideas, Clinton very smart, Bush  II (who had a Harvard MBA) was dumb and unacquainted with books. Obama smart etc.  So in their confrontation liberals and liberal mainstream media project that O’Donnell is dumb because she has traditional  religious values and no college degree while Coons is brilliant because  he has a   Yale law degree.

          But the fact is that in this  imbroglio Coons was the dumb one….citing the 1^st amendment as purportedly dictating separation  of Church and State and O’Donnell the bright one asking where in the Constitution this provision is stated, Coons replying smugly: “The 1^st amendment.”

          And the liberals in the audience tittered:  She is so dumb.  But they and Coons are the dumb ones.  A  clue: The reasoning  behind the Establishment Clause is presented fairly by…of all things….PBS in its “God in America” three-part series.   Using original documents including Jefferson’s correspondence  it shows how we have come to misunderstand the framers’ reason for writing the Establishment of Religion clause. The PBS series is still far from perfect [see below] but this part is sufficient to give Yalie Coons a refresher course on Constitutional law, proving that O’Donnell is right.

                          Los Angeles Public TV Station Sheds  PBS.

        When the manager of Los Angeles public TV station KCFT-TV looked at the stiff fee he would have to pay out to continue PBS service…20% of his operating budget or $6.1 million…he decided to give up PBS.   In return he got a lot of hate mail and vows not to support his station from people who love “Jim Lair-rah”, 76m of the PBS  NewsHour…Judy Woodruff, 62, its perpetually worried-looking reporter concerned (along with hubby Al Hunt of Bloomberg News) that the country is going—gasp!--rightwing…and Gwen Ifill, 55, who was picked to moderate the Obama-McCain debate notwithstanding that she had a laudatory book on Obama coming out on Inauguration Day and Ray Suarez, 55, the former NPR veteran and former  host of the lefty “Talk of the Nation.” The question: how will the station fare without its progressive staples?

       Who knows?   Perhaps better!   Instead of running the old port-side reliables if the station is smart, it’ll develop some new faces and a centrist content.  PBS by and large is assembly-line slugged by the same old liberal mind-set.  It has just unveiled a 3-part, 6-hour series “God in America” which is accurate on the 1^st amendment’s Establishment Clause  [see above] it otherwise does a lefty disservice to religion.  It gives far more weight to fringe elements and skips wholesale contributions made by Judaism and Catholicism.

        The Pilgrim are treated as incorrigible blue-noses, prejudicial, sanctimonious and uncaring.   Later 19^th century Christian heretic Charles Briggs who argued against the inerrancy of the Bible is treated as a great hero.    It would be understandable if religiously illiterate viewers would assume Briggs’ views are the same as all Protestants.   There is utterly no mention of the pioneering role of the Catholic church in dispensing charity in the 18^th, 19^th and early part of  the 20^th centuries when alms-giving was all privately collected (no government subsidies) and high quality education  was dispensed in parochial schools.  

         Who knows?  Maybe Los Angeles public TV made a wise choice in scrubbing PBS if by doing so it presents independent programs with a plurality of ideas instead of the same-old-same-old liberal ones. 

        

CTP: A Catholic Tea Party…Is it Needed?....What Would It Do? Beginning a Colloquium.

      Looking back at the marvelous success the Tea Party movement has enjoyed, revitalizing  a sleepy, lethargic Republican Party,  I’ve been imagining what a Catholic Tea Party could do to reform a chillingly distant, timid, cowardly  Catholic Church  bureaucracy that is in many ways—not all-- failing in its mission to reinvigorate what used to be called The Church Militant.  This would necessarily involve creation of a new organization with national outreach to attain these goals.

        Of course a Catholic Tea Party would be different  from the political variant.    The political version  at large in the land today exists to elect.    The  Catholic version would exist to renew the 2000-year traditions of the Church.   I see it operating in six distinct areas.  I welcome your ideas pro and con to creation of a consumer movement of authentic Catholics to stimulate change from the ground up. I am too old to do much more than encourage and advise….and a younger cadre will have to supply leadership over these general areas:

1. Applying pressure on weak bishops and prelates… those who don’t make a murmur about politicians who purportedly are part of the  Faith and draw political strength from that identification, betraying the theology of the Church by supporting abortion and gay rights policies which offend against the traditional concept of marriage in public discourse, county boards, legislatures and the Congress.  Here in Chicago for instance we have scores of politicians serving in high places  who make a  mockery of the faith by using the old canard “separation of Church and state” and trot freely up to the altars to receive the Eucharist.  Bishops should be put on the spot—to use the faculties of their office to insist that these political hypocrites  should be vigorously instructed to either change their anti-Catholic positions or stay away from the reception of the Eucharist.  Tactics: Initial meetings followed by enabling public sessions, media and use of the communications arts to propel change.

2. Applying pressure on weak bishops and prelates to exert greater leadership over so-called “Catholic” colleges and universities in their dioceses including those which are a disgrace to Catholic teaching—installing so-called “Queer Studies: 101”…sponsoring Kiss-Ins for homosexual students …allowing the disorientation of studies to include anti-Catholic positions without proper academic rebuttal….inviting scandalously irreligious “lecturers” to address the student body without adequate rebuttal….turning over management of  academic departments to anti-Catholic professors as university presidents abdicate their role in supervising and maintaining proper Catholic presence…allowing departments of  “Religious Studies” to make mockery of the Catholic training and theology-philosophy. 

3. Strenuously applying pressure on weak bishops and prelates who have allowed radical and carelessly designed “innovative” liturgical practices to be utilized that make mockery and impose sacrilege on the Mass…including use of radical formations such as gay choirs to intrude leftwing social engineering campaigns  on parishes.

4. Forcefully utilizing pressure on weak bishops and prelates who have allowed “Hot Dog” clergy members….priests and nuns… to get involved in politicking from the altar, inviting politicians to address congregations, holding news conferences on issues non-germane to the vital purpose of the Church.

5. Forcefully utilizing pressure on weak bishops and prelates to curtail the power of  the USCCB officers and paid staff members which hugely enjoy the adventure of negotiating with Washington politicians on health care, immigration reform and other issues and announcing conclusions as bearing the imprimatur of  the Church.  The USCCB should be transformed into a sedate information-gathering entity without the right to disseminate statements and position papers supposedly reflecting the views of the Church…either that or abolished in its entirety.  Once again individual bishops and prelates should bear the responsibility for articulating their own policy positions (if needed) that assists the Church—not pass the buck to a group of ideologically motivated bureaucrats working out of a splendiferous office building in Washington, D.C. supported by those in the pews who have no knowledge of the practical effects their well-intentioned contributions are having.  

6. Forcefully utilizing pressure on weak bishops and prelates to make regular reports on operations of the diocesan seminaries including details on teaching staff and curricula to curtail recruitment that continues growth of a lavender and thoroughly revolutionarily radical priesthood.

     I would hope readers would comment on this as  they see fit.  Finally I hope younger authenticist activists  with more energy than I take up this mission  of  reform.

    

Michael Voris is the Name for Refreshing Authentic Catholic TV Commentaries—No Namby Pamby Stuff Allowed.

            Have you ever heard the name Michael Voris?

           You should because as our Church slowly recovers from the liberal grossly-misnamed “spirit of Vatican II” which has nothing whatsoever to do with the authentic teachings of the conclave, increasingly people like me are turning to a middle-aged, splendidly educated layman with a degree in Sacred Theology who propels an almost daily TV commentary on Church matters on the  Internet which you can subscribe to and receive via email free by first going to RealCatholicTV.com.

                          The Church’s Courageous TV Defender.

           Voris is, in my estimation, the best thing that has happened to Catholic TV communications since the end  of the era of Fulton Sheen. In fact for today’s problems he’s better than Sheen.  Why?   Because brilliant as he was Sheen was a bishop and couldn’t strike at the soft and hard-shell heresies coming from some current bishops and priests.  It’s not good for bishops to criticize others although to be sure, Sheen had his innings with some of them including his Ordinary in New York,   Francis Cardinal Spellman. 

         DIGRESSION:  At the height of his fame when he was raising millions for the Society for the Propagation of  the Faith which he directed, Sheen was challenged by Spellman who wanted to control the money and funnel much of  it into the archdiocese of New York.   Reason: Because Spellman ran the archdiocese and the Society was headquartered there,    Spellman carried the title of Chairman.  The battle ended up before the Pope  who sided with Sheen.  Vexed because he lost the battle, Spellman pronounced that henceforth and for so long as Sheen were to live, Sheen could not deliver a homily in the archdiocese and had to remain silent about the order.  As a clergymen under Spellman’s control  Sheen had to be silent about this order throughout his life. END OF DIGRESSION.

          As a layman, Mike Voris cannot be shut up as was Sheen—which makes him the perfect militant fighter for  Catholic authenticism given the problems the Church has with weak, liberal, vacillating prelates today.

        Who is this guy who’s not just courageously fofrthright…in fact downright gutsy….in  defending the Church from enemies inside and without, primarily ecclesiastics and erring theologians who sway with the wafting of every liberal breeze?   I interviewed Voris, 49, when he was at O’Hare between planes and came away convinced that this ex-TV anchorman-producer-investigative reporter and theological scholar who earned his spikes at CBS and Fox News is just the ticket for us—especially in Chicago—who have endured decades of error, ecclesial winking as liberal politicians espousing abortion and gay marriage—trot up to receive Communion in obvious mortal sin but who are received….sometimes even honored….without question or criticism.

         Here in Illinois the list includes the most prominent Catholics in the state including the U. S.  Senate’s majority whip, the governor,  the attorney general, the controller,  the Chicago mayor, the president of the Cook county board—all Democrats….and the sure-to-be-elected female Republican candidate for controller, who prides herself on her Czech nationality, is a former state treasurer, state GOP chairman and 2006 Republican gubernatorial nominee a one-time pro-lifer, who served in the state House and Senate, switched when she perceived her popularity would benefit as result,  has since then voted and exhorted pro-abort and rides conspicuously in gay pride parades along with the Democrats.

                                                  Who is Michael Voris?

          Mike Voris is a former seminarian, single, who packed it in to become a CBS journalist in New York where he worked alongside Dan Rather (with whom Voris was not impressed) and as a muck-raking TV investigative reporter and anchor in several smaller cities.    The pay was much better than regular workaday scribes and he freely acknowledged to me that in those years he “lived a horrible life in an immoral cesspool.”   Throughout those years, his mother, like Augustine’s Monica, scolded, remonstrated with him and prayed mightily for her son—to no avail.   But his life turned around after a shock when his favorite brother, in the seeming bloom of health, dropped dead in his mid-40s. 

          So shaken out of his hedonist past, Michael packed  it in once again and resolved to use his finely-honed communications skills in eloquent support of  God and His Church.  Mike scooped up $700,000 of his savings and started a TV business with himself as an unabashedly militant but thoroughly responsible Catholic commentator…writing, researching, producing and performing in short erudite yet punchy TV commentaries for the Internet that would be sent out free to everyone who wishes to subscribe.  The theory is you subscribe and if you have a few bucks you chip in to keep the apostolate  going.    So far financially it’s tough going but Mike has the firm belief that God will see it through.

           His commentaries are from 2 to 5 minutes or so in length and he begins each one with the same words….”Welcome to the Vortex where lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed”….winding up each commentary with the crisp signature:  “This is Michael Voris.”

                Excerpts from Voris’ Commentaries: Straight—No Chaser.

           What are his topics?    His commentaries are sometimes pegged closely to the news involving Catholicism. Here is a segment that touched on two very different priests, two very different bishops.

          August 24.   “Well, now, here’s one that’s kind of strange…very indicative of the state of  the Church today. Two bishops…two priests…two very different cases.  Case No. 1…In Nashville, Tennessee a local priest garnered headlines when a video posted on the Internet of him saying that the Pope should apologize for Church teaching on contraception. The priest’s name is Joseph Patrick Breen. He has a reputation for being an outspoken liberal and his comments didn’t really come as a shock to anyone.

        “But they did prompt a quick reaction from Bishop David Choby who told Fr. Breen—retract what you have said publicly or face punishment.  Good for the bishop! Fr. Breen retracted.

       “Now let’s move a little farther south….the diocese of  El Paso where another priest went public about Church teaching also.  The case is the exact opposite of the Nashville case.   Fr. Michael Rodriguez wrote a column for the local secular paper where he forthrightly defended and  promoted Church teaching as regards homosexuality.  The case also prompted a rebuke from the local bishop—Armando Ochoa….who upbraided the priest indirectly saying Fr.Rodriguez’s `opinion’ didn’t reflect the necessary elements of  being  compassionate, tolerant, pastoral, inclusive, dignity, respect—in short every buzzword used by the liberal crowd to gloss over the real charitable need to say: Continuing in mortal sin leads to misery in this life and damnation in the next which is what Fr. Rodriguez was saying.

           “And please, skip the predictable line about well, we can’t say if they are in a state of mortal sin.  No we can’t—but we can and should say Stop doing what you’re doing because it’s evil and there’s a very good chance you may very well be in the state of mortal sin.  Why gamble like that with your eternal destiny?

         “What we see here in these two cases which happened in the past week is the very real dichotomy that exists in the Church today—renegade liberal priests shooting off their mouths in public and bishops using the  `charity’ argument as a skirt to hide behind when it comes to clearly and unambiguously proclaiming the teachings of  the  Church…

        “…When liberals speak about Church teaching you scratch your head. When non-liberals speak, it’s perfectly clear.   Such is the state of affairs in the Church today. Be careful when you listen to a priest or bishop. If you find yourself scratching your head, go somewhere else. I’m Michael Voris.”

                                 Decadent Culture Could Hasten Nation’s Demise.

          Another captures with poignant realism about the likely future if this nation doesn’t come to its senses and scrap the  hedonism that passes for contemporary culture.

       August 8.  “Sometimes we Catholics can get a little myopic in our vision….Does anyone who is a faithful Catholic really think that things are going to continue as they are indefinitely?  I don’t mean the end of the world   I mean the end of  this current world—the culture.  How long do any of us think that God will simply allow the current state of affairs to continue?  Millions upon millions of surgical abortions.  Sex having been debased for so long it’s now an acceptable industry. Families destroyed over sex—but not always.  Children left fatherless—and on and on.

        “Almighty God can address any situation any way He sees fit.    Sometimes, as in the days of Noah,  He intervenes directly and decidedly. Other times He allows nature to simply take its course.  If a society elevates pleasure and self-centeredness to the level of a god, then that society will ultimately fall apart.  That’s a law of the Universe. When cultures diminish themselves by killing off large portions of the next generation,  economies begin to stagnate.   When political leaders turn their thoughts to themselves at the expense of the governed, the establishment begins to break down.

       “The only guarantee to prevent this sort of thing is a good moral order. And a good moral order is only guaranteed by following Christ….We like many others see a culture committing suicide---and too many in the Church remaining  quiet about it.”

                                     The “Faith Only” Weakness of Protestantism.

        June 6.   “…If you want to completely waste your time, try talking about  faith with a committed Protestant…Let’s remember one very important fact. Protestantism is a heresy.  That does not mean that individual Protestants are heretics but the system of beliefs they subscribe to is a heretical system…

       “A friend invited  me to accompany him last night to the home of a dyed-in-the-wool Lutheran who he had been having some theological discussions with over at Facebook…In short here are some of his [the Lutheran’s] conclusions: As long as you believe in Jesus your works don’t affect your salvation. You can kill, hire prostitutes, rob banks and destroy property, die of a heart attack seconds later and you go to heaven.  What you do doesn’t matter.  Those examples, by the way, were his.

       “Another point of his: All believers are equally righteous.   When I asked him  if that made him equal to, say,  John the Baptist in heaven this very moment, he refused to answer the question.  He simply kept saying we’re all the same.  When we  got into Scripture discussions, he kept insisting that the Bible interprets itself.  To which I replied: Well, if  it’s self-interpreting why are we arguing about it?  Again, no reply.

       “…One of the last things I said to him was: `If Protestants, specifically Lutherans (since he was a Lutheran) are so right and if  Catholics are so wrong, why can’t  Lutherans agree even among themselves? After all, there are three major Lutheran churches.   One says the Bible is inerrant. The other supports abortion and homosexuality and women ministers.  The other is a strange hybrid of the other two.  His brilliant reply:  “Those Lutheran churches  are wrong!” To which I said:“You’re half right. All Lutheran churches are wrong.”

                                                    Modern Judaism.

       Most commentators on religious topics are skittish of offending Jews—although to be sure, none other than the  observant Norman Podhoretz in his recent book Why Are Jews Liberals?  says forthrightly that traditionalist Orthodox believers aside, most modern adherents have scrapped the original Torah for what Podhoretz calls Torah II which is nothing more than the entirety of the liberal precepts of the modern Democratic party.  He goes so far as to recall when Moses came down from the mountaintop with the Commandments and he found the Israelites worshiping the Golden Calf. God said “what a stiff-necked people!” Podhoretz  concludes that the Golden Calf for most of today’s Jews is the liberal Democratic party.   That conclusion stunned me.

         Voris pointed out that recently a very liberal Rabbi had said that a Jew can be an atheist and still be a Jew which, Voris said, that confirms that Jews are not just members of a religion but are recognized as an ethnic group.  That surprised me.  Here is Michael Voris on  Judaism.

       August 16.  “Now when we start looking at the Jewish faith some things pop out right away.  After the destruction of  the  Temple in 70AD by the Roman general Titus, the Jewish faith ceased being what it had  been up to that point. The major hallmarks of Judaism (the religion, remember we’re talking about) had been that they had a Temple and offered sacrifice.  The entire religion was focused  on this one singular point.  They also had a King and land which helped form them into a religious nation.  Once, however, the Romans had done their work the Jews as the religionists of the Covenant, no longer existed.

       “Gone was the Temple, Temple sacrifice and the Jewish priesthood.  These were the hallmarks, the essential non-debatable aspects, of being a religious Jew.  No Temple, no sacrifice, no priesthood, no Judaism.  What replaced it and what has come down to us today—Rabbinical Judaism.   This  is not the Judaism of the Covenant.  It is a man-made religion.”

          This will provoke some Jews as his words earlier provoke Protestants and some Catholics….no doubt about it.  The organization Catholic Answers has declined to continue to distribute his tapes because he has criticized some bishops. But you know where I stand after a serious encounter with a prelate last April who called me a hate monger while at the same time he had the archdiocese honor none other than Fr. Michael Pfleger as a crusader for social justice, the priest who stood before the store of a legally constituted and registered gun dealer and  bellowed through a megaphone “Come out or we’ll snuff you out! Come out of there or we’ll drag you out like the rat you are!” After he received the  award he gave a contrite sounding speech only to say the next day that the archdiocese had made him say those placating words.  So much for the archdiocese’s conception of social justice.

                                          RealCatholicTV.com’s Financial Support.

         I asked Michael at the conclusion of our interview if he has a Sugar Daddy. 

        He said “a what?”  I said  again: “A Sugar Daddy!   A Daddy Warbucks!”

        This prompted from him hearty laughter.  He said: Simply put there is no Sugar Daddy or Daddy Warbucks.  Supporters who appreciate his  work send in donations.  But there is no regular money-flow.  He himself supplies much of the capital needed from his own pocket which is rapidly diminishing. He is his own technological guru.   A tech guy works for such peanuts as is embarrassing—works there because  he believes Michael’s work is invaluable.   He has two highly skilled women who are almost  volunteers they are paid so little and with great infrequency.

           Tell you what. Whether you’re Catholic or Protestant or Jew go to his website and watch Michael and tell me what you think.  I think he’s terrific and just what  the Church needs.   

         1