Category Archives: culture

“Pope Struggles to Contain Conservative-Liberal Tensions in Catholic Church”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the headline on a Wall Street Journal article about the purported struggles of Pope Francis to manage the church of which he’s the nominal [sic] head.

For me, though, as a personally religious man who’s neither a Catholic nor enamored of institutional religion in general, I’m confused by this struggle.

How can there be any struggle? Why are the tensions accepted as something to be taken seriously?

The Church’s tenets are inviolate; morals are universal and inviolate.

All that might vary over time or across cultures is the way in which those tenets, morals generally, are upheld, defended, and enforced.

The Pope needs to consider putting his foot down and enforcing—in no uncertain terms—the Church’s fundamental tenets.

That might cause a schism? Possibly. Likely, even. But there’s a major so what here. Sure, the schism itself would be painful and badly inconvenient. However, the Church has grown stronger after every schism. Christianity has grown stronger since the Catholicism-Protestantism schism.

At worst, after any schism from Francis’ putting his foot down, the Church would be rid of those who can’t support Catholic tenets and would have a clearer path forward. And those who can’t support those fundamental Catholic holdings would be free to create and support their own church with their own clearer path.

Sort of like the Church of England, for all the shabby reason for its origin.

Kancel Kulture

Posted on by
Reply

The cowardly cancelists at Gannett Company have joined to crowd under the bed. They’ve decided to cancel the comic strip Mallard Fillmore, which does satire and along the way ridicules the golden calves of the Left.

The causes of the cancelation are two strips that the comic’s writer/drawer published on 19 and 20 February. I’ve reproduced them here so readers can see the depth of cowardice of the wonders at Gannet.

The 19 Feb strip:

The 20 Feb strip:

The horror.

Another Model for Election Integrity Legislation

Posted on by
Reply

A short time ago, I posted a model out of Georgia that that State was enacting to protect the integrity of its election process, including its role in Federal elections. Here’s another model, this one from Arizona. This one, a collection of separate bills (what an innovation: small bills covering a single subject, instead of one huge, unreadable “omnibus” bill):

  • HB2792, which will prohibit the mass mailing of ballots to voters who have not requested one—and enforce the provision by making it a class five felony to violate it
  • HB2569, aims to prohibit the private funding of election activities. … Zuckerberg-funded nonprofits in turn “influenced the process for how elections go,” [State Representative Jake (R), who led the legislation’s passage,] Hoffman said. “And that is a bridge too far … that is something that we absolutely do not want.”
  • Other measures prohibit same-day voter registration, require hand count audits to be statistically significant with a 99% confidence level, and prevent government officials from modifying statutorily prescribed election deadlines—as was seen in many states ahead of last November’s election. [And which was a plain violation of our Federal Constitution.] The bill adds a class 6 felony for any violation of the latter provision.

The legislation now is in front of the Arizona Senate.

Imagine that—States in our federal governance structure moving to protect the sanctity of a citizen’s vote.

Contempt

Posted on by
Reply

California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) is marshalling his forces to combat the effort to recall him from the State’s governorship that’s well in progress.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT):

Right-wing Republicans in CA are trying to recall @GavinNewsom for the crime of telling people to wear masks and for listening to scientists during COVID. Extremist Republicans have done enough to undermine democracy already.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D, MA):

In a naked partisan power grab, extreme right-wing Republicans are trying to recall @GavinNewsom.

They also generally make the claim that Newsom’s “crime” is insisting on wearing masks and “following science.” Except that both he is not following the science. Actual science demonstrates that only the truly old and those with comorbidities are the ones at risk. Empirical data—the foundation of science—demonstrate that lockdowns, especially of the sort that Newsom is trying to keep imposed, are far more damaging, to physical and mental health as well as to economic health.

This is a mark of how far Left the Progressive-Democratic Party has gone, that they argue with a straight face that mainstream Americans are extremist.

It’s also a mark of the utter contempt that the Progressive-Democratic Party has for ordinary Americans.

Remember this in the fall of 2022.

The Left’s Assault on the Sanctity of Each American’s Vote

Posted on by
Reply

That assault is embodied in the Progressive-Democratic Party’s HR-1 bill that the House passed on cynical Party lines and sent along to the Senate. The extent of the assault was laid out by Hans von Spakovsky, one-time Federal Election Commission Commissioner ande former counsel to DoJ’s Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, in a Sunday Fox News editorial.

  1. It would eviscerate state voter ID laws that require a voter to authenticate his identity. Indeed, it would force states to allow anyone to vote who simply signs a form saying that they are who they claim they are.
  2. It would make absentee ballots even more insecure than they already are. Not only could states not apply any ID requirement to absentee ballots, they could not enforce any witness signature or notarization requirement.
  3. It would worsen the problem of inaccurate registration rolls. HR 1 severely restricts the ability of states to take the basic steps necessary to maintain the accuracy of their voter rolls, such as comparing their lists with those of other states or using the US Postal Service’s National Change of Address System to find individuals who have moved.
  4. It would take away your ability to decide whether you want to register to vote. Instead, it requires states to automatically register individuals who interact with state agencies.
  5. It would force states to allow online registration, opening up the voter registration system to massive fraud by hackers and cybercriminals.
  6. It imposes onerous new regulatory restrictions on political speech and activity, including online and policy-related speech, by candidates, citizens, civic groups, unions, corporations and nonprofit organizations.
  7. It would authorize the IRS to investigate and consider the political and policy positions of nonprofit organizations when they apply for tax-exempt status. (Sort of like ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) IRS did.)
  8. It would set up a public funding program for candidates running for Congress. This would force taxpayers to subsidize (by a 6 to 1 ratio of taxpayer dollars per individual dollar) the political campaigns of individuals they may vehemently disagree with and wouldn’t vote for in a million years.

And don’t count on Senator Joe Manchin (D, WV) to stand in the way of eliminating the filibuster so the Senate Progressive-Democrats also can pass this on a Party-line vote. We’ve seen the value of his word regarding Republican input.