CHRONICLES' Roman Catholic Tom Fleming Goes All-In For Obedience To The Tyranny

When you hitch your wagon to the grandmothers of Bolshevism, you always end up in the ditch:

Not content with telling wives to obey husbands, slave to obey masters, subjects to obey the rulers, Paul makes obedience a general rule: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.  For there is no power but of God: the powers that are ordained of God.  Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive unto themselves damnation."  So much for the right of revolution, civil disobedience, and, I might add, the myth of the Underground Railroad. ... In everyday political terms, then, we have to perform our duties as subjects or citizens.  "Render therefore to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is due; [TAX RESISTERS NEED NOT APPLY], custom to whom custom [SORRY, PAUL IS NO FREE-TRADER], fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.  By the way, the word for honor is good old Greek word time, that implies that different men have a worth or price that must be paid in terms of respect.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

None of that good ole' Protestant "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God" stuff for Tom Fleming, no siree.

It's nice to see that after all these years our disagreements about politics always end up being theological at their root.

Conservatives take note. The Roman Catholics now in control of most of the conservative movement are the reason America grows less and less free than it used to be. They will do nothing but continue to bow, but patriots will stand with the father of their country and refuse to kneel. 

The Senate Immigration Bill Has One Basic Problem: It's Too Christian

The Senate immigration bill has one basic problem: Its desire to make illegal aliens legal with the sweep of a hand.

Forgiveness is fine in church, but America isn't a theocracy, and Jesus Christ isn't its Lord, unless you are willing to make thought-adultery and a host of other sins crimes, and turning the other cheek and loving your enemies civic duties. Hate crime legislation is already one sign we've gone over the deep end into this sort of thinking. We're the Christian antitype of Sufi Iran.

Amnesty makes a mockery of the rest of immigration law and a mockery of those who have obeyed it both in the past and now, just as it did in 1986. It is cheap grace personified, the epitome of Protestantism gone off the rails.

Aren't Keynesianism and Homosexuality Equally Forms Of Psychological Rebellion?

"Despite his Cambridge education, aristocratic manner and wealth, Keynes was also an outsider in his own way. He was an aesthete who enjoyed describing himself as an 'immoralist,' a leading member of that sparkling circle of British intellectuals known as the Bloomsbury group that defied Victorian mores in both art and love. Keynes was married but was also homosexual, a fact that automatically put him in defiance of social convention.

"Keynes's rebellion against economic orthodoxy, as he explained himself, was not derived from the political discontents of socialism and class conflict. It was based on a psychological insight: capitalism was ripe for unprecedented abundance, universally distributed, if only human society could get beyond the stern dogma of the Protestant ethic, the Calvinist ethos that insisted self-denial and suffering were good and necessary for the human spirit. Save for the future, the Calvinist creed taught, and you will be rewarded in the long run and certainly in heaven. 'In the long run,' Keynes observed, 'we are all dead.' Enjoy the here and now, he insisted. Pleasure is good. Suffering is mostly unnecessary."

-- William Greider, Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country (New York: Touchstone, 1989), p. 318.

Barry Ritholtz Is Against The World Religion Of Gold

Barry Ritholtz here recently had some fun with the goldbugs, whom he ridicules as devotees of a "religious cult".

The piece is regrettably inflammatory. Doesn't he know he's writing off the whole world as a bunch of religious kooks in this temper tantrum? That's pretty much what ideologues do when reality won't cooperate with their theories, but surely he must know that sovereigns and central banks the world over continue to build their hoardes of gold year upon year, now approaching 32,000 tonnes and 20% of all the stuff ever pulled out of the ground. That's quite the foundation for the edifice of the worldwide church of gold.

In fact, many of the central banks in particular have been on a tear recently, acquiring the stuff in quantities not seen in 30 years. Evidently they are to a man possessed by the Oracle of Au (pronounced "Ow"). But try as they may to acquire new gold reserves, no one of them yet even comes close to the chief priest bowing and scraping before the barbarous relic, namely the USA, the number one holder of gold in reserve to the tune of 8,134 tonnes (not to be confused with tons). 

That even the USA with all its fiat money still considers this gold to be the most sublime of all currencies can be seen in its own gold issues. Gold Eagles, in one ounce sizes down to tenth ounce, are denominated from $50 down to $5. It says so right on the coins. (I understand if you don't believe me because you haven't seen one. They are expensive these days.) I myself haven't seen one of these things in my change at Walmart recently, or anywhere else, but theoretically you could. In various places around the country they are in fact found in Salvation Army kettles from time to time, usually around the time of a holiday formerly known as "Christmas".

There is a reason for what appears on a Gold Eagle: The US government has decreed that gold is money, and that the price of gold cannot fall. It has fixed the price at $42.22 per troy ounce since 1973, and it hasn't fallen since. The one ounce $50 Gold Eagle thus closely approximates this valuation, as it should if America wants to maintain its credibility as the leader of the free world and the spokesman for truth, justice and the, well, American way. The excess, in case you were wondering, is simply a small bonus in exchange for providing the world with both its security and its reserve currency, both of which are quite costly to the inhabitants of the land of the free.

Over our long history, the price of gold has indeed risen despite the best efforts of "manipulators" to stop it from doing so. For a long time the price of gold had been ruthlessly kept down at $20.67, from the War Between the States to FDR, but suddenly became $35 when the greatest Democrat ever saved us from the bad old ways. Not to be outdone, however, the great Republican Richard Nixon managed to make gold higher still, at $42.22, where it has stood ever since.

See, the price of gold hasn't ever fallen in America, it's only risen, just like Jesus. It's God's will. It is our manifest destiny.

That said, more people these days do need to come to accept the reality of this defacto gold standard to which our benevolent government all too secretly adheres. Younger generations of mockers actually have arisen among us who need to repent of their intemperate outbursts against gold and believe in the Gold Gospel once again. Instead of denying the reality of this kingdom of gold, which is really present here and now in the sacramental dollar, they need to wake up and consider the future possibilities of our great civilization and its gold religion.

Perhaps then there would be more public support for all these central bankers who print funny money to drive gold prices higher, especially for our own Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve who far excells all others at this. What he really needs most right now is more public encouragement to use that funny money like our competitors do in the world. Like them, we need to start augmenting our gold reserves once again using funny dollars to buy gold just as they are doing using, say, funny yuans. After all, this is actually a divinely sanctioned practice, what the Bible calls making use of "unrighteous mammon". You can look it up, it's right in there. Ben really needs to get on this right away. It should be a matter of his monetary policy to drive up the price of gold by hoarding it. Who knows, maybe we can even get our tonnage back up where it used to be after WWII, around 20,000 tonnes, and just think, all it will cost us is some paper and ink.

Meanwhile gold continues to work for us in season and out of season, in good times and in bad. Our reserves have seen us through thick and thin, whether it's been the boom times under Reagan/Bush/Clinton or the misery index years of Jimmy Carter or the new depression years of Barack Obama. Our gold is still there, just like the flag. It hasn't rusted, shrunk in the rain, or even tarnished. Good as gold as they say. Things might be even better if we had more of it, but you've got to be thankful for your blessings, thankful for what you do have.

The truth is, even in the very worst of circumstances imaginable gold has performed miracles for people. A few well-placed gold coins not that long ago meant the difference between some of our fellow countrymen coming here or going to the gas chambers. Ask them and their progeny if escaping an apocalypse wasn't "just fine", even if they were penniless afterward.

No, the only suckers when it comes to gold have been those who let theirs go when misguided government came looking for it. Some of those babies confiscated in 1933 now fetch $300,000. The rest appreciated in value in their melted down form in the government's vault, but only 6600%. You could go to Harvard today with just 120 of those ounces. In the present banks and governments across the globe are finding the collateral gold provides rather more reliable than US Treasuries in a pinch, which is why they keep acquiring it. Evidently we haven't yet understood the message that this sends. 

It's true in a sense that gold is a rejection of government control, but only in the sense of its opposite, self-control, which is what in America is the unique basis of our form of government. It was an idea bequeathed to us by Protestantism, and also by Plato, both of which are unhappily out of favor. But seeking to control your own destiny, which is what many foreigners are doing by acquiring gold, is actually the sincerest form of flattery of what the United States used to stand for. Free from the control of a reserve currency, there's no telling what others in the world may accomplish without us. But under a universal currency, there's no telling what we could still accomplish together. 

Libertarian John Fund Bails Out Of The Tax Code's Marriage Bonus

Libertarians do not see the value to the country of providing tax incentives to couples who marry and make sacrifices to raise the next generation, usually in the form of one parent staying home and keeping deeply involved in the lives of their children while the other works for a paycheck. Libertarians have become used to the idea that America is OK with an increasingly maladjusted and malcontented population of fruits, nuts and flakes, perhaps because that's who they are.

Only Phyllis Schlafly, it seems, is old enough and conservative enough to remind people today how hard it was and how long it took to achieve "married filing jointly" in 1948, but when she is gone none will be left to carry the torch. Instead we will be left with the fiddlers like Gov. Rick Perry and the kooks like John Fund who will preside over the crack-up of America.

Here is John Fund, for National Review, just another reason I stopped subscribing long ago:

"The cherished principle of separating church and state should be extended as much as possible into separating marriage and state. ... But instead of fighting over which marriages gain its approval, government would end the business of making distinctions for the purpose of social engineering based on whether someone was married. A flatter tax code would go a long way toward ending marriage penalties or bonuses. We would need a more sensible system of legal immigration so that fewer people would enter the country solely on the basis of spousal rights."

You see, it doesn't just stop with the one thing. Everything conservative must go: America's Protestant inheritance, the primacy of the nuclear family and national identity rooted in law and order. Libertarians, like other ideologues, aren't called the terrible simplifiers for nothing.

"A 30 Round Magazine Might Be Too Small"

". . . from my cold dead hands!"

Erick Erickson summarizes well the historical background for the 2nd Amendment, here, the point of which is that not only should individual Americans possess the very latest weaponry, but that as long as there are standing armies and militarized police forces in America, we can never really be free from impending tyranny, despite the existence of the Oathkeepers:

Many historians have come to view the American Revolution as a conservative revolution. The revolutionaries believed they were protecting their English rights from the Glorious Revolution of 1688. They were, in effect, revolting to demand the rights they thought they already had as English citizens. It is why, for much of 1775, they petitioned the King, not Parliament, for help because they had, separated by distance and time, not kept up with the legal evolution of the British constitutional monarchy in relation to Parliament. The colonists believed themselves full English citizens and heirs of the Glorious Revolution.

One of the rights that came out of the Bill of Rights of 1689 in England following the Glorious Revolution was a right to bear arms for defense against the state. The English Bill of Rights accused King James II of disarming protestants in England. That Bill of Rights included the language “That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.”

The Americans, however, saw the British government, via Parliament, begin curtailing the rights of the citizenry in the American colonies. When they formed the federal government with ratification of the Constitution, the colonists, now Americans, were deeply skeptical of a concentrated federal power, let alone standing armies to exercise power on behalf of a government. This is why, originally, the colonists chose to require unanimity for all federal action under the Articles of Confederation that the Constitution would replace. Likewise, it is why many early state constitutions gave both an explicit right to keep and bear arms, but also instructed that standing armies in times of peace should not be maintained.

Prior to the Civil War, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government and that first Congress dropped references to “as allowed by Law” that had been in the English Bill of Rights. The Founders intended that Congress was to make no law curtailing the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.

In other words, removing "as allowed by Law" means the right to keep and bear arms is not susceptible of further modification by legislative, or executive, action. Or for that matter by judicial action. The Second Amendment is a settled matter. Americans have simply forgotten this, and to the extent they have are already slaves.

The Rats Are Jumping Ship

"Tea Party favorite" Senator Demented Jim is resigning his Senate seat early to head up the Heritage Foundation, whose spawn was RomneyCare, and, you know, ObamaCare, and which has otherwise utterly failed to stop the leftward drift of the country.

The reason, of course, is that Heritage is the standard bearer of Reaganism, which is really a form of liberalism. As such it has furthered the leftward drift of the country as it made Republicanism home for Reagan Democrats who fled the radicalism of the Democrat Party and in their turn liberalized the Republican Party, driving out the conservatives in the process and making the Republican Party safe for the Bush family.

Meanwhile at FreedomWorks Dick Armey has controversially bailed out with a boat load of cash donated to help elect conservatives, which didn't go so well in November. After co-opting the Tea Party, the Republicans have now raped it.

It's interesting how the public face of both organizations has been the Rush Limbaugh Radio Program from noon to 3 daily, where Rush runs paid ads for them. Today, in fact, Rush had Sen. DeMint and Ed Feulner on the show to interview them about the move, no doubt to help preempt the narrative that DeMint is bailing out because of the increasingly hostile environment for conservatism in the Senate, led by squishes like Sen. Mitch McConnell. And right afterwards we got a nice little plug for FreedomWorks.

The glaring problem for the so-called conservatism of the Republican Party is that it is still trying to preserve the excrescences of the progressivism of the early 20th century when what it should be doing is challenging the originalist credentials of figures like Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln. The latter did more to ruin the original constitution than any president before or since, which is why no thinking conservative can call himself a Republican.

The only people in the country who used to have the habit of mind necessary for overthrowing foreign accretions to the original faith were Protestants, but any examination of them today demonstrates few instances of the virtues which characterized their forebears, unless the followers of Westboro Baptist Church be accepted. The capitulation of Christianity in America generally to the gay mafia tells you all you need to know about the intimate (can I say that?) connection between contemporary theology and liberalism.

Just ask yourself when was the last time the Heritage Foundation or FreedomWorks got upset that Obama has presided over the sweeping away of the Hyde Amendment, the single bullwark in law erected by conservatism against the radical advances of a dictatorial, blood-thirsty, liberalism? Communion, anyone?

Or did they ever object? None of us can remember.

Female Domestic Violence Lawyer Used "Legitimate Rape" Phrase In '09 Newsday Article

But when Rep. Todd Akin uses it it's wrong?

Well obviously! He's a man, a Protestant, and holds an MDiv degree from a theologically conservative seminary, making him once, twice, three times a . . . baddy.

Here:

Lois Schwaeber, director of legal services for the Nassau County Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said cases where people make false reports of rape hurt all legitimate rape victims seeking justice. But she said prosecuting someone who has made a false report will discourage real rape victims from coming forward as well.

Catholic Republicans Gang Up On Protestant Todd Akin

Laura Ingraham calls him a liar, Sean Hannity gives a prominent forum to Ann Coulter, who likens Akin to Eliot Spitzer and elsewhere calls him a swine, and Hugh Hewitt encourages him to drop out. Oh yeah, and throw in the VP nominee, well after the deadline.

America's Own System Of Government Is Once Again Bumping Up Against The Limits Of Its Own Legitimacy

So says Jerry Bowyer for Forbes, here:

If you are a patriotic American, you believe that there are circumstances under which it is right to take up arms against your own government. ...


[T]he rationale for the existence of the nation known as the United States of America, which first appeared in print 236 years ago today, is entirely dependent on the premise that there are indeed times “…when in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another ..."

In short, the Declaration and the principles on which it is based are the foundational ideas of our Republic. One can deny their truth, but one cannot deny their legal authority.

This implies something very important: No governmental official can deny the right of the people to dissolve the political bands which tie them to a tyrannical government without at the same time denying the Declaration and, by extension, the Constitution on which his own power is based. If he says, “The Declaration no longer applies; you must obey my authority no matter what.” We can rightly reply, “If the Declaration no longer applies, then the government of which you are a part no longer possesses legitimacy; which means you have no authority in the first place and therefore have no right to demand that we obey.”

This would be a useful discussion of this issue except that it leaves out a little period known as 1861-1865.

The claims of the unitary state advocated by Lincoln were enforced at that time most bloodily, precisely by appealing to the Declaration of Independence and its language of liberty and equality. Lincoln's reasoning divined a higher obligation in the Declaration and used it to deny the right of states to dissolve the political bands which joined North and South.

We are still living today with the sorry effects of this divided reading of the Declaration by Lincoln, where once sovereign States repeatedly plead their case to a Supreme Court and demonstrate their servility as they wheedle for a nearly forgotten liberty.

That Lincoln's reading was ahistorical is proven by nothing if not by the writing of the Constitution itself, which would not have talked of negroes as 3/5 of a person if Americans at the time, just a few short years distant from 1776, really believed in the primacy of principles for political economy as Lincoln did.

Lincoln's reading of the Declaration was ahistorical because it was an ideological reading from a looming ideological age which did violence to the Declaration's other parts and set it to war against itself instead of against tyrannical monarchy. America had had limited and divided government, separation of powers, and similar artifices precisely designed to short-circuit the natural tendency in man toward the despotism of ideology until Lincoln came along and refounded the country on the unitary principles of equality and liberty.

Until Lincoln, the Declaration had been an expression of a philosophical and Protestant insight that human beings are sold under sin, an evil tyrant, whose political analogue is despotism. Without strenous preparations against it, all hell breaks loose. With Lincoln, self-restraint was thrown to the winds and hell is what we got.

The sad truth about Independence Day 2012 is that most Americans no longer hold these truths to be self-evident. Slavery is the future because it is already present, and no amount of verbal wizardry can replace what faith makes prerequisite.

Abraham Lincoln took up arms against his own government, and won. And he's still winning.

Why Can't Rick Santorum Imagine A Republican Worse Than Mitt Romney?

"Pick any other Republican in the country. He is the worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama."

Santorum made the statement in Racine, Wisconsin, quoted here.

How about John McCain, for example? He actually lost against Barack Obama, as I recall. Wouldn't he be a worse candidate today than Romney?

Or how about Mark Foley?

Or Duke Cunningham?

There must be scads of Republicans who would be worse candidates than Mitt Romney, but Rick Santorum can't seem to muster the proper perspective to imagine who they might be or where Mitt Romney fits in the scheme of things Republican.

Rick Santorum has proven before that he exercises bad judgment from time to time, say by encouraging Democrats to interfere in Republican primaries, or by writing-off mainline Protestants, not just from electoral politics but from Christianity itself. This is yet one more example of an ill-considered opinion best left unexpressed.

And those sorts of things make him an incendiary candidate who cannot win against Barack Obama.

I'd say that makes him a worse candidate than Mitt Romney.

Santorum The Weasel On Display Again

When confronted recently about things he wrote in his book about radical feminists, Sen. Santorum blamed them on his wife, even though nowhere in the book does she get credit as a co-author.

Now he's protesting, as reported here, that his words suggesting we will end up voting for the real deal, Obama, instead of a paler version, in Romney, have been misunderstood as self-referential:

Santorum's original comment came Thursday in a San Antonio speech, in which the candidate said Obama and Romney had so few differences that "we may as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk" with Romney.

Santorum argued that when he used the word "we" in his comment, he was referring to the general public. But he said people mistook his remark to mean that he personally would vote for Obama over Romney.

"No, I was saying the people may not vote for someone they don't see as different," Santorum said.

What Republicans should and do find objectionable about this, contrary to Santorum's explanation, is that a high profile Republican such as Santorum seems to be campaigning for the Democrat opposition.

Indeed, he's given evidence that he's more interested in crossover votes from the Democrat Party, e.g. in the Michigan primary, than he is in Republican votes. Moreover his bashing of Protestants unfortunately legitimizes bashing Mormonism, which will come back to haunt, and hurt, Romney in the general election when PACs unleash a torrent of criticism on Romney's strange beliefs.

It's disloyal and dispiriting for Santorum to speak this way in public. Independent voters will lose, not gain, respect for Santorum as a result, not that it matters much. His is a negative campaign anyway, lock, stock and barrel. We all know the many things Santorum is against. The trouble is, we don't know what he's for.

Santorum should withdraw from the presidential contest.

Santorum Voters in Michigan Heavily Self-Identified as Democrats

By a margin over Romney voters of 35 points, according to FoxNews exit polling here:

Santorum voters were also union members by 15 points over Romney voters.

Only 24 percent of Santorum voters thought abortion should be legal, and 77 percent of Santorum voters thought of themselves primarily as abortion issue voters, with only 13 percent of Romney voters seeing themselves that way.

Deficits and the economy mattered more to Romney voters than Santorum voters by 16 and 17 points.

Despite Santorum's view that mainline Protestants aren't really Christians, Romney and Santorum pretty much split that vote with Santorum winning Protestants by two points. But Santorum lost the Catholic vote by a 7 point margin.

Romney excelled among females, the over 65 demographic, those making over $200,000 a year, college graduates and post-grads, the somewhat conservative, those somewhat opposed to the Tea Party and those favoring legalized abortion.

Self-identifying moderates went for Romney 45 percent to Santorum's 31 percent. The somewhat conservative went for Romney by an even larger spread, 50 to 32.

The Washington Post here reported that 1 in 10 Republican voters yesterday self-identified as Democrats:

Early exit polls in Michigan seemed to show that the negative campaigning had weighed on the state’s Republicans. Less than half of voters there said they backed their candidate “strongly.” About one in seven said they made their choice because they dislike the other options — four times the proportion that said so in this political season’s first votes, at the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses.

The polls also showed that a large number of Democrats had, in fact, crossed party lines in Michigan. About one in 10 of Tuesday’s voters identified themselves as Democrats in exit surveys. That was a higher figure than in any of the other early GOP contests.


About 978,000 votes were cast in Michigan's primary yesterday.

Can't Criticize Mormonism? Sen. Santorum Opens Door By Trashing Protestants

If Santorum is free to say the following about Protestants, Democrats will feel free not only to attack Santorum over his religion if he's the candidate, but also Romney over his:

"[L]ook at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it."

There is nothing qualitatively different about that statement from Christian Evangelicals' charge that Mormonism is a cult, not Christian, or some leftists' view that Mormonism is too weird to abide. At least Obama ditched Rev. Wright. But Romney is proud of his heritage, and so is Santorum pledged to defend all his beliefs in the public square.

Santorum has just played into the hands of the left and handed them a huge opening.

Thanks a lot, pal.

Drudge Makes 'People for the American Way' Story Against Santorum Lead

Today.

The left had the story five days ago here, and later here.





Is Drudge's sin of "talking like the left" the same as Newt's attacking "capitalism" back around January 11?

Sen. Rick Santorum's Anti-Protestantism: They are 'Gone From Christianity'

As usual for the senator, the following is inarticulately stated, but nevertheless it is clear enough that Sen. Santorum operates under an anti-Protestant Catholicism which was more common in the past and which finds the short-comings of Protestantism's more liberal denominations too good to pass up.

Excerpted from remarks made in Florida in 2008, referenced here and here:

"We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic but the Judeo-Christian ethic was a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic, sure the Catholics had some influence, but this was a Protestant country and the Protestant ethic, mainstream, mainline Protestantism, and of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it."


A bunch of us Protestants think the same thing, but that's another story.

The Hitch on G.K. Chesterton as Fascist Fellow Traveler

Seen here:

"[Chesterton's] idea of a body [the Roman Catholic Church] that actually did all the official thinking was probably not unrelated to the Mussolini concept of the corporate state. This would be repulsive to the English and American tradition."

Only until FDR, of course, who paved the way in America for the acceptance of the concept of the president as the blended strong man, as described in the memoirs of President Herbert Hoover.

In Spengler's phrase: "There is no contradiction between economic liberalism and socialism."

Can there be any other explanation for the three year somnolence of the 30 million strong Catholic Church in America while a ne'er-do-well poseur attempts to overthrow the country? Roman Catholics are incapable of recognizing tyranny, let alone stopping it, since they actually identify with a divine one. In fact, until recently Obama's social program and Catholics' have been virtually indistinguishable. Which is rather the point of Hitchen's critique of religion, and its heaven as the "Celestial North Korea."

Like many religious groups in America, Catholicism represents a country within the country and is only the most recent but vivid example of our continuing Balkanization and inevitable dissolution as one nation under the Protestant God.

The wall separating church and state in America was not built by Rome.

Guttmacher Institute Report Claims 2% of US Catholic Women Use Natural Family Planning

The Guttmacher report also claims 98 percent of sexually-active American Catholic women use contraceptives:

Among all women who have had sex, 99% have ever used a contraceptive method other than natural family planning. This figure is virtually the same, 98%, among sexually experienced Catholic women. ...

Only 2% of Catholic women rely on natural family planning; even among Catholic women who attend church once a month or more, only 2% rely on this method (not shown). Sixty-eight percent of Catholic women use highly effective methods: sterilization (32%, including 24% using female sterilization,) the pill or another hormonal method (31%) and the IUD (5%). ...

Data were gathered using in-person interviews with 7,356 women aged 15–44 between June 2006 and December 2008. All data used for this analysis were weighted, and the findings are nationally representative. ...

Current contraceptive use was measured only among women who had had sex in the three months prior to the survey and refers to the method used in the most recent month she had sex. Among women who reported using multiple methods in the survey month, priority was given to the most effective method. The category of “other” methods mainly consists of withdrawal but also includes less common methods, such as suppositories, sponges and foams. Natural family planning includes periodic abstinence, temperature rhythm and cervical mucus tests.


The Guttmacher Institute was originally in 1968 a creature of Planned Parenthood, and became independent from it in 1977. Alan Frank Guttmacher was once the president of PP.

The 4-6 year old study on which the data are based is described as "weighted," which means some data points count more than others. Which ones no one knows. I'll leave it to statisticians to decide if 7,356 women comprise enough of a data set to draw sweeping religious conclusions about any religious group, Catholic or otherwise.

From what I know of Catholics, however, the religion is "orthopractic" more than it is orthodox, emphasizing religious obligation more than religious belief, which would help explain why US Catholic women apparently routinely ignore official teaching.

Protestants have tended rather to emphasize correct belief, but in truth are not really less likely to practice otherwise.

Catholicism is a much bigger tent than Protestantism, which is a sea of tents. The strength, and the weakness, of Catholicism is its ability to co-opt pre-existing belief and absorb it.

The present struggle over reproductive issues in America highlights a struggle against an ideology not unlike that which the church faced in the Soviet era in the Eastern Bloc.

This may be a long war which doesn't end until America does.

Catholicism, however, will still be here when America is gone.   

'Conservatives' Compromising with the Devil

Not that I make it my business to follow this sort of thing very closely, but, well, there it is in USA Today:

Andrew Breitbart, a conservative blogger, says in a headline on his website that Palin "throws support behind GOProud." He has posted a clip from Palin's interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network in which Palin wonders whether conservatives should reach out to those with opposite views and "allow for healthy debate" on issues. Breitbart is on GOProud's advisory board.

More here, and here.

Sarah Palin knows what side of the bread the butter's on. She isn't going to alienate a big part of her base. Half of the Tea Party is libertarian, which means half of the Tea Party is ok with gay.

As is Roman Catholicism. That's why a Tammy Bruce can fill in for Laura Ingraham, no problemo. That's why Andrew Breitbart and Ann Coulter can be chums.

That's why repeal of DADT was off the radio radar screens on Bill Bennett's show, Ingraham's, Hannity's, etc.

Good Catholics all.

And that's why Elton John was treated so graciously by Rush Limbaugh at his (fourth) wedding.

The Protestantism that gave us that work ethic thingy that Pat Buchanan remembers made America so great?

It's in the rear view mirror and getting smaller every day. Mainline Protestants like the Episcopalians, the Methodists and the Lutherans have all loosened their sphincters for gay and lesbian preachers in their pulpits. Traditionalists have fled in droves to non-denominational churches, or to lonely isolation.

The left doesn't need to trouble itself with dividing the opposition on the right. Its minions masquerading as conservatives are doing the job all by themselves.  

Arguments Against Libertarianism

1. Liberty is like fire. It is necessary, but not everywhere and at all times and in all circumstances.

2. The American Revolution was not successful because George Washington exercised his right to free speech with the British, but because he shot them.

3. Tolerance ends where fanaticism begins because fanatics with power will never reciprocate.

4. Opinions arrived at under the pressure of the moment are oblivious to the lessons of the past.

5. Individuality is but a step away from the odd, the strange, the weird, the freakish, the nutty, the screwy and the kooky.

6. Eccentricity flies at great speed at the outer edges of the great spiral of the galaxy, threatening to disintegrate at any moment.

7. Libertarians would set free from their cages parakeets in winter.

8. If a traditionalist conservative is like a Protestant Christian, a libertarian conservative is like a Buddhist Christian.

9. Conservatives graze in the pasture. Libertarians are the flies on their backs.

10. Libertarianism is another form of materialism, for which metaphysics is an utter impossibility.

11. Liberty is not primary but is dependent upon law and order for its existence.

12. The cement of society is gratitude, friendship and brotherly love, not self-interest.

13. Human institutions are imperfectible because human nature is an irresolvable mixture of good and evil.

14. Governments which recognize that the state is instituted by God and fear Him restrain human passions, making life richer, more civilized and long.

15. Conservatives recognize others as fellow-travelers to the grave. Libertarians are Ebenezer Scrooge.