Sunday, December 30, 2012

Eagle Freedom Links -- Happy New Year Edition


Its been a kind of busy Christmas for me with baking, making Christmas dinner, cleaning the home and in addition while thankfully I am feeling much better since my surgery and getting over my infection I still get tired pretty easily so I wasn't able to visit everyone's blogs who I wanted to wish a Merry Christmas right around Christmastime so I want to wish all of my fellow bloggers a (belated) Merry Christmas.

Here is a Christmas message from Fr. Dave Dwyer of Busted Halo:

Love was born on the very first Christmas into a messy world. God’s son was born in a manger -- an animal’s feeding trough. He was born in the chaos of a census -- people traveling around the countryside to their hometowns to be counted. He was born, and King Herod ordered the killing of newborn babies to protect his throne. A messy world indeed.

Today’s world is messy, too. But this year -- every year -- God’s love is born. Jesus bursts into our hearts and lives despite the mess, despite the chaos, despite fear and danger.

This Christmas, I hope you’ll experience the love of Christ and the assurance that God is with us -- as a baby in a manger, as friends and family gathered to share the holidays, as fellow travelers on our own personal spiritual journeys.

I have to say  Thank God for the end of 2012.  This year was really tough for me. I had to make one of the hardest decisions of my life because of my problems with endometriosis knowing that would mean the end of my fertility and thus the end of my being able to give birth to a child.  As hard as the decision was God was telling me that I had put up with enough pain over the years from endo that I needed to have the hysterectomy so I could be pain-free and have a much better quality of life. Then, I waited for a pretty long time for my surgery that it seemed surreal to me after it actually had happened, but I have the scars to prove it happened.  I am feeling so, so much better now.  Whether its because of no hormones or I'm still recovering form surgery a bit I still end up getting tired pretty easily.  I am just hoping next year will be a much better year for me.  I am very optimistic that it will. 

We fought the good fight for the heart and soul of America and unfortunately we lost the battle with the re-election of President Obama.  People chose "free stuff" over liberty.  Citizens are okay with the government dictating to them what they can and can' t eat or can or can't do as long as they get their handouts.  People chose revenge, divisiveness and class warfare - class envy - over love of country and the preservation of what our Founding Fathers built.  In 2013 we will keep fighting the good fight, find different ways to reach out to our fellow citizens to teach them the history of America and that ultimately conservatism/libertarianism is good for the individual, for groups and for our nation. 

I want to wish everyone a prosperous, healthy and Happy New Year! 

A Catholic View -- Feast of St. Stephen, First Martyr

A Patriotic Rottweiler -- Obama's America Will Become Detroit 

Adrienne's Corner -- It's Wednesday ... w/Update  

Always On Watch -- One Cat's Views On Christmas 

America's Chronicle -- China's Wary Eye On The US Fiscal Mess 

American Perspective -- Blogger Publishes Interactive Map Of Journal Employees Who Published ... 

American Power -- Fiscal Dive Would Impose Steadily Increasing Pain and Hardship 

Amusing Bunni's Musings -- We Wish You A Merry Christmas! 

ARRA News Service -- U.S. House Leaders On Fiscal Cliff: Senate First Must Act 

Atlas Shrugs -- The End 

Barking Spider -- Please Help Our Friend, Amusing Bunni - Updated 

Battle Beads -- A Blessed Christmas To One And ALL!! 

Blazing Cat Fur -- So What's New In Syria ... 

Blog de KingShamus -- About The Human Reaction To Violence 

Blogsense-By-Barb -- President and Mrs. Obama Get OWNED by 95 Year Old Vet 

Boudica BPI -- Massacre Survivor Defends Gun Rights 

Bump's Stump -- Catholicitus - 2 

BBCW -- Members of Congress Propose a Federal Gun Buy Back Program

Bunkerville -- Happy Holidays From The 2nd Amendment - Video  

Capitalist Preservation -- Un Effing Believable: The Virus Plagued, Concussed and Congress Dodging Hillary Clinton is ... 

Catholic Bandita -- Russia Set to Ban American Adoption of Russian Children 

Citizen Tom -- Citizen Tom Lists The Best Of 2012 

Common Cents -- John Stossel Exposes Myth: Gun Control Laws Reduce Crime

Conservative Hideout -- David Gregory Above the Law? Media Bias Trumps Gun Laws!  

Conservative Perspective -- Merry Christmas All, Its A Miracle! 

Conservatives On Fire -- USA_R.I.P._ Was It Suicide or Murder or Stupidity? 

Creative Minority Report -- Baby Jesus With The Rainbow Halo 

Doug Ross @ Journal -- The Entire NBC Firearms Crime Saga, Point-By-Point: Is David Gregory Hiding From The Cops? 

Eye Of Polyphemus -- Doctor Who - "The Snowmen"

Feed Your ADHD -- Bibi Heils Hitler... 

Freedom by the Way -- The Power To Believe in Things Unseen is Called Faith 

Fuzzy Logic -- Guns: The Defenseless Shouldn't Be Defenseless 

GeeeeeZ! -- Christmas Food From Z's :-) and a Movie Recommendation 

Innominatus -- The Airing of Grievances 

Jo - Joe Politico -- Here It Comes! 

Just A Conservative Girl -- All I Want For Christmas..........A Dad??????

Let The Truth Be Known -- Little Angels Laid To Rest 

Liberty At Stake -- A Goose For Every Gander 

Lone Star Parson -- Extradite Piers Morgan! 

Maggie's Notebook -- The Latest From "DHS Insider" (Part I and Part II) 

Mind Numbed Robot -- Obama's Legacy In One Word 

Motor City Times -- Liberal Worldview: Businessmen Are Crooks & Politicians Are Altruistic Public Servants 

NoOneOfAnyImport -- Merry Christmas, Building And Loan! 

Obama Cartoons -- Our Newest Improved Poop Scooper 

Pirate's Cove -- 112th Congress Set To Become Least Productive - I Fail To See The Problem 

Political Realities -- Hobby Lobby Continues Fight Against Obamacare Abortion Mandate 

Randy's Roundtable -- Liar In Chief (still a liar) Can't Stop Lying, Updated With Another Of His Lies! 

Reaganite Republican -- 10 Most Monumentally Idiotic Quotes of 2012 

SayAnythingBlog -- British Doctors Want A Ban On Kitchen Knives To Prevent Stabbings 

Self Evident Truths -- Holidays Are Against My Religion

Sentry Journal -- For Those Of You That Thought ACORN Was Done With Voter Fraud, Think Again

Stop Marxism -- Re-electing Obama The Disaster 

Sultan Knish -- Blasphemy as a National Security Threat 

Talk Wisdom -- Video: Former KGB Official Explains Plan Unfolding In America 

The Astute Bloggers -- Sharia Prosecutions in Egypt 

The Blog -- (Blank) Of The Year Is More Like It 

The Camp Of The Saints -- It All Started With Magna Carta ... 

The Catholic Knight -- Is Christmas Pagan? 

The Conservative Lady -- My Wish For You... 

The Daley Gator -- Obama So Worried About "Fiscal Cliff" That He's Ordered $11B In Pay Raises For Federal Workers 

The Lonely Conservative -- Senate Approves Foreign Surveillance Extension, Nixes Amendment ... 

The Other McCain -- Africa In Crisis: U.S. Abandons Embassy, France Won't Intervene 

The Right Guy -- Ted Nugent To Piers Morgan: Suck My Machine Gun

The Troglopundit -- "First 'Alien Earth' Will Be Found in 2013, Experts Say," So Start Packing Your Bags 

The Wisdom of Soloman -- Friday Night Videos: Jesus Is Just Alright 

Theo Spark -- Saturday Night is Bath Night...........

TOTUS : Conservative Commentary -- Why My Last Fishing Trip Got Cut Short! 

We The People -- Is It Probable that the Media is holding back on Sandy Hook and part of a larger cover up? 

We The People ... -- The Last of the Truly GREAT Generals 

Western Hero -- OBAMACARE. . . LESS 

Woodsterman -- Headlines Are Us ~ Your Modern MSM 

Zilla of the Resistance -- Worst Reporters of Year - The Obamagasm Award!

Thursday, December 27, 2012

Congress Declines To Protect Our Email Privacy

This ticks me off and saddens me. Both Republicans and Democrats claim that they are for the people -

for the ordinary Joe or Joanne - but that isn't true. Both parties are for themselves. They are for

giving themselves more power. They are for giving the government more power and control over our lives.

If the Republicans were really for our liberty and for citizens privacy they would have ensured that

our email privacy was protected in the "Netflix Amendment" which was added to the Video Privacy

Prevention Act.

So congress has allowed Federal authorities to continue to have the right to "collect e-mail messages

and data from cloud services that’s stored on a third-party server for at least 180 days. Right now, no

warrant is currently needed to obtain this information, and authorities only need to claim that such

private data is important to an (any) ongoing investigation."

I find it disheartening that congress didn't think it to be of utmost importance to protect ordinary

citizens privacy rights when they added Was the "Netflix Amendment". So the destruction of our

liberties continues since congress is allowing government continued access to our private lives, our

private information via email.

We need to give every congresscriminal a warning pink slip. We need to put them on notice that if they

don't amend their amending of this law to protect citizens privacy we will work our darnest to vote

them out.

It is unclear whether the change to protect our email privacy which the Senate Judiciary Committee

attempted to add to the final version of the amendment made it to the full Senate floor for a vote but

what is crystal clear is that the "Netflix Amendment" added to the Video Privacy Prevention Act which

was passed by the House and Senate does not include email privacy protection. The Senate voted

unanimously in favor of this amendment. And, here is a list of the members of the House who betrayed

the American people when they voted for this bill:

Representatives Voting 'Aye'

Rep. Sandy Adams [R, FL-24]
Rep. Robert Aderholt [R, AL-4]
Rep. Jason Altmire [D, PA-4]
Rep. Justin Amash [R, MI-3]
Rep. Mark Amodei [R, NV-2]
Rep. Robert Andrews [D, NJ-1]
Rep. Steve Austria [R, OH-7]
Rep. Spencer Bachus [R, AL-6]
Rep. Lou Barletta [R, PA-11]
Rep. John Barrow [D, GA-12]
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R, MD-6]
Rep. Charles Bass [R, NH-2]
Rep. Dan Benishek [R, MI-1]
Rep. Rick Berg [R, ND-0]
Rep. Shelley Berkley [D, NV-1]
Rep. Howard Berman [D, CA-28]
Rep. Judy Biggert [R, IL-13]
Rep. Brian Bilbray [R, CA-50]
Rep. Gus Bilirakis [R, FL-9]
Rep. Rob Bishop [R, UT-1]
Rep. Diane Black [R, TN-6]
Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R, TN-7]
Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D, OR-3]
Rep. Jo Bonner [R, AL-1]
Rep. Mary Bono Mack [R, CA-45]
Rep. Dan Boren [D, OK-2]
Rep. Leonard Boswell [D, IA-3]
Rep. Charles Boustany [R, LA-7]
Rep. Kevin Brady [R, TX-8]
Rep. Robert Brady [D, PA-1]
Rep. Bruce Braley [D, IA-1]
Rep. Mo Brooks [R, AL-5]
Rep. Paul Broun [R, GA-10]
Rep. Vern Buchanan [R, FL-13]
Rep. Larry Bucshon [R, IN-8]
Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle [R, NY-25]
Rep. Michael Burgess [R, TX-26]
Rep. Dan Burton [R, IN-5]
Rep. Ken Calvert [R, CA-44]
Rep. David Camp [R, MI-4]
Rep. John Campbell [R, CA-48]
Rep. Francisco Canseco [R, TX-23]
Rep. Eric Cantor [R, VA-7]
Rep. Shelley Capito [R, WV-2]
Rep. Lois Capps [D, CA-23]
Rep. John Carney [D, DE-0]
Rep. John Carter [R, TX-31]
Rep. Bill Cassidy [R, LA-6]
Rep. Steven Chabot [R, OH-1]
Rep. Jason Chaffetz [R, UT-3]
Rep. Judy Chu [D, CA-32]
Rep. Howard Coble [R, NC-6]
Rep. Mike Coffman [R, CO-6]
Rep. Tom Cole [R, OK-4]
Rep. Michael Conaway [R, TX-11]
Rep. Gerald Connolly [D, VA-11]
Rep. John Conyers [D, MI-14]
Rep. Jim Cooper [D, TN-5]
Rep. Jim Costa [D, CA-20]
Rep. Joe Courtney [D, CT-2]
Rep. Chip Cravaack [R, MN-8]
Rep. Rick Crawford [R, AR-1]
Rep. Ander Crenshaw [R, FL-4]
Rep. Mark Critz [D, PA-12]
Rep. Henry Cuellar [D, TX-28]
Rep. Susan Davis [D, CA-53]
Rep. Geoff Davis [R, KY-4]
Rep. Jeff Denham [R, CA-19]
Rep. Charles Dent [R, PA-15]
Rep. Scott DesJarlais [R, TN-4]
Rep. Ted Deutch [D, FL-19]
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart [R, FL-21]
Rep. Lloyd Doggett [D, TX-25]
Rep. Bob Dold [R, IL-10]
Rep. Joe Donnelly [D, IN-2]
Rep. Michael Doyle [D, PA-14]
Rep. David Dreier [R, CA-26]
Rep. Sean Duffy [R, WI-7]
Rep. John Duncan [R, TN-2]
Rep. Jeff Duncan [R, SC-3]
Rep. Renee Ellmers [R, NC-2]
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson [R, MO-8]
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D, CA-14]
Rep. Sam Farr [D, CA-17]
Rep. Bob Filner [D, CA-51]
Rep. Stephen Fincher [R, TN-8]
Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick [R, PA-8]
Rep. Jeff Flake [R, AZ-6]
Rep. Chuck Fleischmann [R, TN-3]
Rep. John Fleming [R, LA-4]
Rep. Bill Flores [R, TX-17]
Rep. Randy Forbes [R, VA-4]
Rep. Jeffrey Fortenberry [R, NE-1]
Rep. Virginia Foxx [R, NC-5]
Rep. Trent Franks [R, AZ-2]
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen [R, NJ-11]
Rep. Elton Gallegly [R, CA-24]
Rep. Cory Gardner [R, CO-4]
Rep. Scott Garrett [R, NJ-5]
Rep. Jim Gerlach [R, PA-6]
Rep. Bob Gibbs [R, OH-18]
Rep. Chris Gibson [R, NY-20]
Rep. John Gingrey [R, GA-11]
Rep. Charles Gonzalez [D, TX-20]
Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R, VA-6]
Rep. Paul Gosar [R, AZ-1]
Rep. Trey Gowdy [R, SC-4]
Rep. Kay Granger [R, TX-12]
Rep. Tom Graves [R, GA-9]
Rep. Samuel Graves [R, MO-6]
Rep. Raymond Green [D, TX-29]
Rep. Tim Griffin [R, AR-2]
Rep. Morgan Griffith [R, VA-9]
Rep. Michael Grimm [R, NY-13]
Rep. Frank Guinta [R, NH-1]
Rep. Brett Guthrie [R, KY-2]
Rep. Ralph Hall [R, TX-4]
Rep. Richard Hanna [R, NY-24]
Rep. Gregg Harper [R, MS-3]
Rep. Andy Harris [R, MD-1]
Rep. Vicky Hartzler [R, MO-4]
Rep. Doc Hastings [R, WA-4]
Rep. Nan Hayworth [R, NY-19]
Rep. Joe Heck [R, NV-3]
Rep. Martin Heinrich [D, NM-1]
Rep. Jeb Hensarling [R, TX-5]
Rep. Walter Herger [R, CA-2]
Rep. Brian Higgins [D, NY-27]
Rep. Kathleen Hochul [D, NY-26]
Rep. Tim Holden [D, PA-17]
Rep. Michael Honda [D, CA-15]
Rep. Steny Hoyer [D, MD-5]
Rep. Tim Huelskamp [R, KS-1]
Rep. Bill Huizenga [R, MI-2]
Rep. Randy Hultgren [R, IL-14]
Rep. Duncan Hunter [R, CA-52]
Rep. Robert Hurt [R, VA-5]
Rep. Steve Israel [D, NY-2]
Rep. Darrell Issa [R, CA-49]
Rep. Lynn Jenkins [R, KS-2]
Rep. Samuel Johnson [R, TX-3]
Rep. Bill Johnson [R, OH-6]
Rep. Jim Jordan [R, OH-4]
Rep. Mike Kelly [R, PA-3]
Rep. Steve King [R, IA-5]
Rep. Peter King [R, NY-3]
Rep. Jack Kingston [R, GA-1]
Rep. Adam Kinzinger [R, IL-11]
Rep. John Kline [R, MN-2]
Rep. Raúl Labrador [R, ID-1]
Rep. Doug Lamborn [R, CO-5]
Rep. Leonard Lance [R, NJ-7]
Rep. Jeff Landry [R, LA-3]
Rep. James Langevin [D, RI-2]
Rep. James Lankford [R, OK-5]
Rep. Rick Larsen [D, WA-2]
Rep. Thomas Latham [R, IA-4]
Rep. Steven LaTourette [R, OH-14]
Rep. Robert Latta [R, OH-5]
Rep. Jerry Lewis [R, CA-41]
Rep. Daniel Lipinski [D, IL-3]
Rep. Frank LoBiondo [R, NJ-2]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D, CA-16]
Rep. Billy Long [R, MO-7]
Rep. Frank Lucas [R, OK-3]
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer [R, MO-9]
Rep. Ben Luján [D, NM-3]
Rep. Cynthia Lummis [R, WY-0]
Rep. Daniel Lungren [R, CA-3]
Rep. Stephen Lynch [D, MA-9]
Rep. Connie Mack [R, FL-14]
Rep. Donald Manzullo [R, IL-16]
Rep. Kenny Marchant [R, TX-24]
Rep. Jim Matheson [D, UT-2]
Rep. Doris Matsui [D, CA-5]
Rep. Kevin McCarthy [R, CA-22]
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D, NY-4]
Rep. Michael McCaul [R, TX-10]
Rep. Tom McClintock [R, CA-4]
Rep. Betty McCollum [D, MN-4]
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R, MI-11]
Rep. Patrick McHenry [R, NC-10]
Rep. Mike McIntyre [D, NC-7]
Rep. Howard McKeon [R, CA-25]
Rep. David McKinley [R, WV-1]
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers [R, WA-5]
Rep. Jerry McNerney [D, CA-11]
Rep. Patrick Meehan [R, PA-7]
Rep. John Mica [R, FL-7]
Rep. Michael Michaud [D, ME-2]
Rep. Candice Miller [R, MI-10]
Rep. Jeff Miller [R, FL-1]
Rep. Gary Miller [R, CA-42]
Rep. Mick Mulvaney [R, SC-5]
Rep. Christopher Murphy [D, CT-5]
Rep. Tim Murphy [R, PA-18]
Rep. Randy Neugebauer [R, TX-19]
Rep. Kristi Noem [R, SD-0]
Rep. Richard Nugent [R, FL-5]
Rep. Devin Nunes [R, CA-21]
Rep. Alan Nunnelee [R, MS-1]
Rep. Pete Olson [R, TX-22]
Rep. William Owens [D, NY-23]
Rep. Steven Palazzo [R, MS-4]
Rep. Frank Pallone [D, NJ-6]
Rep. William Pascrell [D, NJ-8]
Rep. Ronald Paul [R, TX-14]
Rep. Erik Paulsen [R, MN-3]
Rep. Steven Pearce [R, NM-2]
Rep. Nancy Pelosi [D, CA-8]
Rep. Mike Pence [R, IN-6]
Rep. Ed Perlmutter [D, CO-7]
Rep. Gary Peters [D, MI-9]
Rep. Thomas Petri [R, WI-6]
Rep. Joseph Pitts [R, PA-16]
Rep. Todd Platts [R, PA-19]
Rep. Ted Poe [R, TX-2]
Rep. Jared Polis [D, CO-2]
Rep. Mike Pompeo [R, KS-4]
Rep. Bill Posey [R, FL-15]
Rep. Tom Price [R, GA-6]
Rep. Ben Quayle [R, AZ-3]
Rep. Mike Quigley [D, IL-5]
Rep. Nick Rahall [D, WV-3]
Rep. Tom Reed [R, NY-29]
Rep. Dennis Rehberg [R, MT-0]
Rep. Dave Reichert [R, WA-8]
Rep. Jim Renacci [R, OH-16]
Rep. Reid Ribble [R, WI-8]
Rep. Scott Rigell [R, VA-2]
Rep. David Rivera [R, FL-25]
Rep. Martha Roby [R, AL-2]
Rep. Phil Roe [R, TN-1]
Rep. Harold Rogers [R, KY-5]
Rep. Michael Rogers [R, AL-3]
Rep. Michael Rogers [R, MI-8]
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R, CA-46]
Rep. Todd Rokita [R, IN-4]
Rep. Thomas Rooney [R, FL-16]
Rep. Peter Roskam [R, IL-6]
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R, FL-18]
Rep. Dennis Ross [R, FL-12]
Rep. Mike Ross [D, AR-4]
Rep. Steven Rothman [D, NJ-9]
Rep. Edward Royce [R, CA-40]
Rep. Jon Runyan [R, NJ-3]
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger [D, MD-2]
Rep. Paul Ryan [R, WI-1]
Rep. Loretta Sanchez [D, CA-47]
Rep. Linda Sánchez [D, CA-39]
Rep. John Sarbanes [D, MD-3]
Rep. Steve Scalise [R, LA-1]
Rep. Robert Schilling [R, IL-17]
Rep. Jean Schmidt [R, OH-2]
Rep. Aaron Schock [R, IL-18]
Rep. Kurt Schrader [D, OR-5]
Rep. Allyson Schwartz [D, PA-13]
Rep. David Schweikert [R, AZ-5]
Rep. Tim Scott [R, SC-1]
Rep. Austin Scott [R, GA-8]
Rep. James Sensenbrenner [R, WI-5]
Rep. Peter Sessions [R, TX-32]
Rep. John Shimkus [R, IL-19]
Rep. Heath Shuler [D, NC-11]
Rep. William Shuster [R, PA-9]
Rep. Michael Simpson [R, ID-2]
Rep. Albio Sires [D, NJ-13]
Rep. Lamar Smith [R, TX-21]
Rep. Adam Smith [D, WA-9]
Rep. Christopher Smith [R, NJ-4]
Rep. Adrian Smith [R, NE-3]
Rep. Steve Southerland [R, FL-2]
Rep. Steve Stivers [R, OH-15]
Rep. Marlin Stutzman [R, IN-3]
Rep. John Sullivan [R, OK-1]
Rep. Lee Terry [R, NE-2]
Rep. Glenn Thompson [R, PA-5]
Rep. Michael Thompson [D, CA-1]
Rep. William Thornberry [R, TX-13]
Rep. Patrick Tiberi [R, OH-12]
Rep. Scott Tipton [R, CO-3]
Rep. Paul Tonko [D, NY-21]
Rep. Robert Turner [R, NY-9]
Rep. Michael Turner [R, OH-3]
Rep. Frederick Upton [R, MI-6]
Rep. Timothy Walberg [R, MI-7]
Rep. Greg Walden [R, OR-2]
Rep. Joe Walsh [R, IL-8]
Rep. Timothy Walz [D, MN-1]
Rep. Maxine Waters [D, CA-35]
Rep. Henry Waxman [D, CA-30]
Rep. Daniel Webster [R, FL-8]
Rep. Allen West [R, FL-22]
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R, GA-3]
Rep. Edward Whitfield [R, KY-1]
Rep. Addison Wilson [R, SC-2]
Rep. Rob Wittman [R, VA-1]
Rep. Frank Wolf [R, VA-10]
Rep. Steve Womack [R, AR-3]
Rep. Rob Woodall [R, GA-7]
Rep. Kevin Yoder [R, KS-3]
Rep. Donald Young [R, AK-0]
Rep. Todd Young [R, IN-9]

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Contra Catholicitis - A Guest Post by Kevin Rice

Teresa showed me a blog post that she intended to respond to by one of her fellow conservatives in the blogosphere, Mr. Dixon Webb of Bump's Stump.  The article is entitled Catholicitis.  I was provoked by it out of my most recent break from bloggery.  I said, "Respond on your blog as you wish, but I intend to take this man to task in the response area of your post," and I began to write what I was going to put up there.  She liked it so much after she read it that she decided to let me publish it here as a guest post.   What follows is that response.

Response to THE CHURCH - RIGHT AND WRONG, the first paragraph of Catholicitis:  Mr. Webb seems to equate "illogical ideas" with the requirement of a "leap of faith."   That's an improper conflation that I cannot excuse or let pass without a correction.  If an idea is truly illogical, that means it implies a contradiction.  Faith, then, cannot rescue it.  Faith is applied when the logic and evidence are not sufficient to compell us to any belief, but one or more persons with whom we have established a relationship of trust provide us with their testimony on the matter.  That is not the same as accepting an illogical idea, that is, an objectively contradictory proposition or set of propositions.

In life we cannot get by without accepting as true some propositions that we cannot personally verify.  We can call that faith in an equivocal sense, depending on what we believe and why (I believe daddy is my father because my momma tells me so...I believe my wife loves me because  she tells me so), it can even be morally praiseworthy, and the lack of such faith could be considered a serious breach in a relationship.  The supernatural virtue of faith is present when such benefit of the doubt is applied and the presumption of truth granted to doctrines received by divine revelation.  When logic does not compel us either to accept a belief or reject it, faith of some sort is required to take any position on the matter at all.  Illogical ideas do not afford us this flexibility.  Illogical ideas, when rightly understood as such, compel the intellect to reject them.

Response to THE JEWS, the second paragraph of Catholictis:  I had never heard of this sad chapter of the history of my Church, and I am surprised about that, because I have swum through a vast sea of anti-Catholic B.S. over the last decade and a half since my reversion to the faith of my youth following a nine year sojourn in agnosticism.   I find it very vexing that none of the attacks against the Church to which I was exposed have ever had nearly as much basis in objective, verifiable facts as this one.  I had long since begun to assume that such attacks would always turn out to be bogus for the very good reason that they always had before, every single time I took the trouble to check them out (and I always check them out).  Mr. Webb, then, deserves some distinction for pointing out facts that could, if developed, amount to a substantial, worthwhile objection, with considerable moral weight, to the holiness of the Catholic Church.  But the paragraph leaves it undeveloped, so I will wait for further elaboration before commenting on this regrettable episode.

Response to WOMEN AND THE CHURCH, the third paragraph of Catholicitis.  Mr. Webb's citation of Aristotle has me scratching my head a bit - but to give his intelligence and rationality a degree of the benefit of the doubt that he almost never extends to Catholics or other religious people that I have seen in my brief persual of his blog, perhaps he does this because there are  some Church Fathers who accepted Aristotle's misogyny without due critical reflection, though I would like to see him take the trouble to cite those.  Otherwise there is a missing step required for arguing that Aristotle's position should be attributed to the Catholic Church.

I am gratified that Mr. Webb does not attribute "vile attitudes about female inferiority and impurity," to Jesus at any rate.  The truth of his statement that "there is nothing in the gospels to indicate that Jesus himself could have held" such views has consequences to which he has failed to give due consideration.  Our Lord Jesus had many followers who were women, and they were indispensable to the support of His earthly ministry.  But when he chose those that he would ordain as the first priests, and when he actually did ordain them, there were no women among them.  No women were present at all.  Since Mr. Webb concedes that our Lord was not afflicted with "vile attitudes about female inferiority and impurity," those could not have been the motive behind His decision to reserve the sacrament of Holy Orders exclusively to men.  Although there are other theological reasons why this could be (none of which having anything to do with a presumed inferiority of the female sex), that one indisputable fact -- that Jesus excluded women from the priesthood He conferred upon the twelve disciples (the act by which he made them apostles) is sufficient all by itself to establish the truth of the authoritative, apostolic teaching in the quote that Mr. Webb accurately attributes to the Blessed John Paul II.  The Church would be overstepping Her divinely granted authority to extend that sacrament beyond the limits set by Jesus Christ.

Response to CONTRACEPTION, the fourth and final paragraph of Catholicitis -  "The arguments for what passes as church doctrine are intellectually contemptible. Pope Paul VI endorsed a truly perverse teaching on contraception - one rejected by his own picked panel of loyal and intelligent Catholics."

Mr. Webb finds arguments that he does not even cite, let alone take the trouble to attempt to refute, "intellectually contemptible."  Fine.  Personally, I find the arrogant attitude expressed throughout his piece comtemptible (but not intellectual).  He has no more of an obligation to pay any attention to my judgement of contemptibility than I or anyone else has to give consideration to his unsupported assessment.   What I find even more puzzling is the implication that the Church's teaching since 1968 was some sort of arbitrary novelty.  What Pope Paul VI "endorsed" in Humanae Vitae was simply what the Church has always taught.  He had no authority to change it.  The Church has always taught that contraception is a grave sin and could not be condoned.  Traces of that teaching can be found in patristic documents dating to the first century A.D., and they get more explicit and definite starting in the late second century.  Biblically, the only time the issue is directly addressed is in Genesis 38, the sin of Onan, and there it obviously condemns the practice in the strongest possible terms.

The Catholic teaching on contraception is actually, up until 1930, the universal Christian teaching.  IThat began to change in October 1930, when the Seventh Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church granted very limited permission for some married couples under some unspecified circumstances to use birth control.  I give here the text of Resolution 15 of that Conference:

The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex

Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.

Voting: For 193; Against 67.

Note what is presented as the primary and obvious method for avoiding parenthood, which can only be licitly done under a "clearly felt moral obligation".  Note that no method may be used at all except "on Christian principles", and abstinence should be used unless there is a morally sound reason for avoiding it.   Notice the last sentence regarding what is strongly condemned.

At that time, those who argued against the majority and opposed this resolution predicted that it would open the floodgates to sexual license, and soon contraception would be used as liberally by Christians as by non-Christians, with no thought whatsoever of Christian principles and no consideration whatsoever of abstinence as a means to licitly avoid procreation, let alone that it would remain the "primary and obvious means" to do so.  Can any intelligent observer not confirm that these predictions have long since been borne out in every detail?

The Catholic Church did not let the Lambeth debacle pass without using the occasion to cite the ancient and unchanging doctrine of the Church founded by Jesus Christ on the matter of birth control.  In December 1930, Pope Pius XI published Castii Conubii, his encylical on Christian Marriage.  If there is any significant difference between Castii Conubii and Humanae Vitae, it is merely this - that Pope Paul VI had to do what Pope Liberius did at the height of the Arian controversy, when Constantius exiled the latter to Thrace for his support of Athanasius against Arianism: stand up for Christian doctrine against the weight of a vast majority,a world, of heretical opposition within the Church.  Pius XI did not have to face the same degree of opposition when he presented the same unalterable doctrine that Paul VI later presented.  Mr. Webb calls the panel selected by Paul VI "loyal and intelligent Catholics," (the only time he exhibits intellectual charity to Catholics is when they happen to agree with him against the teaching of their Church) and while I will not take the trouble cast doubt on the intelligence of the members of that panel, Mr. Webb plainly has no clear idea what it means to be a loyal Catholic.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

The Second Amendment, Gun Laws, and the Value of Life

The Second Amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The second amendment states that citizens have the right to bear arms. 

Was the right to bear arms based on the fact that the guns were going to be used for recreational purposes, such as hunting? NO. 

The citizenry were granted the constitutional right to bear arms in order to keep the government in-check, to keep the government afraid of its citizens.  The second amendment was intended to serve as a safeguard against a tyrannical government.  I don't mean to imply that we should have a revolution every time we are dissatisfied with the government and want a change that we are unable to achieve through democratic processes.  In the Declaration of Independence we read that the Founding Fathers only resorted to revolution after "a long train of abuses ans usurpations" leading to "absolute despotism".  They were willing to suffer the evils while they were sufferable rather than take the radical step of abolishing English rule "for light and transient causes", but they were willing to take that step when it became necessary.  The second amendment is there if we need to do it again, and its presence makes it less likely that such drastic measures should ever become necessary.

Gun-free zones, ones that had mega law restrictions against the use of guns, are where the latest set of massacres have been committed.  Yet politicians and progressive pundits & progressive groups are calling for more gun control.  But are these people actually thinking that criminals are going to follow the new laws proposed? Criminals don't follow laws. Criminals ignore laws and will find the banned guns on the black market. If criminals want to kill then they will find a way to kill. 

I do believe that a good portion of the problem lies with the mental health field and people who fall through the cracks and miss out on counseling. The mental health community needs to be reformed since the profession has  more of a reactionary response after a trauma occurs instead of it being more of a preventative service stopping such tragedies like the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School prior to them occurring. While mental health services need to be reformed it is my belief that a number of problems in our society today stem from the removal of God, the replacement of moral absolutes with relativism, and the devaluing of human life.  Progressives have advanced the concept that human life is dispensable.  Every human life is precious from the moment of conception to natural death.  We need to change societal norms from viewing God as a nemesis or not being an integral part of peoples lives to God being the center of each person's life.  We need to change society from treating human persons as dispensable to being treated with love, dignity, and cherished as precious. 

Monday, December 17, 2012

Which is More Offensive -- Midget or Little People?

Rep. Hank Johnson apologized for using the word midget during a speech on the House floor. Today, the term little people is seen as more appropriate to describe persons with dwarfism. Prior to this notion midget was considered an acceptable description of persons with dwarfism. Which term do you think is more offensive - little people or midget?  Personally, I think the term little people sounds more demeaning than the term midget. But neither word sounds good to me. It seems like some of persons with dwarfism prefer the word midget and others prefer the term little people. Is the term midget really like the N-word as Rep. Hank Johnson suggests?

Saturday, December 15, 2012

Saturday Night Jukebox

A Child's Prayer

Away In A Manger

The King Shall Come When Morning Dawns

O Little Town Of Bethlehem

Friday, December 14, 2012

National Tragedy: 27 Dead, Mostly Children at a Connecticut Elementary School

Tragedy struck at an elementary school in Connecticut today. Twenty children had their lives cut short, way too soon, by an unstable gunman. Six adults met the same fate. And the shooter took his own life. My heart breaks for the families. This is an extremely sad day. Our nation is in mourning for the victims and their loved ones. My thoughts and prayers go out to all in that Connecticut community, especially the family and friends of those who lost their lives today.  May God comfort them in their time of need. 

Here is a prayer written by Max Lucado: 

Dear Jesus,
It's a good thing you were born at night. This world sure seems dark. I have a good eye for silver linings. But they seem dimmer lately.
These killings, Lord. These children, Lord. Innocence violated. Raw evil demonstrated.
The whole world seems on edge. Trigger-happy. Ticked off. We hear threats of chemical weapons and nuclear bombs. Are we one button-push away from annihilation?
Your world seems a bit darker this Christmas. But you were born in the dark, right? You came at night. The shepherds were nightshift workers. The Wise Men followed a star. Your first cries were heard in the shadows. To see your face, Mary and Joseph needed a candle flame. It was dark. Dark with Herod's jealousy. Dark with Roman oppression. Dark with poverty. Dark with violence.
Herod went on a rampage, killing babies. Joseph took you and your mom into Egypt. You were an immigrant before you were a Nazarene.
Oh, Lord Jesus, you entered the dark world of your day. Won't you enter ours? We are weary of bloodshed. We, like the wise men, are looking for a star. We, like the shepherds, are kneeling at a manger.
This Christmas, we ask you, heal us, help us, be born anew in us.
Your Children

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

The Senate Voting Down The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is a Very Good Thing

It is good news that the Senate voted down the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Treaty.  This nation has already ceded too much power to the U.N., an agency which has not only shown to be useless but has also proven to be harmful to world peace keeping operations in the past, so the fact that we avoided ceding more power to this global entity is a very good thing. . 

David Kopel of The New York Times says that The U.S. Is Right To Be Skeptical of U.N. treaties. He gives examples of past treaties to show the crazy and dangerous nature of the U.N.'s interpretation of what we would believe to be innocuous language. 

When many nations (not including the U.S.) ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, they had no way of knowing that the U.N. would declare Mothers Day to be illegal, if a nation’s version of that holiday puts too much emphasis on women’s role as mothers. 
Nor could governments ratifying that "discrimination against women" treaty foresee that the U.N. would later decide that it mandates the legalization of prostitution, or numerical gender quotas in both government and the private sector. 
Similarly, if you just read the text of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, you might never guess that the U.N. would decide that the U.S. must stop executing murderers, must allow convicted felons to vote and must change the procedures for judicial review of the detention of the terrorists held at Guantanamo. Whatever else one thinks about Guantanamo, the notion that it is a form of racial discrimination is ludicrous. 
It’s true that a U.N. committee cannot force Congress to enact new statutes. But executive branch officials can use the U.N. committee’s orders as a pretext to create new regulations “implementing” a treaty. Aggressive judges can rule that a treaty (which pursuant to the U.S. Constitution is “the supreme law of the land”) means exactly what the U.N. says it does.
David goes on to say: 

The disabilities treaty was rife with flaws — requiring government at every level in the U.S. to spend “the maximum of its available resources” on disabled services, granting Congress new powers to regulate private homes and personal behavior, and creating a new legal right to abortion, independent of Roe v. Wade. Efforts by senators to add reservations to address some of these issues were rejected by treaty proponents. 
But even if the textual language in the treaty were perfect, the fact that the future meaning of the disabilities treaty will be decided by U.N. bureaucrats was reason enough for the Senate to reject the treaty. 
I am in full agreement with David Kopel.  

Before the treaty of voted down Glenn Beck had Rick Santorum call in to his program and explain how detrimental the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities would be to those with special needs and their parents. 

Friday, December 7, 2012

The Sandwich

Here is an explanation of entitlements:

Dinesh D'Souza is spot on! Excellent explanation of entitlements.

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Cardinal Dolan Scores Big Win: HHS Mandate Lawsuit Allowed To Move Forward

The main reason some HHS mandate lawsuits have been dismissed is because the judges have claimed that it is too soon for them to sue or due to the possibility that the Obama administration may make some changes to the HHS mandate.  But Judge Brian Cogan in New York refused to dismiss Cardinal Dolan's lawsuit which challenges the constitutionality of the mandate. In addition Judge Cogan delivered a critically stinging rebuke to the administration's arguments.

From Cardinal Newman Society:

Fundamentally . . . this Court cannot accept that the present costs incurred by plaintiffs are simply the result of their “desire to prepare for contingencies.”  Quite frankly, ignoring the speeding train that is coming towards plaintiffs in the hope that it will stop might well be inconsistent with the fiduciary duties that plaintiffs’ directors or officers owe to their members. As explained above, the practical realities of administering health care coverage for large numbers of employees — which defendants’ recognize — require plaintiffs to incur these costs in advance of the impending effectiveness of the Coverage Mandate. That is a business reality that any responsible board of directors would have to appreciate. 
Moreover, the First Amendment does not require citizens to accept assurances from the government that, if the government later determines it has made a misstep, it will take ameliorative action. There is no, “Trust us, changes are coming” clause in the Constitution. To the contrary, the Bill of Rights itself, and the First Amendment in particular, reflect a degree of skepticism towards governmental self-restraint and self-correction. . . . Considering the extraordinary political passion surrounding the Coverage Mandate from all sides, there is simply no way to predict what, if any, changes to the Coverage Mandate will be made, even if some policymakers favor certain changes.

You can find further explanation on the ruling at Mirror of Justice.