https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/012392307
ADIOS.
Far less than meets the eye
- Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque
- Ecumenism is the Universal Solvent of Tradition .
Catechism of Perseverance on Resurrection
The reader will have to scroll down to read the entries so the red letters on the right side of the screen won't be captured by the copy and pastes
 |
Florida memorably described by the incomparable writer Shelby Foote
From "Fort Sumter to Perryville"
Florida described in the first sentence of this page.
Friday Fun
When Presley had showed up that morning at the White House — decked out in a purple velvet suit, a gold belt and a Colt. 45 pistol
This past Monday was the 44th year to the day that Dan Rather solemnly announced on national TV, Elvis has left the earth.
His last words were to his girlfriend Ginger Alden; I'm going to the bathroom to read.
He was reading, "The scientific search for the face of Jesus" when he pooped out his life on the toilet.
Although the media tried to cover for Elvis, because celebrity, and claimed he had no drugs in him, the post mortem toxicology report showed substantial amounts of Codeine, Morphine, Quaaludes, Valium and 10 other drugs.
The Medical Examiner said the cause of death was, Elvis was snorting bacon which clogged-up his breathing passages and caused his lymph nodes to go all blooey and that made his heart go on the Fritz.
The glove that Satchel Paige had with him when he was bouncing around on buses during his twenty years in The Old Negro League was in better shape than Elvis.
During a Probate hearing at the Shelby County (Memphis) Court House, The Medical Examiner was asked why Elvis didn't have a Will:
Beats me. Although Elvis was relatively young and often struck poses on stage that made many in the audience think he was some sort of Martial Arts expert, the plain and simple truth is that because that doper was so gooned on drugs any Sports Book in Vegas would have given you 3-1 odds that Andy of Mayberry's Aunt Bea would have beaten him in a cage match.
It makes ya think doesn't it?
https://time.com/4894301/elvis-president-nixon-photo/
Now THAT is American exceptionalism at its best.
Is Vatican Two binding? Not according to Vatican Two
APPENDIX ANNOUNCEMENT MADE BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE COUNCIL AT THE ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THIRD GENERAL CONGREGATION 16 NOVEMBER, 1964
A query has been made as to what is the theological qualification to be attached to the teaching put forward in the schema The Church, on which a vote is to be taken.
The doctrinal commission has replied to this query in appraising the modi proposed to the third chapter of the schema The Church:
As is self-evident, the conciliar text is to be interpreted in accordance with the general rules which are known to all. On this occasion the doctrinal commission referred to its Declaration of 6 March, 1964, which we reproduce here:
Taking into account conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present council, the sacred synod defined as binding on the Church only those matters of faith and morals which it has expressly put forward as such.
Whatever else it proposes as the teaching of the supreme Magisterium of the Church is to be acknowledged and accepted by each and every member of the faithful according to the mind of the Council which is clear from the subject matter and its formulation, following the norms of theological interpretation.
The following explanatory note prefixed to the modi of chapter three of the schema The Church is given to the Fathers, and it is according to the mind and sense of this note that the teaching contained in chapter three is to be explained and understood.
How to revolutionise The Catholic Church and make it as much like the world as possible.
Even before this, however, another meaningful occurrence which might be very useful for the research I have suggested, should be mentioned. I quote from the Spanish What's Up (Que Pasa?) magazine, Vol. VII, No. 363, of
December 12, 1970:
The famous and “regretfully” octogenarian Cardinal Ottaviani does not conceal his bitterness.
In its issue of Thursday, November 26, in three columns on the first and second pages, The Messenger (It Messagero) from Rome, published a sensational interview with His Eminence Alfred Cardinal Ottaviani. The report is accompanied by a large photograph of this venerable prince of the Church. . . .
According to the Pope’s November 24 Motu Proprio, beginning next January no eighty -year-old cardinal will be able to participate in the election of the Pontiff. Presently, these persons amount to twenty-five. Among them is
saintly Cardinal Ottaviani, who celebrated his eightieth birthday on October 29, 1970.
Question: What does His Eminence think about this decision of Paul VI?
Answer: More important than my personal opinion, which could be deemed biased because of my age, I should like to convey the feelings of
canons, prelates, and even renowned hierarchs who are unaware of the current problems of the Church. Undoubtedly they all are impressed by this unusual and expeditious way of enacting this grave disruption in the high
ecclesiastical hierarchy. This radical change was implemented without previous consultation with experts and specialists, at least to observe the formalities to a certain extent.
Question: Why did Your Eminence say "unusual?” Perhaps because no one expected such a big upsetting decision?
Answer: It is unusual that, through a Motu Proprio, without previous advice, the pages of the constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica and those of the Code of Canonical Law, which regulated the position of the cardinals, both as to the cooperation they owe the Pontiff for the rule of the world Church, and as to their most important ministry as top electors of the Head
of the Universal Church, are suppressed. This Motu Proprio then, is an act of abolition of a multicentennial tradition. It rejects the practice followed by all ecumenical councils. Regarding the age limit [the Most Eminent Cardinal spoke calmly and composedly, without any sign of uneasiness], should old age be respected, we would be able to sow the seed whose fruits
you yourselves would harvest. But here respect was laid aside. ... It is precisely the motivation of age which the Motu Proprio invokes to justify such a grave regulation. In fact, along the centuries, a principle was always
deemed immutable, namely, that old people are a firm safeguard of the Church and its best advisors, for they are rich in experience, wisdom, and doctrine. If, in a given case, these gifts were not present, it sufficed to examine the circumstances concerning this particular person to determine whether disease or mental disturbance made him inept, this check
belonging to skillful experts. In Holy Writ,” [the Most Eminent Cardinal was astonishingly bright], "the value of age and the aged are often mentioned. This shows how constructive are the cooperation and guarantee of advanced age in the administration of holy things and in right and efficient pastoral administration. In addition, let us not forget the glory of Pontiffs, who, in their old age, enlightened the Church with their wisdom and sanctity. Finally, when we cardinals are in our eighties, to our
credit is a curriculum vitae full of merits, experience, and doctrines at the service of the Church. The Church cannot afford to lose these advantages by accepting only the cooperation of younger and less-experienced people.
Question : Eminence, could not this discrimination of octogenarian cardinals by chance affect the Pontiff himself someday?
Answer: Certainly, for the same criterion must be analogically applied to the case of the sovereign Pontiff, be he an octogenarian or be his acts questioned due to age.
Question : Finally, Eminence: What was your impression about this decision of the Pope?
Answer: You will see. I felt flattered each time Paul VI, verbally or in writing, called me u il mio maestro ” (“my master”), but now this act of laying me aside completely is openly contradictory with his autographed letter of October 29. In that, he congratulated me for my eightieth birthday, using affectionate phrases and flattering felicitations for my long,
faithful, everyday services to the Church.
STATEMENTS BY CARDINAL TISSERANT
According to the November 27, 1970 issue of La Croix , 86-year-old Cardinal Tisserant, who enjoys full mental clarity and excellent physical health, answered questions on Italian Television (First Network). I quote La Croix:
Rarely had an interview attained such importance and contained such interesting information. In just three minutes, the audience was informed about the Pope’s critical health condition (“he had to be held up on the way out of his
Wednesday audience”), about the Cardinal’s excellent state of health, about Christ having founded His Church under the form of a monarchic state , and about the collegiality of the bishopric about which we have heard so much (“The
more it is mentioned, the less it is exercised”).
Apropos of Paul Vi’s decision to keep the election of the Pope in the hands of less-than-80-year-old cardinals, Cardinal Tisserant said he did not know the grounds thereof (though the Pontifical document stated them clearly), and that, undoubtedly, the Pope wanted to please young people , since “now, everybody
wants old people to disappear
Wednesday afternoon. Professor Alessandrini categorically denied the Cardinal’s words regarding the Pope’s health condition.
SOME COMMENTS BY FATHER RAYMOND DULAC
When Fr. Raymond Dulac was asked his opinion of Paul Vi’s decision to take away the right of voting in papal elections from cardinals 80 years and older, he made these statements:
This decision taking away the right of voting in the papal election from a whole category of cardinals, is an enormous decision. Until now, the most important part of their function was this right. It commands and effects their
beheading in the most accurate sense of this word; they keep their hats, but their heads are chopped off. This is what the ancient Romans called diminutio capitis, a lessening or amputation of their civil rights and, of course, of their personality.
Let us not forget that the statute creating the cardinals’ right to elect the Pope dates back to the year 1059; that during the arduous course of this thousand-year period of history this rule was never questioned; that the
“impediment” of advanced age has never prevented the creation of a cardinal or the continuing of a Pope once he became 80 years old, that it is contrary to the Catholic spirit and the Roman Tradition to suspend a law supported by such a time-honored custom without most grave reasons; and that this type of change,
affected by the Pope in 1970 in such a sudden, personal, and suspicious way, will
increase most people’s feelings of insecurity, instability, and the alienation which
has contributed to de-sacralizing the Church and loosening its customs.
Let us forget the inhuman, vain, vile aspects of this decision concerning the age of men whose sacerdotal ordination had separated them from mortal mankind as far as powers and dignities are concerned.
After this blow and all the others of the past five years designed to naturalize and laicize the clergy, how could one have the heart to keep on telling the ordained young priests: ”7u es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem
Melchisedech ?" Priest for all eternity? Of what order? Not of the carnal Levitical
tribe, but of the order of that astonishing, unique, ageless personage, Melchisedech, whose mystery is revealed in the Epistle to the Hebrews, verse 3 of Chapter 7: “Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having
neither beginning of days nor end of life, but likened unto the Son of God, continueth a priest forever.”
This all being over, today’s priest is just like an official who, in due course, is “retired,” with a life pension, like a Swiss guard.
Since Paul VI, without much of a preamble, has nullified a millenary legislation, it is important to know whether his Motu Proprio was not in fact, a Motu alieno.
This most unusual act is an act of personal might on the part of a Pontiff who, so far as others are concerned, keeps on covering himself with the curtain of collegiality. We are sure this act has not been free. Should it be proven that it was free, there will be no need to nullify this act; as a matter of right, it will be null and void
“For behold ... the Lord of hosts shall take away from Jerusalem, and from Juda . . . the strong man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the cunning . . . and the ancient. The captain over fifty, and the
honourable . , . and the counsellor . . . And I will give children to be their princes,
and , . . the child shall make a tumult against the ancient ; and the base against the
honourable (Is. 3:1-5). He who is able to understand let him understand [italics
added].
This is Paul VI, living contradiction. On the one hand, he affirms; on the other, he denies. Many times, without even preserving appearances, he destroys with facts what he has built with words. Let the reader remember what the
Pontiff wrote in his brief to Cardinal Lercaro when the Cardinal was almost eighty years old, wishing him a long life in the service of the Church. Then let him read the Motu Proprio, whereby he deprives octogenarian cardinals of their legitimate rights on grounds of age, not because of incapacity. Paul’s dialectics
are incomprehensible and plainly destructive.
Applying these dialectics, regulating our criteria by the principles of this Motu Proprio , we must conclude that the octogenarian Pontiff, John XXIII, was an inept pope, and his council was no real council, because, according to
Pope Montini, one’s reason quits functioning when one is eighty years old, and one is no longer able to receive the light of the Holy Ghost.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF GENOA , CARDINAL SIRI t SPEAKS
In order to decipher the enigma of the current Pontiff, I believe it to be extremely important to quote the courageous statements of Cardinal Siri, Archbishop of Genoa. He did not speak directly about Paul VI, but I believe
that what he said can be applied to Pope Montini:
1. Opinions Replace Truth .
In this world the first and fundamental doctrine of power consists of an affirmation that there is no truth. Saint Augustine said that the difference between the city of this world and the city of God consists of the former having a thousand opinions, while the latter has only one truth. The basic difference between both cities, therefore, is not based on the content, but on the very existence of truth. It suffices to remember the dramatic dialogue between Jesus and Pilate.
What is most grave is that there is a technique to replace truth by opinions.
This technique exists and is very useful. It suffices to look at present religious,
literary, and philosophical productions. Opinions can be so cautiously expressed that it is impossible to get to know what the author’s thesis is, or even more paradoxical, doctrines that are mutually contradictory are juxtaposed as if they were consistent.
Let us look at the words, “God is dead.’ 1 If the slogan were denial , everybody would be able to understand. However, here we have a subtly sophisticated idea through which “theologians” want to convey the deceitful
impression they are preserving the most assayed and chemically pure idea of
God . . . through its “identification” with the most profound reality of man.
Even the ambiguous terms “conservative” and “progressive” conceal the relativistic technique, which leads every doctrinal issue in the direction of right wing and left wing. Thus everything becomes relative; everything becomes a
matter of opinions and an instrument of power. Relativity of truth and doctrine is the actual goal of these arbitrary developments of the Church’s present problems.
Is not this measure, proclaimed even by bishops and cardinals among us, absurd and most unjust, as if it were an ideal to place us halfway between truth and error?
2. Is Gnosis Reappearing?
[To name the current errors in the Church, one speaks about a new Modernism and also the Protestantization of the Church, but the Archbishop of Genoa prefers to use the term Gnosis.]
Let it be remembered that Gnosis, with its appeal to science and higher speculation, with its eagerness to understand mystery and to naturalize the Faith, was, during the second century, perhaps the worst danger in all the history of the Church. I believe that the complex of errors circulating today can be called
Gnosis , systematically speaking. But ... do any people know what they are
talking about? This is terrible, but they do not!
One does not act on rational grounds, but on one’s excessive desire to adapt oneself to the world. Worldly power, however, has its own philosophy, and fashionable theologians translate fashionable opinions into theological language, not because they accept a doctrine as such, but because they accept these doctrines that flatter the powers of this world.
The present times are grave, not because it is no longer a question of opposition or contrast between truth and error, but between truth and non-truth, between the order of truth and the dictatorship of public opinion. People believe
they are free because this appears in juridical texts; as a matter of fact, this deceiving belief is evidence of their servitude.
Is the Church also under the despotism of public opinion? Perhaps not the Church, but certainly many people within the Church are. The Church could not be deprived of its freedom without the Holy Spirit’s provoking powerful
reactions. . . .
The altercation around the Council was not intended by John XXIII, who suffered profoundly as a result of it; of this I am a personal witness. The real Christian greatness of John XXIII consisted of the serene Christian manner by
which he humbly accepted his cross up until his death, fully realizing the tremendous gravity of the problems.
3. What is Most Urgent?
The most urgent work is to restore the distinction between truth and error in the Church. We have reached a point where any exercise of ecclesiastical authority is considered an abuse of freedom, as if authority were a denial of
freedom! A thousand illegitimate powers severely and systematically curtail the conscience and liberty of people at a superficial level, while at the deepest level they detach them from the truth contained in the sources of revelation and Magisterium, I hope that just and authorized distinctions will be forthcoming.
Pastoral authority is no art of compromise and concession, but the art of saving souls through the truth.
This truth is many times obscured by abusive liturgical deformations. Today dangerous losses are discovered in the essential. Not only is the rite sacred, but also the presence in the rite of the meaningful reality. Once the rite is mythologized the meaning of its contents is lost. No wonder that the Eucharist
becomes for some a mere feast of human unity where God is just a spectator. This is no longer heresy, but apostasy.
Right. The present situation in the Church is one of the most grave in its history, for this time the challenge does not come from outer persecution, but from inner perversion. This is very grave. But the gates of Hell will not prevail.
Sicked to death by "science"
To be sterilizing a vaccine must prevent infection. Since you never get infected you never replicate the virus and thus do not shed it. If you do not shed it the potential path of the viral life-cycle for that particular infection ends with you and thus you cannot pass on or cause a mutation. You are sterile against that disease; from the point of view of the virus you are a lifeless rock. Among commonly-used sterilizing vaccines are MMR (measles, mumps and rubella), Varicella (chicken pox), OPV (oral polio) and others. The only time that such a vaccine fails is when you do not build immunity (such as due to immune compromise.) This is extremely rare and the protection from such vaccines tends to be either decades-long or lifetime.
A vaccine that is not sterilizing permits the virus to infect you and replicate and as a result you can infect others. Technically it is not a vaccine at all (which by definition prevents infection); it is a prophylactic therapy. Such a "vaccine" instead acts to reduce or eliminate symptomatic disease. You don't know you're sick and you don't get sick. You don't go to the hospital and you don't die. Unfortunately since you don't know you're sick but are infected and the virus is both replicating in you and shedding you are more-likely to spread the infection to others. All of the current Covid jabs are in this category and so is, for that matter IPV (injected polio vaccine -- the original Salk discovery.)
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=243127
Washington D.C. A city named Rages
Washington D.C is a city ABS thinks ought be called Rages * (Tobias 1:16) because it is in rupture with even the Crummy Constitution.
Rages is populated with criminal lunatics; They eat the bread of wickedness, and drink the wine of iniquity (Proverbs 4:17).
Stay as far away from those deceivers, liars and lunatics as is humanely possible for all they have are the words of death and all they do are the deeds of devils.
* Ver. 16. Rages means "rupture," by frequent earthquakes, and was (M. C.) the residence of the Parthian kings, in spring, (Athen. xii. 2.) in the mountain, separating their country from Media.
Friday Fun
ABS was watching the History Channel yesterday and, surprisingly enough, there was a special being broadcast that had nothing to do with Hitler or the Nazis.
It was a show that investigated the origins of the descriptor WASP and how it was first applied to the Pilgrims.
It seems that when the Pilgrims crashed their ships onto Plymouth Rocks only a few made it to shore safely because most of their clothing had been weighed down by sea water and their wooden shoes had become filled with mussels, clams and oysters and because the Pilgrims were notoriously bad swimmers most of them drowned on the spot.
But not Miles Standish. He had shed his clothing and shoes and was wearing only his cabbage leaf underoos and his hat and so he was able to make it to shore.
The few women who did made it to shore had been in the water for the first time in decades and they were, for the most part, fat, ugly, stupid and smelly women whereas the Lil' Princess looked a lot like the imaginary mascot who used to grace the packaging of The Land O Lakes products except that she was not dressed like the modest maiden but, rather, was sporting a corset made out of a beaver pelt and whale bones that tended to set fire to the imagination of men.
The Pilgrims who did survive were not on dry land for more than two minutes before the CFO ("Chief" for short) of The Wampanoag Tribe came to introduce himself to the Pilgrim leader he later came to know was named Miles Standish;
Wadup Milkface and why are you staring so intently at my Lil' Princess?
Ignoring all of the corn cobs protruding from the pockets of his deer skin outfit and barely even glancing at the Turkey Feathers gleaming in the sun of The CFO's gigantic head dress, Miles Standish started to stammer and stutter and The Chief looked below the Baby Seal Head Buckle of Standish's belt and sarcastically said to one of his braves an injun phrase that French Jesuit Missionaries later told the new world squatters could be roughly translated as, Pilgrim WASP.
Pilgrim With A Stiff Penis.
The oubliette of obloquy
After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
Bertold Brecht was prophetic. America is replacing its population with ill immigrants whose IQ is lower than its citizens.
Totalitarians desire a dumb malleable population of serfs whom they can order around and any free man who publicly objects to these mendacious and malevolent plans will be forced into the oubliette of obloquy.
Brecht also wrote some great music including this cool song sung by THE greatest pop singer ever
Silenced to Triumph. John Courtney Murray Triumphs at the 60s, Synod.
The Holy Office silenced Murray owing to his (false; heretical really) ideology of religious liberty.
«Four Erroneous Propositions»
It is now possible to identify the propositions censured by the Holy Office. In the Roman diary of Joseph Clifford Fenton and in the papers of Francis Connell can be found the following text:
PROPOSIZIONI DOTTRINALI ERRONEE
a) The Catholic confessional State, professing itself as such, is not an ideal to which organized political society is universally obliged.
b) Full religious liberty can be considered as a valid political ideal in a truly democratic State.
c) The State organized on a genuinely democratic basis must be considered to have done its duty when it has guaranteed the freedom of the Church by a general guarantee of liberty of religion.
d) It is true that Leo XIII has said: «(. ..) civitates C..) debent eum in colendo numine morem usurpare modumque quo coli se Deus ipse demonstravit velie» (Ene. Immortale Dei). Words such as these can be understood as referring to the State considered as organized on a basis other than that of the perfectly democratic State but to this latter strictly speaking are not applicable.
A convergence of arguments enables one to conclude that this set of censured propositions is in fact the text sent to Murray.
First, they are the work of the Holy Office. Fenton received them from Cicognani at the Apostolic delegation on October 28, 1954, and he immediately added: «Sicut in alia materia adfuit SOFTHO», which I take to mean: «As in the other material there was the Secret [or Seal] of the Holy Office». In Connell's papers the same text is found in an envelope on which is typed: «Under the seal of the Holy Office».
https://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/jak-silencing-of-jc-murray.pdf
It appears to ABS that what The Holy Office silenced Murray for was what was produced by the progressives (Dignitatis Humanae) at The 60s Synod.
John Carlos and Tommie Smith made the world kill the Jewish athletes in Germany
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/articles/olympic-athletes-who-took-a-stand-593920/
https://www.britannica.com/event/Munich-Massacre
Perhaps a couple of dozen of his grills fell from the wall of a storage container and brained him.
Or, maybe Messrs Smith and Carlos were responsible for terrorists killing Jews at the Germany Olympics.
The silence of putative conservatives in the face on Unconstitutional tyranny
The United States Constitution is supposed to be the basic rule of law in America for politicians and citizens but for quite a while now elected officials in the Federal and State Governments have been in direct violation of the Constitution and nobody - least off all the ACLU which is silent because supporting tyranny - is pointing this out.
You will not hear complaints about these Constitutional violations on
ABC
CBS
NBC
MSNBC
CNN
NPR
FOX
because they all have us arguing amongst each other about the "science."
All of that is irrelevant to the matter of the violations of the Constitution and the money owed to the owners of the businesses shuttered by the Federal Government and State Governments.
Especially deficient in not shrieking about these tyrannical violations of The Constitution and demanding they be immediately stopped and restitution be made are the I-Never-Leave-Home-Without-A-Copy-Of-The-Constitution-In-My-Pocket conservatives.
Here are the relevant Constitutional Amendments bearing directly on these tyrannical violations.
First, for the Federal Government:
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-v/clauses/634
Secondly, for the State Governments:
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.
Obviously, when the Federal Government and The State Government officials are ordering some businesses be shuttered that is a taking of personal property in that it is denying the owner of each individual business the ability to make money on their legitimate and legal enterprise - so - they owe those owners financial compensation to make them whole.
Both levels of government must stop the tyranny and make restitution and putative conservatives must begin to act in defense of our Constitutional rights and stop arguing about "science."
The Bible on politicians
Six things there are, which the Lord hateth, and the seventh his soul detesteth: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that deviseth wicked plots, feet that are swift to run into mischief, A deceitful witness that uttereth lies, and him that soweth discord among brethren.
Come on ABS . Do you really expect us to believe that Proverbs 6 refers to current American politicians?
Yes, and thank you for the question pretend interlocutor.
Lets take in order the six things God hates and see if what God hates does not pertain to the current crop of Congress Critters:
1. Haughty eyes?
2. A lying tongue?
3. Hands that shed innocent blood?
4. A heart that deviseth wicked plots?
5. Feet that are swift to run into mischief?
6. A deceitful witness that uttered lies?
Yes, all six of those behaviors are present in the current crop of crummy congress critters.
Well, then ABS, surely you are not going to say that God's soul detests him that sows discord among brethren?
Thank you for that follow-up question pretend interlocutor It is a rhetorical question, right?
They have near total control
They (and by “They” ABS means totalitarians – scratch a liberal and you will reveal one) have near total control to the point where Tucker Carlson can now safely begin to bitch about Unconstitutional actions by the government knowing that he will be allowed to exist as a sort of safety valve through with the anger and angst of a diminishing number of Americans can be dissipated.
More than a score of years ago Joe Sobran wisely noted that anything called a government program was UnConstitutional but because the pros of propaganda (Media) were so persuasive in splitting Americans into ideological camps that warred with each other over trivial policy differences between The Stupid Party and The Evil Party, government was free to grow to the point that it made a Leviathan seem a (Newton) minow by comparison.
Yogi Berra was wrong when he said it ain’t over til it’s over.
It is over and it was over for America when the tyrant Lincoln was allowed to assassinate America before he was assassinated right back.
ABS even knows some people who continue to vote, thinking they “make a difference.” They don’t.
C’est la vie.
http://www.sobran.com/articles/tyranny.shtml
Friday Fun
The more one considers medical schools and what is taught there the less surprising it is to learn that even though he was awarded a Degree in Surgery, Amateur Brain Surgeon was allowed to maintain his amateur status.
Although as an amateur it made it more difficult for him to get permission from Lion Country Safari to do exploratory surgery on Spider Monkeys, he persisted because, as he explained in his interview, even if he made some major surgical error that resulted in weird behavior, that would made it more likely than not that weird behavior would increase the popularity of that exhibit and citing his profession as an Amateur Brain Surgeon on his IRS Forms is less problematic than had he called his own self a Professional Amateur Brain Surgeon which would likely trigger an audit.
+++++++++++++++++++
OK, What'n'Hell is it with putatively professional talk show hosts who can not even pronounce names that appear on the screen as they are mocking them?
The Old Ways vs The New Wave
Pope Paul VI had this to observe about the old ways vs the new wave during his General Audience on March 17, 1965
What do people think about the reform of the liturgy? . . . First, there are those that give evidence of a degree of confusion and therefore of uneasiness. Until now people were comfortable; they could pray the way they wished; all were quite familiar with the way the Mass proceeded. Now on all sides there are new things, changes, surprises: it has even gone so far as to do away with ringing the Sanctus bell. Then there are all those prayers that no one can any longer find; standing to receive Communion; the end of the Mass cut off abruptly after the blessing. Everyone makes the responses; there is much moving about; the prayers and the readings are spoken out loud. In short, there is no more peace, things are understood less than before, and so on. We shall not criticize these views because then we would have to show how they reveal a poor understanding of the meaning of religious ceremonial and allow us to glimpse not a true devotion and a true appreciation of the meaning and worth of the Mass, but rather a certain spiritual laziness which is not prepared to make some personal effort of understanding and participation directed to a better understanding and fulfillment of this, the most sacred of religious acts, in which we are invited, or rather obliged, to participate.
Is there any better way to have actualised the purposes of the new wave than to have ordered the Presider to exchange high fives with Parishioners as he jogged down through the worship space and then when he took his place behind the table facing the congregation he could yell:
Let's get this piety started.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)