Friday, March 6, 2009

Viva Cristo Rey, El Caudillo's battle cry

Generalísimo Francisco Franco Is Still Dead -- And His Statues Are Next

Socialist Government Banishes Fascist Icons Though Nostalgia for the Dictator Lives On


Franco's Spain is nearly gone.

The Socialist government of Spain is continuing its efforts to tarnish Franco and his memory, while white washing their own disgusting history. The anecdotes are endless...allow me to briefly describe a handful of events that could be used to accurately memorialize Franco's opposition from the 1930's

-In the first three months of the Spanish Civil War in 1933 more than 3,000 unarmed priests, nuns, and brothers were systemically executed and assassinated. How about a series of massive bronze statues in a square of Barcelona that shows five priests on their knees with arms extended to give blessings to their assassins as they are mowed down by gun shots. (Autopsies of the brothers often showed the bullets had entered their hands and wrists, then traveled all the way up their arms into their shoulders because they were in the process of blessing their persecutors while being executed.)

-More priests and religious were killed in 6 months in Spain, by Franco's opposition, than in any time since the persecutions of Diocletian. Diocletian had ordered Roman soldiers to go house to house to uproot each and every Christian, if someone refused to offer a sacrifice to Rome's gods, then he was promptly executed. How about a plaque in Bilbao, which indicates these statistics and comparisons. Is this good company for Franco's enemies to be in?

-Sometimes fiction is stronger than reality...Ernest Hemingway spent time in Spain during the Civil War and his novel For Whom the Bell Tolls is set in that Civil War. How about we place a sculpted relief before Madrid's weekly flea market which shows Hemingway's account of Pablo's anti-Franco volunteers taking over their local village. The highlight of the relief would be how the gauntlet of thresher, club, and scythe wielders formed to hack the "Fascist Nationalists" that supported Franco's side into pieces before they were thrown over a cliff. And to think Franco's government found cause to execute the perpetrators?

-My old friend Maria Luisa de Castro, born and raised in Algeciras, had some good tales her grandmother passed down to her from when she was a child in the 1930's. Maria once recounted to me how her grandmother described seeing Franco's enemies publicly executing Franco's supporters in the streets while she was enroute to elementary school...just like the Goya painting, I believe.

-My personal favorite, because it's the least gory of these anecdotes, would be to have a larger than life bronze of the leader of Franco's enemies handing over pallet upon pallet of solid gold bars to be delivered to Stalin for safe-keeping, in case Franco were to sack Madrid. It is said that Stalin gave a gleeful toast the day Spain's entire gold reserve was delivered to Russia. Apparently it is still being held, it has not been returned.

-They could also publish pamphlets that include mention of Spain's birth-rates since the socialists took over...according to Mark Steyn (Canadian extraordinaire) Spain is so far beneath the replacement rate that they may never recover. A Spain without Spaniards, imagine that. IT is certainly a less visible means to depopulate your nation, unlike the mass drownings that Robespierre, Danton and Marat orchestrated in the Vendee during the French Revolution.

A lovely segment of the article, from which this post stems, is as follows:

"The left is attempting to rewrite our country's history. They base it on a series of half-lies, half-truths and outright lies," says Mr. Bezanilla. The 44-year-old municipal worker was just 11 when Franco died. But he has read volumes on the former dictator's ideas and is nostalgic for his regime.

More than three decades after Franco died and 72 years after he seized power, Spain is on a controversial mission to expunge the many emblems of its painful past that are still on public display.

We should not forget that it was just in the 1990's that his Holiness, Pope John Paul II, beatified several hundred of the soldiers that fought with and for Franco; against the anarchist, communist, socialist, and Trotskyite popular front government that had given Spain's gold reserve away and executed thousands of priests and religious. John Paul II's profound declaration regarding Franco's soldiers was and remains the largest mass beatification in history!

Some parting thoughts...Franco followed the centralized, planned government structure of fascist principles (ones which I do not support mind you), the racism of Hitler and the expansionism of Hitler and Mussolini (fascism's founder) were never a part of Franco's reign. Franco actually withdrew Spanish forces back into Spain, vowing never to draw his sword again except in defense of Spain. Franco did meet with Hitler at the height of WWII. Franco refused to send any forces to assist Hitler...he only allowed volunteers to enlist in the war against Communist Russia (which was also executing Christians-Belarus was once 98% Catholic, today it is 2%. Hitler declared that he would "rather have two teethed pulled than to ever go through a meeting with that man [Franco] again." Know of any other leaders from Franco's era that stood up to Hitler that well??? Neville Chamberlain is still a laughing stock for the way he was played by Hitler. Not so with El Caudillo, aka Franco, whose supporters and soldiers were notorious for shouting Viva Cristo Rey, Long Live Christ the King!

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Another's commentary on Brooks, et al

I always enjoy reading David Brooks, though I always cringe at the way he ends each op ed with a denial or defeat of what he had written up until the end.  For example, Brooks once called Obama a "Fast Eddie" because of how he "threw his pastor under the bus" the week after he explained away his pastors racist remarks.  Just like yesterday's op ed, "Obama is not who we moderates thought he was."  Still, he end the op ed by stating how he wants to bring Obama back to his better self.  The excerpt below from a article puts Brooks and Cramer (not Kramer as I had mistakenly spelled his name) and co. into proper perspective:

"Centrists," "moderates" and "social justice Catholics" (among others) who believed otherwise did so because their entire justification for supporting Obama consisted of, "We know what he's saying, but we don't believe him." This is the political equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and yelling, "Nah nah nah nah nah nah - I can't hear you." How else to describe the deliberate obtuseness of authors and commentators who insisted before the election that Obama was "going to govern from the center," and the increasingly desperate and transparently specious assertions after the election that that's precisely what he was doing? Hell, they’d still be saying it, if it weren’t for the fact that the Dow takes a tumble every time he opens his mouth.

Well, I'll give Brooks credit for this much: at least he is willing to admit it now. Prominent Catholic and Pepperdine Law School dean Doug Kmiec is still running around proclaiming Obama to be the most pro-life president ever. This despite Obama's historic refusal to support the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, his promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, his repeal of the Mexico City Policy, his appointment of EMILY's List and NARAL operatives to important positions, and his nomination of pro-choice Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of Health and Human Services. (At this rate, Kmiec will soon have a pro-life website up and running in support of Kansas late-term abortionist Dr. George Tiller. I can see it now: Perhaps Kmiec could argue that Tiller, too, actually serves the pro-life cause, because the procedures he employs are so horrific, even women who want an abortion are scared off.)

LA's Mahoney and denial

I've never been a fan of Cardinal Mahoney.  The same bishop that once "served" my home diocese and set in place the various policies on accused pederasts that ended up getting the diocese sued for millions, though that is extremely minor as compared to the children that men like my former parish pastor harmed.  

Cardinal Mahoney is the one who spent hundreds of millions of dollars to complete a notoriously hideous new cathedral just in time for the sex abuse law suits to slam the diocese for money it no longer had.  The diocese then went on to sell hundreds of millions of dollars worth of real estate to pay for its legal settlements.  

I once attended Mahoney's infamous LA catechetical congress for a weekend...the two+ hour opening prayer ceremony was void of two striking things: not a single crucifix in the arena and not one priest, nun, or the cardinal himself led us in the sign of the cross.  The Cardinal did find time to enter into the "liturgical dance" portion of the opening ceremony, he lacked style-but, again, that's minor.  

Today the good Cardinal made the following declaration, as told by AP: LOS ANGELES (AP) — Cardinal Roger Mahony on Tuesday took the unusual step of banning Holocaust-denying British Bishop Richard Williamson from any Roman Catholic church, school or other facility in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

"Holocaust deniers like Williamson will find no sympathetic ear or place of refuge in the Catholic Church, of which he is not — and may never become — a member," said a commentary signed jointly by Mahony, head of the nation's largest archdiocese, and two officials of the American Jewish Committee.

Since when does this diocese censor people?  Name one excommunicant in the the last 20 years.  Name five of his high school theology teachers that would accept the oath of fidelity.  To claim that a leader of the SSPX is not and may never become a member of the Catholic church is preposterous.  Was he validly baptised?  Is he currently under some form of excommunication?  (no, that was lifted!)  How can a cardinal declare that a baptised catholic is not catholic?  Does he have some special insight into his soul's disposition and belief?  

So, for questioning historical evidence he is persona-non-grata, but a cardinal that wastes hundreds of millions on his pet-cathedral and shuffled around pedophiles for years is some how a good catholic???  Oh, my!

I could say more on Mahoney, but will refrain.  I do not think much of Williamses remarks, but his remarks question history as Mahoney's question prudential judgement and the safety of his flock...which is worse?

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Interesting economic bits, scary too

This first site is an article that recounts the testimony of one and other wall street people who were uber-pro-Oh, Bama and who not fear, like Kramer, that this "radical agenda" will devastate wall street even further.  The article expands the expected effects and explains that a once of blood on wall streets takes a "pound of flesh" from main street.

This next link (though you may need to copy and paste it to the browser), is a four minute clip of an interview with the beloved Alan Keyes, who valiantly, yet foolishly, ran for Illinois Senator against Obama.  Keyes was an ambassador and advisor to Reagan, speak a few languages, is black, has his doctorate, and is quite Catholic.  His voice can be shrill and nasally at times, but having seen him speak twice and having met him twice  I know of no better speaker!

Incidentally, David Brooks' New York Times headline today says, Obama is not who we thought he was.  

Wow!  David Brooks, Kramer, and Alan Keyes all agreeing, on this...???  Wow!

Kramer and tv's 'Mad Money'

I told myself I'd steer clear of politics for a day, but I can't resist.  I have a post on Romano Guardini and the Industrial Revolution planned for later in the day.  Now, onto a small bit of politics and economics...

I usually don't care for (Larry?) Kramer, host of tv's Mad Money and frequent guest on the morning news on channel 3.  Today he was in quite a furry with Matt Lauer, not with Matt personally, however.  Kramer repeatedly stated that the recent Oh, Bama budget is a "radical agenda" and laughed at the notion that it was in any way investor or share holder friendly.  He also said that this budget is devastating to job creation in the market place.

Kramer has pushed for the bailouts and what not since long before Bush began them, and he seemed to support Obama up until now in my opinion.   Kramer was down right furious over the amount of time it took Bush to respond to the calls for government intervention back in Oct./Nov.  He essentially went on to add that though the stimulus was helpful and right, this budget completely changes the game and will destroy the economy.   

I haven't read the stimulus or the budget and I likely will not get to it.  In principle I tend to dislike the stimulus and bailouts no matter what their details.  But when Kramer, a pro intervention and pro stimulus and pro bailout guy gets so exasperated with such things I am quite intrigued.  

Monday, March 2, 2009

Some Responses

The computer didn't want to let me post this as a comment, so I'm posting it as a new message. This is a response to Kyle's comments. Kyle is the one responsible for getting me to start this blog in the first place...and the first to challenge me on it.

I think you're giving him too much credit, Kyle. I hope I am wrong, but I think it likely he let his feelings slip at the PA town hall meeting where he said he wouldn't want his daughter to be "punished" by a pregnancy. I don't think him to be Moloch, but Obama's vision of the good is so ghastly wrong that Moloch has control. To think of a child as punishment which can be disposed of to avoid the costs speaks to his premises, if this is ok then that is ok, it's cogent reasoning, but the premise is despicable and if he holds this premise then what else is ok?

I do agree on the long-term term solution, conversion. There is no other way, we aren't morally able to force them to act as we wish, our task is to spread the gospel.

Allow me to ramble a bit...In the realm of ideas, I think the underlying premises speak louder than the tenets of the policies themselves. If "whether or not it works" is his premise than he is capable of nearly anything. If nixing legal protection for a nurse who finds abortion murderous is permissible, then what will follow. I have been told by several in the nursing field that hospitals are inserting lines in their contracts that they must assist in abortions, or they will lose their jobs. So such coercion is going on and Bush signed an order that would protect their consciences, legal protection.

Are you familiar with Budzizewski (sp?) he wrote 'written on the heart' and 'what we can't not know.' He argues that at some point people need to be shocked with blunt reason. He may be wrong. Flannery O'Connor made the same argument: to the blind you must write in very large letters. I've grown quite weary of cordial non-discussion of so many issues just for the sake of tranquility. I don't mind roughing the waters, but I do pray that my approach is what certain people need at a given moment.

I spent some time in DC at Family Research Council and from that experience I can not accept that there is not a larger agenda behind seemingly small changes. Again, the premises behind the actions are more powerful than the initial acts and a larger legislative goal is being pushed by many ngo's upon every sen. and every cong'ssm'n at all times. Steps such as this and the Mex. City policy are hideous, but things will get much worse, I am convinced.

I'm not the only one who sees it

Kevin McCullough has recently penned a longer, more provocative account of the Obama administrations intentions to cram murder into the hands of our nation's doctors.  His parallel is precise and obvious.  I've pasted a lengthy excerpt and placed a link at the bottom of the excerpt for all to read the full article.  

Obama as...
by Kevin McCullough

...In the 1930's and 40's as Hitler wished to use his captive “lesser-humans” for "experiments" in his final solution. He too forced doctors to do things they did not wish to do. Everything from injecting living humans with horrible chemicals to see the effect, to trying differing grades of poisonous gases in what eventually became death chambers. These doctors, who were purveyors of those things that helped save lives, were suddenly forced to use the medical knowledge they had of death--to end them.

In today’s scenario Obama wants doctors to exterminate “lesser humans” for the purpose of immediate solutions to his social experiment. And he wishes them to do so regardless of whether or not they are compelled by the higher call of morality on an individual basis.

Put another way Obama's policy shift would be the equivalent of forcing those who believed slavery to be immoral and never even owned slaves, to begin purchasing them, beating them, raping them, and exploiting them.

This policy shift that Obama has attempted to slide under the radar screen is grossly immoral, and doctors should disobey it and run a medical mutiny against the administration if it becomes law.

The President did this, as he has done most things since coming to power as a pure, pragmatic, political move to pay off the campaign favors of those special interest groups he railed against during his campaign. In this case the abortion industry which is increasingly under attack from the next generation who understand the taking of innocent life to be horrific.

As to all the comparisons that the left made in 8 years of the previous administration, they never once had such a clear comparison that so vividly laid out the exact parallel between the dictator who thought it moral to gas people in chambers, and now a President who believes that live babies should be left to starve in soiled utility closets of hospitals, even if it violates the voice of God telling the doctor to do otherwise.

This stroke of the policy pen, moves the administration into its first conflict with the first amendment right of religious belief and expression, and he should be penalized for it quickly. ...

Bishop Martino and the "home" of 'The Office'

In case someone is unaware, tv's hit sitcom, 'The Office', is set in Scranton, PA.  Scranton is also the Episcopal seat of Bishop Martino, perhaps the most plain spoken and publicly engaged member of the American hierarchy.  The sort of man one wants to follow, why? because he speak with authority--which is how the masses described Christ, "he speaks with authority"  unlike the scribes.  He speaks objectively, rather than skeptically as Pilate did to Christ, "What is Truth?"  If the Church is unable to confidently speak truth in its third millenium then can it exist in a fourth?  At any rate, the point of this post is as follows: Bishop Martino continues to serve his flock by doing all he is able in preventing scandal and doubt as to the respect and reverence due to the Blessed Sacrament, the Panus Angelicus.  
Bishop Martino posted the following: 
Therefore, His Excellency, the Most Reverend Joseph F. Martino, Bishop of Scranton, reminds all ministers of Holy Communion, ordinary and extraordinary, that:

1. To administer the Sacred Body and Blood of the Lord is a serious duty which they have received from the Church, and no one having accepted this responsibility has the right to ignore the Church’s law in this regard;

2. Those whose unworthiness to receive Holy Communion is known publicly to the Church must be refused Holy Communion in order to prevent sacrilege and to prevent the Catholic in question from committing further grave sin through unworthy reception.

Earlier this month the forthright bishop informed his own Senator:  “Your failure to reverse this vote [Obama's rescinding of the Mexico City Policy, which prevents US aid money from providing abortions overseas] will regrettably mean that you persist formally in cooperating with the evil brought about by this hideous and unnecessary policy,” 

As #915 of theCode of Canon Law instructs: Eucharistic ministers are not to administer the Blessed Sacrament to Catholics "who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin." 

Bishop Martino is far from alone, as former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in his 2004 message to the bishops of the United States stated:

Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
When it comes to the reception of the most holy Eucharist...should the congregation need to ask, "what is truth?"  Or should truth be most manifestly obvious and reverence for that which we proclaim to be Christ's transubstantiated body and blood be maintained?  If someone who public supported the tax payer's well-earned money being used to execute the children not wanted by a parent, the unborn through 'abortion,' received communion at Mass...would you want to receive from the hands (Eucharistic minister's, priests, etc.) that gave to this man, would you want to stand in line behind him, thinking: this man voted to use my money (from tax dollars) to kill children, to murder children...Scandal???  At the immediate judgement that follows death, if you are asked about standing their dumbly how will you respond...I didn't know what the truth was, honest...I just followed what my bishop said or didn't say...who am I to judge?  I didn't know...Sorry...

One of my greatest fears

Posted below is a headline from CNN.  It has been rumored and alleged for some time that the Oh, Bama administration would do just this sort of violence to the conscience of individuals.  Bush was polite and quiet as he left office, but he slipped in at least one good policy as he left.  Can you imagine going to college then medical school and residency for about a decade or so then on just as you start your job you are handed a scalpel and told to murder someone you consider to be a living child.  If this goes through...imagine all the people they would seriously have to lock up or force into retirement.  Think of how long it will take to see a doctor next year if even 15% of doctors follow their consciences and refuse, resulting in an early retirement; or prosecution?.  Could a Dr. 'More' refuse to cooperate and be subsequently be prosecuted for denying what is pragmatically sensible...Henry VIiI punished More for not going along with what he thought was morally tolerable.  My God, this scares me.  Just think of where the money to pay for much of this will come from as well...our taxes used to kill our own children.   

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Obama administration plans to reverse a regulation from late in the Bush administration allowing health-care workers to refuse to provide services based on moral objections, an official said Friday.

The rule protects the rights of health care providers who refuse to participate in certain procedures.

The rule protects the rights of health care providers who refuse to participate in certain procedures.

The Provider Refusal Rule was proposed by the Bush White House in August and enacted on January 20, the day President Barack Obama took office.

It expanded on a 30-year-old law establishing a "conscience clause" for "health-care professionals who don't want to perform abortions."

Under the rule, workers in health-care settings -- from doctors to janitors -- can refuse to provide services, information or advice to patients on subjects such as contraception, family planning, blood transfusions and even v