Just in Time for the Fall Elections

The Supreme Court ruled today, 5-4, that contrary to the view of gun control advocates, the Second Amendment does grant individuals the right to bear arms and overturned a D.C. law prohibiting it. This is bad news for the Democrats in an election year because it places at the forefront an issue, gun control, they would just as soon avoid, their advocacy of it testing so poorly in the polls. Today's court decision should provide a fine showcase for Barack Obama to display his terpsichorean skills dealing with an unpopular position espoused by his party.

Update: Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, thinks the court's ruling removes gun control as a political issue. I disagree. Not only was it a split decision from a panel with members getting on in years and in need of replacement, gun control, along with abortion, is one of precious darlings of the angry left. That is why Obama will have his work cut out for him, appeasing his lefty core furious at the court's ruling while avoiding the alienation of those agree with it.

Update 2: He's already twirling across the ballroom floor!

Just in Time for the Fall Elections

The Supreme Court ruled today, 5-4, that contrary to the view of gun control advocates, the Second Amendment does grant individuals the right to bear arms and overturned a D.C. law prohibiting it. This is bad news for the Democrats in an election year because it places at the forefront an issue, gun control, they would just as soon avoid, their advocacy of it testing so poorly in the polls. Today's court decision should provide a fine showcase for Barack Obama to display his terpsichorean skills dealing with an unpopular position espoused by his party.

Update: Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, thinks the court's ruling removes gun control as a political issue. I disagree. Not only was it a split decision from a panel with members getting on in years and in need of replacement, gun control, along with abortion, is one of precious darlings of the angry left. That is why Obama will have his work cut out for him, appeasing his lefty core furious at the court's ruling while avoiding the alienation of those agree with it.

Update 2: He's already twirling across the ballroom floor!

The Hermeneutics of "Today"

Fr. Neuhaus dispatches a less than spectacular breakthrough made by N. T. Wright, the Bishop of Durham:

Closer to the gravamen of his new book, Wright debunks traditional ideas of heaven by noting that Jesus could not have been referring to heaven when he said that the good thief would be with him today in paradise because Jesus still had to descend to hell and be resurrected and therefore was not himself in heaven on that day. Gotcha. Now why didn’t Thomas Aquinas and all those other smart theologians think of that? Here and elsewhere, N.T. Wright is as literalistic as the staunchest of fundamentalists.

(Thanks to William Tighe.)

The Hermeneutics of "Today"

Fr. Neuhaus dispatches a less than spectacular breakthrough made by N. T. Wright, the Bishop of Durham:

Closer to the gravamen of his new book, Wright debunks traditional ideas of heaven by noting that Jesus could not have been referring to heaven when he said that the good thief would be with him today in paradise because Jesus still had to descend to hell and be resurrected and therefore was not himself in heaven on that day. Gotcha. Now why didn’t Thomas Aquinas and all those other smart theologians think of that? Here and elsewhere, N.T. Wright is as literalistic as the staunchest of fundamentalists.

(Thanks to William Tighe.)

Bless Me Father for I Will Sin

A tip o' the hat to Christopher Johnson of the MCJ for this item, from the Living Church, on the latest travesty of the late, great Episcopal Church.

Last Sunday, in an article titled “New Blood: Violent Gang Life is Passed Down from Parent to Child,” the New York Daily News reported the Rev. Luis Barrios, priest associate at St. Mary’s Church, Harlem, had performed the rite of “blessing” for about 300 children as part of an initiation into the Latin Kings gang.

“It’s a street organization with the capacity to bring together young people in search of power, collective identity … [and] belonging in the society that’s rejecting them,” Fr. Barrios said, as reported by the Daily News.

How lovely. Lest there be any triumphal clucking, however, let us be mindful the deplorable practice of the Holy Catholic Church over the years administering the sacraments to known mafiosi via cowed or indifferent clergy (although, gratifyingly, she has been cracking down on it recently). That said, I will wager most of those clergy, if called to account, would not actually brag about it, nor use PoMo jargon like "bring together young people in search of power, collective identity" to justify it. They might even express remorse (especially if they're placed in the Witness Protection Program).

Bless Me Father for I Will Sin

A tip o' the hat to Christopher Johnson of the MCJ for this item, from the Living Church, on the latest travesty of the late, great Episcopal Church.

Last Sunday, in an article titled “New Blood: Violent Gang Life is Passed Down from Parent to Child,” the New York Daily News reported the Rev. Luis Barrios, priest associate at St. Mary’s Church, Harlem, had performed the rite of “blessing” for about 300 children as part of an initiation into the Latin Kings gang.

“It’s a street organization with the capacity to bring together young people in search of power, collective identity … [and] belonging in the society that’s rejecting them,” Fr. Barrios said, as reported by the Daily News.

How lovely. Lest there be any triumphal clucking, however, let us be mindful the deplorable practice of the Holy Catholic Church over the years administering the sacraments to known mafiosi via cowed or indifferent clergy (although, gratifyingly, she has been cracking down on it recently). That said, I will wager most of those clergy, if called to account, would not actually brag about it, nor use PoMo jargon like "bring together young people in search of power, collective identity" to justify it. They might even express remorse (especially if they're placed in the Witness Protection Program).

Couldn't Agree with You More

Ramesh Ponnuru, in the Corner (quoted in its entirety):

Apropos of Nothing

Any time I see somebody described in the papers as "devoutly Catholic," my mental reaction is: Oh. I didn't know he was pro-choice.

Couldn't Agree with You More

Ramesh Ponnuru, in the Corner (quoted in its entirety):

Apropos of Nothing

Any time I see somebody described in the papers as "devoutly Catholic," my mental reaction is: Oh. I didn't know he was pro-choice.

Tyranny and the Times

Pajamas Media has just posted a well-written abstract by Bruce Bawer of the pathological condition afflicting the editors of the New York Times these many, many years: the willful ignorance of tyranny. Two paragraphs stand out:

Indeed, it can seem that for the Times, when it comes to the very biggest and most disturbing stories, the “news that’s fit to print” was, and is, often the news that best fits the paper’s pre-existing picture of the world. In this sense, the Times is not a liberal newspaper at all, but deeply conservative, determined above all to provide its largely comfortable and affluent readers with a consistent, predictable picture of the world that doesn’t challenge their own worldview in any significant way or make them feel obliged to deal with things they’d prefer not to deal with.

[]

Indeed, to read Duranty, Matthews, Schanberg, and the Times’ Holocaust-era European correspondents is to be struck by how much alike they all sound. Whether they were in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Castro’s Cuba, or Pol Pot’s Cambodia, these reporters evinced the selfsame fascination with tyrants and offered the selfsame justifications for tyranny.

The posting is essential reading because the point of Bawer's sordid history of the Times' rationalization of evil is to serve as illustration how it is does so yet again; this time in its coverage of Islam in Europe, with an array of apologist reporters turning a blind eye to Sharia and intolerance among Muslims, disingenuously claiming the underlying problem is not radical Islam but racism among white Europeans.

That sort of pseudo-Marxist drivel would be would be laughable were it only appearing, as it is constantly but largely ignored, in college newspapers, the Nation or the dailykos.com. The Times, however, despite its recent falling fortunes, is still hugely influential among policy makers (you will see little if any difference between positions held by Times editorialists and the leadership and candidates of the Democratic party). Lamentably, more than a few politicians in Washington take their stand on issues based on what they have read in the New York Times so its whitewashing of the gravest threat to Europe in over two generations should be viewed with great concern by the rest of us.

Given its shameful history, e.g. Walter Duranty filing reports (and winning a Pulitzer prize) denying Stalin's intentional starvation of the Kulaks (estimated deaths, seven-to-ten million), the New York Times can be creditably accused of accessory to murder. What a shame if it were to get away with it again.

Tyranny and the Times

Pajamas Media has just posted a well-written abstract by Bruce Bawer of the pathological condition afflicting the editors of the New York Times these many, many years: the willful ignorance of tyranny. Two paragraphs stand out:

Indeed, it can seem that for the Times, when it comes to the very biggest and most disturbing stories, the “news that’s fit to print” was, and is, often the news that best fits the paper’s pre-existing picture of the world. In this sense, the Times is not a liberal newspaper at all, but deeply conservative, determined above all to provide its largely comfortable and affluent readers with a consistent, predictable picture of the world that doesn’t challenge their own worldview in any significant way or make them feel obliged to deal with things they’d prefer not to deal with.

[]

Indeed, to read Duranty, Matthews, Schanberg, and the Times’ Holocaust-era European correspondents is to be struck by how much alike they all sound. Whether they were in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Castro’s Cuba, or Pol Pot’s Cambodia, these reporters evinced the selfsame fascination with tyrants and offered the selfsame justifications for tyranny.

The posting is essential reading because the point of Bawer's sordid history of the Times' rationalization of evil is to serve as illustration how it is does so yet again; this time in its coverage of Islam in Europe, with an array of apologist reporters turning a blind eye to Sharia and intolerance among Muslims, disingenuously claiming the underlying problem is not radical Islam but racism among white Europeans.

That sort of pseudo-Marxist drivel would be would be laughable were it only appearing, as it is constantly but largely ignored, in college newspapers, the Nation or the dailykos.com. The Times, however, despite its recent falling fortunes, is still hugely influential among policy makers (you will see little if any difference between positions held by Times editorialists and the leadership and candidates of the Democratic party). Lamentably, more than a few politicians in Washington take their stand on issues based on what they have read in the New York Times so its whitewashing of the gravest threat to Europe in over two generations should be viewed with great concern by the rest of us.

Given its shameful history, e.g. Walter Duranty filing reports (and winning a Pulitzer prize) denying Stalin's intentional starvation of the Kulaks (estimated deaths, seven-to-ten million), the New York Times can be creditably accused of accessory to murder. What a shame if it were to get away with it again.

This Will Get Your Guests' Attention

As a former Anglican, recently received into Holy Mother Church, sometimes embracing the Faith require a leap of faith. A case in point (shown above) is taken from a site called Catholic Cuisine:

Appetizer for Solemnity of the Sacred Heart

The Solemnity of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus is May 30. Here is a fairly simple idea for an appetizer which could be served on this date or during the month of June which is dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

The recipe (if you must) is found on the Catholic Cuisine website but suffice it to say, Jesus' Heart is cream cheese crafted with a heart-shape mold and His Most Precious Blood taco sauce poured over. Christ have mercy and bon appetit!

(Thanks, I think, to Slane Hill.)

This Will Get Your Guests' Attention

As a former Anglican, recently received into Holy Mother Church, sometimes embracing the Faith require a leap of faith. A case in point (shown above) is taken from a site called Catholic Cuisine:

Appetizer for Solemnity of the Sacred Heart

The Solemnity of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus is May 30. Here is a fairly simple idea for an appetizer which could be served on this date or during the month of June which is dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

The recipe (if you must) is found on the Catholic Cuisine website but suffice it to say, Jesus' Heart is cream cheese crafted with a heart-shape mold and His Most Precious Blood taco sauce poured over. Christ have mercy and bon appetit!

(Thanks, I think, to Slane Hill.)

Aww...

(Thanks to Fr. P)

Aww...

(Thanks to Fr. P)

Obama: I Will Prosecute the War (But Only in a Courtroom)

From an interview with Barack Obama by Jake Tapper of ABC:

What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, “Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.”

So that, I think, is an example of something that was unnecessary. We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws.

We also know many of those involved with the first bombing of the Trade Center got away with it because arresting them would not have been "consistent with our laws." We also know one full year passed between the arrests and convictions of those we could nab; that those who got away, the ones we couldn't arrest, rather than occupy themselves praying to Allah the jury would find for their chums, instead threw themselves into the work of ensuring the job would be done right the next time.

What we don't know, only Obama does, is given now the preference of Muslim terrorists to blow themselves to bits when doing same to the rest of us, how they are best arrested and tried should they be successful. And I wonder if Barack Obama knows that a memorial erected to the memory of the six people killed in the first Trade Center attack was destroyed in the second attack.

What a foolish and dangerous man.

(h/t Andrew C. McCarthy at the Corner.)

Obama: I Will Prosecute the War (But Only in a Courtroom)

From an interview with Barack Obama by Jake Tapper of ABC:

What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, “Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.”

So that, I think, is an example of something that was unnecessary. We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws.

We also know many of those involved with the first bombing of the Trade Center got away with it because arresting them would not have been "consistent with our laws." We also know one full year passed between the arrests and convictions of those we could nab; that those who got away, the ones we couldn't arrest, rather than occupy themselves praying to Allah the jury would find for their chums, instead threw themselves into the work of ensuring the job would be done right the next time.

What we don't know, only Obama does, is given now the preference of Muslim terrorists to blow themselves to bits when doing same to the rest of us, how they are best arrested and tried should they be successful. And I wonder if Barack Obama knows that a memorial erected to the memory of the six people killed in the first Trade Center attack was destroyed in the second attack.

What a foolish and dangerous man.

(h/t Andrew C. McCarthy at the Corner.)

BREAKING NEWS!

Al Gore has endorsed Barack Obama! He says the "U.S. needs new vision."








Uh, hello?





Hello?





Hellooooooo?





Anybody out there?





Hello?

BREAKING NEWS!

Al Gore has endorsed Barack Obama! He says the "U.S. needs new vision."








Uh, hello?





Hello?





Hellooooooo?





Anybody out there?





Hello?

No First Amendement in the Vatican, Deo Gratias

From the Telegraph:

The Vatican has banned the makers of Angels & Demons, the latest book from Da Vinci Code bestseller Dan Brown to be turned into a movie, from entering the Holy See and any church in Rome.

[snip] The scene will now be shot on a soundstage after the diocese of Rome closed its doors against the producers. Father Marco Fibbi, a spokesman, said: "Usually we read the script but in this case it wasn't necessary. Just the name Dan Brown was enough."

Adding insult to injury, Franco Zeffirelli (bless his heart) joins the fray: "Dan Brown is a rapscallion. The Vicariate has done well to deny them access."

No First Amendement in the Vatican, Deo Gratias

From the Telegraph:

The Vatican has banned the makers of Angels & Demons, the latest book from Da Vinci Code bestseller Dan Brown to be turned into a movie, from entering the Holy See and any church in Rome.

[snip] The scene will now be shot on a soundstage after the diocese of Rome closed its doors against the producers. Father Marco Fibbi, a spokesman, said: "Usually we read the script but in this case it wasn't necessary. Just the name Dan Brown was enough."

Adding insult to injury, Franco Zeffirelli (bless his heart) joins the fray: "Dan Brown is a rapscallion. The Vicariate has done well to deny them access."