Monthly Archives: April 2012
Something is happening in this once proud country. If not an awakening – we are far away from that – a refusal to become completely asleep to Christianity, and reason.
The Coalition For Marriage is now happily sailing toward half a million signatures. For an initiative never mentioned on the BBC or Classic FM (5 million listeners a day, the latter; and a news desk drowning in socialist champagne) and supported mainly by internet tam-tam and mailing lists, there’s enough to deprive a giant like Margaret Thatcher of sleep, let alone a pigmy like Cameron.
Cameron’s problem is that part of his party insists in not wanting to become Liberal-Democrat and seems, rather, intentioned to remain Conservative. This is a big problem for him, because if they wake up to the fact they are Conservatives, they’ll realise he isn’t.
On the matter of so-called “gay-marriage” (by which an allegedly Conservative government started to sound proposal not even about the if, but about the how of the measure; if they’re Conservatives, I must be Muslim) things seem not to go very well for our dear Chameleon.
It would appear Tory MPs are terrified, and are imploring – or rather, demanding – that Cameron allows the thing to die quietly, with the least possible loss of face.
This is a typical English way: in theory I want to do something, in practice I let it be. This way, I try to smuggle myself as the right guy for both camps. Alas, I doubt it will work for Cameron, because he is now damaged goods among his own MPs, who slowly start to realise prostitution doesn’t let you stay in power for long, and it’s bad for your soul.
The “warnings that a Tory rebellion in the Commons would eclipse last year’s EU referendum revolt, when 81 Conservatives defied the Prime Minister” is perfectly credible, as whoever follows British politics knows Cameron went out of the confrontation as damaged goods, with his reputation as leader shattered and now firmly in the viewfinder of the (really) conservative wing of the party.
MPs have been so stunned by the scale of the protests that a secret group has been set up by Tory MPs at Westminster to force Mr Cameron to back down. Many of the MPs admit that the ‘avalanche’ of letters from the Tory grass-roots was forcing them to change their views.
This is embarrassing but, I think, credible. Tory MP have been stunned at knowing there are still Christians around, and at the discovery they are still enough to make them unemployed. Some of them, not having morals of their own, have decided to embrace the morals of their constituents, as their jobs depend on them. Therefore, they have told Cameron he should stop being silly, and pretend to believe in God once in a while.
A Tory MP put it this way:
‘It is clear from both my postbag and the Coalition for Marriage petition… that a significant body of opinion in our city and up and down our country share my views.’
On occasion of the Feast of St. Pius V, you may want to feast your eyes on Quo Primum, the Apostolic Constitution with which the great, great, great Pope Saint Pius V promulgated his Missal in 1570 and established its ambit of application.
We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.
Pope Saint Pius V apparently didn’t do “encouragement” much. He doesn’t suggest, he commands. The language is brutally frank: the priest “must not presume”, other rubrics and rites are to be “completely discarded”.
We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription – except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing.
Note here how the Pope protects not only the Liturgy from bad priests, but the priests from bad bishops: No one can be forced or coerced to alter the missal. Also note the extremely strong words: this present document cannot be revoked or modified. Don’t ask me what I think this great Pope would think of the liturgical reforms of the Sixties…
We decree that, after We publish this constitution and the edition of the Missal, the priests of the Roman Curia are, after thirty days, obliged to chant or read the Mass according to it; all others south of the Alps, after three months; and those beyond the Alps either within six months or whenever the Missal is available for sale. Wherefore, in order that the Missal be preserved incorrupt throughout the whole world and kept free of flaws and errors, the penalty for nonobservance for printers, whether mediately or immediately subject to Our dominion, and that of the Holy Roman Church, will be the forfeiting of their books and a fine of one hundred gold ducats, payable ipso facto to the Apostolic Treasury
Splendid again: a very short time for the implementation of the new Missal, after it has become available. Similarly, the immediate threat of hefty fines for the transgressors.
Spot the differences with Summorum Pontificum…
Reblog of the day
Reading around about the SSPX-Vatican talks, I can’t avoid making a couple of small considerations as follows:
1) It would seem there are some people who think if the SSPX does not agree with the Vatican, they will be declared schismatics.
This reasoning – very similar to those of the cave-in Catholics, though in this case some might be in good faith – is in my eyes fundamentally flawed. Being schismatic or orthodox is not something depending from the humour of the Pope of the day, much less – if we have a modicum of esteem for the current Pope – a matter object of emotional handling: if you do not agree with me now, I’ll declare you schismatic. Thank God, even the post-Vatican II Church is much better than this.
The Vatican cannot and will not declare the SSPX schismatic, because the Church cannot declare Herself schismatic…
View original post 919 more words
This good priest from realcatholic.tv is on fire.
Notice the cassock.
Rorate Caeli has an interesting article mentioning Cardinal Siri’s take on the abandonment of the cassock.
I have written about it in the past, but would like to make some points again:
1) It is not true that the habit doesn’t count. The habit counts a lot. The habit reminds the priest all the time of who he is. This happens by all kinds of “uniform”, at the point that “to wear the uniform” is strictly identified with, say, military identity. You are, therefore you wear, and when a priest tries to look as if he wasn’t one, I wonder how much he wants to be one.
2) The clerical habit (specifically: the cassock; the real, authentic clerical garb of the Catholic priest) is also a form of social control for the priest. If a priest has the habit of going out without his, well, habit, and no one really notices, it will be much easier for him to go unnoticed in the wrong places, or to frequent the wrong people (like prostitutes, or so-called “gay saunas”). If the public expects to see him in cassock everytime he is seen at all, all this will become a much more difficult exercise, and in case of discovery there will be no defence possible:whoever sees the priest in “plain clothes” in another part of town will have strong reasons to suspect the man is up to no good.
3) The clerical garb (best of all: the cassock) reminds everyone (not only the priest) that his wearer is detached from the world. The priest wanting to be seen as “one of the others” is ipso facto betraying his role as a priest, even in those cases (which I assume will be a minority) in which his refusal to wear clerical garb is due to a well-intentioned, if ill-thought pastoral zeal. The priest is not of this world. He is there to remind us of the other one. The more he identifies himself with this life, the less will be able to do his job concerning the next one.
Not only must the Church insist on the priests wearing clerical garbs, but if you ask me the Church should insist on the Priest wearing the cassock whenever practicable. Don Camillo rode a bicycle and a light motorcycle with a cassock, and it worked rather well.
Besides, no priest is so despised as the one who wouldn’t want to be one.
I do not know whether I am the only one, but the concept of “patience” as practised in the Vatican corridors seems rather odd to me.
Whenever heresies or grave acts of disobedience arise, the Church reacts with such slowness, in comparison a sloth looks like Usain Bolt. The thinking here appears to be that one doesn’t have to rush things, and “the Church has always time”, and “the Church thinks in centuries, not years”.
But then one wonders why the same thinking is applied so selectively. If there is so much time, and the Church thinks in centuries, why was the battle against abortion not started, and aggressively so, when abortion legislation swept the Free World?
“Ah, this is because the Church is attentive not to engage her weight in battles she knows are lost”, is the mantra I used to hear in years past. The reasoning goes that if you fight against abortion and lose, then you’ll lose leverage when you fight against….. I don’t know exactly what, as in the last forty years I haven’t seen much of a fight anyway, unless it was for popular causes (we have now Popes engaged for the environment, for example; a rather novel concept, if you ask me).
My question then is: if the Church has time, and thinks in centuries, wouldn’t this be a wonderful reason to engage in all kind of battles, particularly those who would seem lost to this generation?
It is very, very seldom, that important societal changes take place overnight. Even when events take place in rapid succession (take the French revolution, or the October one) it is plain to see the events have leavened for decades before the revolutionary outbreak. What we can clearly see is that even the Church cannot hope to introduce or re-introduce important societal changes unless a long, patient work is started, which then goes on for generations if needs be.
The battle against abortion is such one; the one against contraception another; the one against sodomy a third, and the one against euthanasia a fourth one.
I get seldom as angry as when I read, on comments written around, that a certain battle is lost. Lost, my foot! No battle is ever lost with the Holy Ghost on your side. But we have to have the courage to fight, and the determination to carry the fight in our graves and transmit it to the following generation if needs be.
How was this called? O yes…
Interesting article on the National Review Online. The idea of the article is that the polls saying the Catholics were more and more inclined to disobey their bishops in matter of homosexuality ended when the controversy on the HHS mandate. As the author eloquently puts it:
[Cafeteria Catholics ] do not take kindly to being bullied by bishops, but — and here’s the shock to the Obamaites — they also don’t much like it when bishops are bullied by someone else. Nobody likes a bully, and Obama showed himself to be one in this controversy.
Leaving aside for a moment I don’t think the US bishops bullied anyone, and if they did they did it with the Truth, which can never be “bullying”, I would add my own personal interpretation to the matter.
In my eyes, something slightly different appeared. If you ask me, a cafeteria Catholic is more like a dormant orthodox Catholic, who is so poorly instructed – by his own clergy – that he thinks it natural to be allowed to question Catholic teaching; when he is properly informed about it, that is.
The Cafeteria Catholic thinks so, because this is the world he sees everywhere around him, and he was never taught to stop and reflect Christianity doesn’t work that way.
At some point, though, this will end. At some point, the bishops will stand and will tell them what is what, in no uncertain term. At this point many dormant Catholics will become real ones, because few organisations have power over their own followers as the Catholic church, when the clergy only does the work properly.
I have no doubt whatever that, if the effort continues unabated, at least 10% of those (soi-disant) Catholics who would have voted for B. O. will ditch him on this matter only. This might, alone, be fatal to him. More importantly, I think that 10 or 15 years of continuous hammering about these themes will cause the Church to gain an extremely strong support among Catholics about all main moral issues, as young people become voters and old hippies fill the graves.
The Jesuits re-conquered Poland to Catholicism in one generation, and made such a thorough work of it that the consequences are felt to this day.
The Church is an extremely powerful aircraft carrier. If the people in charge want to use it.
Reblog of the day
Those who have read me for some times know that whilst my attitude toward salvation is probably – in line with my Mediterranean upbringing – more relaxed than the apocalyptic concept of some, particularly Northern European, hard-liners, I still do not indulge in complacency as far as salvation is concerned.
I obviously do not subscribe to any of the childish heresies of Medjugorje (not recognised by the Church as worthy of belief), but I am not a fan of the devotion of the Divine Mercy (recognised as worthy of belief) either. I love to think that the faciloneria of so much post V-II thinking (= the departed was such a fun chap, therefore God certainly called him to Himself to enjoy the jokes and it is well-known that in Hell Stalin, Hitler and Pol-Pot need Satan if they want to play a hand of poker) has not polluted me.
View original post 1,542 more words
I was made aware, some time ago, of the televised debate between Cardinal Peel and that man Dawkins. I started to listen to it but I couldn’t go on once I realised it was the usual vulgar televised debate with the mob cheering and booing. I was, in fact, surprised a Prince of the Church (more importantly: one on the right side)would consent to such a circus instead of making clear the matter between faith and atheism is a) not subject to debate, and b) not subject to booing anyway.
It turned out, though, something worse than this happened. For reasons unknown to me – and frankly astonishing – Cardinal Pell seems – as you can see in detail from the description given in Michael Voris’ video above – to have express some kind of tolerance of understanding for homo-relationships.
Whilst he was cut and the listeners couldn’t hear his reasoning to the end – which alone tells you what kind of “debates” these are – more worrying is the fact the Cardinal didn’t feel the need to say what he meant afterwards.
Now, yours truly is a simple and stubborn person. If he knows some teaching belongs to the deposit of faith, and some debater of him points out the Pope has just said the contrary, I will just answer “than the Pope was wrong on this matter”, and that’s the end of it. But not everyone is so simple, or so stubborn, as your truly, and when a well-known conservative prelate like Cardinal Pell is taken in off-side they might well be confused.
Voris does, as almost always, an excellent job by reminding everyone that no matter how popular a conservative Cardinal you are, when you’re dead wrong you’re dead wrong; he gently suggest the Cardinal should say a word or three on the matter.
I think he’s absolutely right, and I think the Cardinal owes an explanation not only to the faithful Catholics all the world over, but to himself.
1. Leadership Conference of Women Religious
2. Lesbian Conference of Women Religious
3. Lesbian Cretinous Women Religious
4. Lesbian Cretinous Witches Religious
5. Lesbian Cretinous Witches Retarded
I was very uncertain and visited the site to know what is what.
I was greeted by the phrase “we embrace our time as holy”.
Yep, it must be 5.
Reblog of the day
Please imagine (I won’t show you the video, and you’re welcome) a so-called work of art depicting the Last Supper as a homosexual orgy. Not something highly symbolic and abstract, mind; no, I am talking of shocking realism here; with nude bodies, penises dangling around and all the rest you can, at least in part, imagine.
I can’t express with words the disgust that I prove for people who are able to even conceive such kind of blasphemy. The fact that I chose not to link to the video is, I believe, evidence enough that this is truly strong tobacco; but if any of you really, really want to see it, gloria.tv has the story and more than one video.
It turns out that the author of such (never word was more appropriate) entartete Kunst, or degenerate art, is Alfred Hrdlicka, a self-confessed (gloria tv again) “Atheist, Communist and…
View original post 444 more words
Please be strong and look at this video, at least for a while (hat tip to Rorate Caeli).
Notice the priest of dubious virility, the din at Mass, the entire travesty he makes of it.
You may also want to know that the bunny in fact reads the bidding prayers. One of them is along the lines of:
“Give those who are in charge within the Church the courage to tackle problems and difficult questions and to look for new ways of solving them”
This being Austria, I don’t think it is difficult to understand what this is aimed at. I haven’t finished to hear the prayers, as the adrenaline had reached a dangerous level.
In the meantime, all these children will grow up thinking Mass is a circus where they can laugh out loud. I wonder if they will take it seriously when they grow up?
The effeminate priest reminded me instantly of the one I had the displeasure of seeing in action in Bruges. Am I the only one noticing that a certain type of priest is the readiest to embrace heterodoxy?
If you forget a moment the Protestant lexicon of the man (the “personal relationship with Christ” always lets me think they have Him down for an afternoon tea and a cigar every Tuesday and Thursday) this man has guts. He speaks Christian truth and puts, if not today certainly in the future, his job on the line.
Hear him, literally, lecturing the members of the Omaha City Council about the Christian values which, alone, are going to allow them to reason the right way. He even allows himself a couple of rather strong words, and his praising them for the “courage” and strong conviction they must have in going against the Lord is also very ironic. Thankfully, he is Black, so everyone (particularly if White) will think twice before he trashes him.
Kudos to this intelligent, courageous, rather ironical man. He’d make a good convert, methinks.
I know you would expect something from people able to fanatically follow the violent rants of a child rapist, but this is really too much: there is a bill initiative in Egypt proposing the right for a husband to have sexual intercourse with his dead wife. In pure politically correct, Western style (perverts are the same everywhere) this is called “farewell intercourse law”.
It isn’t a joke. I mean, it might not be. Unless someone has conned us of course.
Assuming this is not a joke (1st April has passed) one must really say these Muslims do perversion almost as well as Peter Tatchell.
We had a trusted ally in Egypt. A safe man. Not a saint of course, but one sure to be on our side, and one sure to keep in check the fanatics, too.
He was thrown to the dogs to please Obama’s populism.
These are the results.
Reblog of the day
Brilliant blog post on “Ite Ad Thomam” about Modernism vs. Neo-Modernism. The blog post (the blog is run by strictly orthodox Thomist theologians) is particularly notable because its rigorous exam of the evil of Neo-Modernism doesn’t stop at the extremists, put points the finger to the widespread corruption of traditional Catholic thinking still present today in the very heart of the Church.
The summa divisio is between Modernism and Neo-Modernism.
The first is defined as follows:
Modernism is the idea that there are no eternal truths, that truth is the correspondence of the mind with one’s lifestyle (adaequatio intellectus et vitae), and that, therefore, old dogmas must be abandoned and new beliefs must arise that meet ‘the needs of modern man’. This is a radical denial of the traditional and common sense notion of truth: the correspondence of the mind with reality (adaequatio intellectus et rei), which is the basis…
View original post 704 more words
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
C. S. Lewis
Yep, a great Proddie, this one.
Kudos to the looking spoon
40 years of scandal and open abomination.
May God forgive the Bishops and Popes who have allowed, and continue to allow, all this.
Mr Alan Shatter is a funny guy. Or a very ignorant one. As he is a member of the Irish cabinet, the second hypothesis is far, far more probable.
In the usual attempt of politicians – particularly irish politicians, these days – to make himself beautiful with the Irish masses, chappie goes on record with the following pearls of wisdom:
“As someone who doesn’t frequent confession, I don’t know what information people share in confessions,”
The fact that one doesn’t go to confession is, here, clearly irrelevant. What is relevant is that a politicians who wants to talk about confession is supposed to know what he is talking about. Mr Shatter is blessedly unaware of this. He doesn’t know the 101 of confession. To give some air to his teeth is satisfaction enough. This chaps seems to have come out from an episode of “The Thick of It”.
“I would expect that if there was someone going to confession who was a serial sex abuser, I don’t know how anyone could live with their conscience if they didn’t refer that to the gardai [police].”
This great proof of arrogance – and, again, ignorance – is the direct consequence of what we have seen above: if the chap hasn’t the faintest of what he is talking about, it is conceivable that he might say something so unbelievably stupid as that a priest couldn’t live with his conscience unless he breaks the seal of confession. Seriously, if this man isn’t astonishingly ignorant, he is a cretin with few peers even among Irish politicians.
Not content with this self-inflicted double whammy, chappie goes on to reportedly state
that 1998 legislation that mandates the report of murder, kidnapping, and bank robberies does not have an exemption for priests who hear confessions.
after which the Irish Justice department has to intervene and try to save his face – insofar as humanly possible – making clear the matter be “unclear”.
Mr Shatter therefore proves to be of such stellar ignorance, that he is an embarrassment not only for every intelligent person, but even for his government; of being so arrogant, or so lazy, he doesn’t even consider it fitting to properly inform himself before he exercises his tongue; and so vain, as to have in mind only the headlines he would unavoidably make.
Gosh, this must be an Irish politician.
Reblog of the day
We live, as you all know, in “strange and disturbing times”. Christianity is challenged all over the West and whilst in the United States the fight to take back our Christian values already rages, in old and tired Europe the attitude is rather one of resignation, ignorance, and apathy. This has in part to do with the demographics (every European travelling to a big city in the United States would, I think, soon notice the difference; it is like being in a small European university city like Cambridge, or Tuebingen), but in greater measure with the fact that whilst in the United States the religious feeling has continued to play a big part in people’s daily lives, in Europe it has been allowed (not least, by the Catholic clergy) to be considered like a beautiful piece of art you put on a shelf and look at, with mild satisfaction, every…
View original post 1,228 more words
If you google around, you will notice in the Ukraine a bill could be approved banning abortion. I will not link to any text in order to avoid giving publicity to a group of feminists, who have obviously seized the occasion.
It is difficult to find details. What we know is that the religious authorities support the measure, the law would allow abortion only in rare cases like – if I understand correctly – danger for the mother’s health, and the thing enrages feminists, some of them apparently not entirely ugly… (tsk, tsk.. no photos… it is just hypocritical feminists should send beautiful women in topless to attract some attention…).
What is interesting is that the former Warsaw Pact countries seem to be particularly keen on recovering some of the values Communism had oppressed, or in not losing those that had survived even Communism.
Interesting, isn’t it? In the meantime we have so-called bishops of the so-called church of England praising sodomarriage…
Rather shocking (for me at least; I am the impressionable type) reminiscences of an abortion performed may years ago.
There are several elements in this article which left me rather speechless:
1) the “counselor” says she has had nine abortions already. Apparently, this was made to let the girls feel more at their ease. Apparently it worked. Strangely. Frankly I would have thought such statements would have the opposite effect: unmask the inherent inhumanity of abortion.
2) The abortion was very painful; from what I know of these things, more painful than natural birth, which at least is natural pain. Even reading the story from the comfort of one’s living room, one understand what a traumatic experience it must be, the painful efforts of a nurse and a doctor to kill one’s own baby.
3) Apparently, the ultrasound is always done – at least in the facilities of Planned Genocide – but not shown for obvious reasons. This was news to me, but it makes sense as only the ultrasound will allow to gauge the age of the baby to be killed rapidly and with accuracy. Every Nazi doctor will tell you these details are important. I also agree in the midst of the painful trauma of an abortion, to call an ultrasound “traumatic” for the mother-not-to-be is more than stupid.
4) The treatment after abortion, with the young woman having to undress in the middle of the room, given a glass of water and sent away. If I were a feminist, I’d call this dehumanising, and demeaning. But I am not a feminist, so I’ll simply observe she was treated like cattle.
Truly, a day of ordinary Nazism.
Whilst the West sinks in an ocean of political correctness in which pretty much everything is allowed, the Russians still show some common sense.
It appears more than 90% of Russians support a ban on homosexual propaganda. And in fact, I can’t imagine any country in Europe allowing such open show of perversion only 30 or 40 years ago.
Note the difference with London, where mayor Johnson (whom, make no mistake, you should still vote if you ask me, for reasons which have to do with the fact his only real opponent is pure evil) bans a Christian adv from the underground after having had no problem at all with the homo propaganda the Christian adv was reacting to.
Note also that the opposition to homo propaganda is almost as widespread among younger people than among older ones, and is extremely widespread even by people of communist sympathies.
That some damn Russian commie should teach us basic morality is really a sign of the times.
When he bravely spoke against the Nazi Obama politics, I invited to make three cheers for Bishop Jenky.
Predictably, many members of the faculty were of different opinion. With the usual shamelessness so typical of the liberal, they call the comments of one who dares to point out to a genocide of more than Holocaust proportions “incendiary”. As this is a liberal university, the cry of being “insensitive” could also not fail to make his incensed appearance.
It is interesting to show the way of thinking of these people. Please reflect they work in the faculty of a Catholic university:
“We accept that Jenky’s comments are protected by the First Amendment, but we find it profoundly offensive that a member of our beloved University’s highest authority, the Board of Fellows, should compare the president’s actions with those whose genocidal policies murdered tens of millions of people, including the specific targeting of Catholics, Jews and other minorities for their faith.”
And the difference with abortion is….. where exactly? Let me look: is there an explanation of why an abortion be anything different from the killing of a baby? I will, for the sake of charity, gloss over the despicable attempt to hide behind the Catholic victims of those same Nazi cruelty we see at work in the Obama camp every day.
If memory serves, though (and I think it does) this university is the same one happy to rub itself against Obama, inviting him to give the commencement address a couple of years ago.
Not much has changed in their attitude, and I wonder how long will it take before it does.
Reblog of the day
Many thanks to St. Peter’s list for this beautiful gallery of Catholic images.
None of your sugary “let’s forget our disagreements and hug each other”-nonsense here. Strong, unashamedly pro-Catholic images is what the site has to offer.
If you have a blog, you may consider linking to the site so that others may draw inspiration. My collection of Catholic is already extensive enough so I might not add any further images – perhaps; we’ll see – but for many in search of a powerful visual message this site can be a godsend.
The Coalition For Marriage initiative is now marching towards half million signatures, though the pace has now clearly (and predictably) reduced.
If you are a UK resident and haven’t signed, I allow myself to invite you again to do it.
When you do, you will receive (or have already received) an automated email with the email address of your MP. Again, I would encourage everyone to send this email.
But the reason of this blog post is that I would like to make of this blog a megaphone for all answers from your MP stinking of political correctness and/or in which the MP presents himself as the defender of “inclusiveness”, & Co. If you send the answer email to me, I will take care to make an extra post exposing him, and I will do it for every MP for whom you send me unacceptable answers to your email you have received.
This blog is little, but Google has a lot of patience, and if other blogs echo the initiative this will become a useful source of information when the next election comes, and one the relevant MP will not like.
Please send your email in form of message in answer to whatever post.
For those of you who are voting (by mail) or are going to vote for the London mayoral and assemblies election, may I suggest you seriously examine the possibility of voting UKIP.
I know, they are not perfect. No party is. But I see the following in their favour:
1. They have been fighting – effectively, as it seems – against the Brussels mania of everyone else for many years now. The events of the last year or two are a great vindication of what they have always said. It is astonishing our political class was, in general, so stupidly incompetent as not to see what people of simple common sense out there, in the world of business and real life, have been able to see for many years.
2. They are blessedly devoid of political correctness, and do not share the polite absence of every serious political ideal of the other big parties. Farage left promising career prospects within the Conservative party for an organisation considered a fringe group of lunatics for many years. I prefer a man of conviction to one hundred prostitutes of politics a’ la Cameron. I also like the open, provocative, and I would say Mundaborian style of Farage.
3. They are the best way of expressing a truly conservative vote around. In times when the Tories are so perverted in their own way of thinking as to allow their PM to tell them sodomarriage is “conservative” without throwing him away on the spot, there is no better way to help the Conservatives become Conservative again than to vote UKIP.
Motive number 3 is, if you ask me, really the key. You don’t have to agree with all they say, or with half of what they say; but it is wise to look at what will unavoidably happen within the Conservative party as the UKIP grows.
Cameron has “cameronised” the party and made it the political toy of a bunch of prostitutes of politics, and perverts. He would sell his mother to whoredom and tell you it’s the “conservative” thing to do if he would think it brings him some votes. He has no scruples, no conscience, no morals whatever. A vote for the Conservatives now would mean a vote helping them to continue on this road.
The last example of this is the leaked suggestions made to his Catholic MPs to go to Mass more often; whilst he supports sodomarriage, is against the right of Christians to wear the cross in the office, and in favour of owners of B&B to be forced to have sodomites under their roof.
If this isn’t being a little whore of politics, I don’t know what is. Then they complain Farage isn’t always politeness itself.
Truly, if you are a Conservative and love the Tories of old, the last you should do now is to vote the chameleons.
As to the mayoral election, I suggest you give Boris your second vote. The beauty of the electoral system is that you can give him your second vote and be – in actual fact – sure it will count exactly as if you had given him the first. I suggest you give the first to the UKIP candidate to send a signal, or to anyone else. What is in my eyes important is that you send a clear message the new Boris – the PC nincompoop in the hands of his PR advisers – is not your first choice, though of course apart from Satan himself few would be a worse choice than Livingstone.
End of the advertisement. Now for some classical music…
“The idea that I as a Catholic should have to pay for some woman’s abortion makes me reach for the vomit bag”
This is Bill Donohue, the President of the Catholic League. Whilst this phrase is memorable in itself, more memorable is what may happen next Summer all over the United States.
It would appear the U.S. Bishops are planning an unprecedented two-weeks protest against the HHS mandate and the Anti-Catholic policy of the Obama administration. The time is very well-chosen, with the two weeks preceding the Fourth of July and at the same time the weeks at least part of the legislation could be, erm, retroactively aborted by the Supreme Court (I have written about this).
Note every pretence of “neutrality” is now gone: the Church is going to march against secular and anti-Catholic forces, and I am very curious to see who, during of after the carnage of political careers that will ensue, will have the gut to demand that the Church lose her tax status.
Already as it is now, only the blindness to reality of Adolf Hitler in his most drug-fuelled days can prevent Obama from realising the trouble in which he has put himself. He must now even renounce to the illusion the Church would renounce to further raise the stake (and I can’t imagine Washington has not sent some more or less veiled threats about what will happen if they don’t shut up; which might have persuaded Dolan & Co. they cannot afford in the least to shut up), and must see how the anti-HHS campaign is ramped up during the summer, overshadowing the 4th July and reducing his chance at reelection with every week that passes.
Perhaps would, at this point, be better for Obama if the Supreme Court kills the Unaffordable Care Act and thus spares him the humiliation of having to backpedal to avoid electoral massacre? At this point, even if Obama should be reelected – which might depend more from Romney’s mistakes than from his own merits – what would be the price his party has to pay in terms of congressmen, senators and governors? Romney may not succeed in attracting the widespread opposition to the Obama policies, but there would certainly be no scarcity of suitable candidate on the national level.
Adolf Hussein Obama truly shot himself in the foot and he is now limping along, saying to his supporters all his fine. He might be in serious trouble by July, and he has already gravely damaged every chance of his party of a decent show in November.
I begin to think November will bring to the United States something now so desperately needed:
Alas, we must prepare ourselves for four years with either a secular Muslim or a strange non-Christian at the White House. Unless, of course, Mitt Romney wins and does us the favour of moving for greener pastures before the time, and his appointed Vice President is chosen with some discernment.
Romney has now had the brilliant idea of hiring Richard Grenell, an openly homosexual spokesman (is spokesman appropriate here?), and the hypocrisy of the RINOs is, as widely expected, breathtaking.
The problem with the appointment is not only the fact the man is homosexual, but the fact that he is openly so.
In itself, a homosexual spokesman would be bad enough, once we leave the political correctness aside,because the job of spokesman is politically delicate, and should be not so easily exposed to attack. Of course homosexuals must work too, as must pedophiles, and former convicts. But this does not mean that many people would approve of a pedophile, or a former convict, being hired as a man very near to the possible future President.
The problem becomes, though, much worse because the man is, as they say, “openly gay”, which is modern parlance for an unrepentant sodomite. Therefore, the decision to hire him is a political statement Romney makes; and if you ask me, not a terribly smart one. Through his appointment, Romney chooses to give scandal. This can’t be Christian, and most certainly isn’t Conservative.
Granted, Romney is clearly afraid of not reaching to the mainstream voters, and is anxious of getting rid of his image of “weird” candidate. He has reasons to be worried, because I expect during the campaign we will become all experts of all the most ridiculous aspects of Mormonism, and I doubt he’ll have anywhere to hide when the embarrassing questions start to come. But by all fears, it seems to me indisputable if he loses the conservative electorate he is doomed. A man who should use the time given to him to polish his conservative credentials, pick a clearly conservative candidate to be Vice President and, in general, reassure Conservative America he can halfway deserve their vote is now clearly intent to hunt for support in those political regions he’ll never take away from Obama.
Even if this doesn’t cause great damage to him now – and it might – the obvious effect will be that conservatives of every shade will look at him with greater scepticism; and this is a commodity Romney most certainly doesn’t need.
Even considering the cynicism of a man accustomed to change opinions like you and I change shirts, this seems to me a very dangerous move.
Personally, I think it things go on this way the big game in November will be the elections in the Congress and Senate, as the White House seems destined to be kept by the wrong occupant until 2016.