A Conservative Blog for Peace…

…tries to read the tea leaves. He thinks Romney’s going to win. I think his assessment of where things stand is probably pretty accurate. That and five bucks will get you a Starbucks.

Bottom line for any Catholic serious about his or her faith:

GTFO of the Democratic Party. But the Republicans aren’t our friends either, nationally. Except of course for Ron Paul.

I don’t hate those voting for Romney because of the contraception battle: better a jerk who doesn’t care about you than one who hates everything you stand for. But I’m not going along.

Agreed. Any Catholic who can’t see that the Republican party doesn’t care about you in the slightest is not paying attention. Any Catholic that cannot see the Democrat party regards you as an enemy to be persecuted and destroyed is a fool.

"it is not a misnomer. Civil offenses do not result in criminal charges in criminal ..."

Not Romans 13. John 8:44
"I was being charitable. As you must know, the whole idea of a useful idiot ..."

What Trump Actually Accomplished in Singapore
"Big difference between presenting oneself at the border, and getting caught sneaking across the border."

Not Romans 13. John 8:44

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Teri
  • Confederate Papist

    That’s a great pull quote Mark….and I think many sentiments of your blog-gees.

    • ds

      Not me. He lost me at “Ron Paul.” Conservative dupe for peace.

  • Yeah….nice quote…sums it up in 50 words or less.

  • ivan_the_mad

    Hahaha! Delightfully frank and crude!

    • Dave G.

      I don’t know, shouldn’t we need some citations before we praise a statement like that?

  • MikeTheGeek

    Perhaps one can get involved and help direct the party, instead of just opting out? Or are we into the theory that they are all run behind the scenes by shape-shifting reptilians?

    • “Perhaps one can get involved and help direct the party, instead of just opting out?”

      Many have, and are, doing so. But, the party does not want them there. The party, instead, tries to throw out the duly elected delegates (see Maine, Louisiana, Massachusetts, and maybe other states I am unaware of.) It’s hard to avoid the message (even Rick Santorum has said it straight up) that libertarians, strict fiscal conservatives, and Constitutional conservatives (basically anyone who would consider voting for Ron Paul) are not welcome, and will be drummed out of any party influence if at all possible. In that situation, can one be blamed for opting out?

      • The people who are able to do the drumming out are generally the lowest of elected officials, the precinct committeemen of the party. If you run a slate of them in your town and win a majority it is very difficult to dislodge them. Do that in a majority of precincts in your county and you’ve generally captured the party at the county level and do that at the state level and you’re pretty much untouchable from these sorts of shenanigans. A state party apparatus, if it wants to, can withdraw from the national party and bring with it all of its patronage jobs. That’s a potent threat and really is the only realistic basis that a 3rd party will successfully launch. Capture 10-30 state parties, fail to work your will at the national level, and move en masse to the 3rd party that better fits you, taking a number of congressmen, senators, and governors with you. Both major parties are rightly concerned about that which is why you have such ridiculous fights over elections that might have less than a dozen people voting on both sides.

  • Linda C.

    Anyone who has paid attention to the GOP treatment of pro-life voters (ignore, if not outright reject, then throw a verbal bone with nothing to back it up whenever an election rolls around) ought to catch on that the GOP actively and energetically does not want conservatives to have any say on anything. They know we’re not going to vote for Democrats , so they feel safe in barring the door to any actual change in the system.

    • Yeah…true. Beyond my post above, they don’t really care about pro-life either. I could forgive all the sins above (disenfranchising Ron Paul type voters who really care about fiscal policy, smaller government, etc) if the GOP was truly committed to changing the status quo on abortion…but they just aren’t.

  • The Deuce

    Somewhat off-topic, but worth posting, imo:

    I’m very much against the HHS mandate, but we need to remember just how complicit the USCCB was in giving the state the rope to hang them with. This is what happens when you conflate fashionable “progressive” social initiatives with the actual work Christ demands of us, and it’s a powerful lesson that must be learned if we don’t want the state to continue to crush our religious freedom in the future. Progressive statists are enemies of God and of the Church, and are motivated by their hatred of both, and you lie down with the devil at your own risk when you cooperate with them.

    • Adolfo

      False. The Bishops were for the health care legislation (under the idea that SOMETHING has to be done), but LOUDLY opposed any tax payer funding for abortion, etc. To say that they are complicit is simply wrong.

      • The Deuce

        Did you not read the article? The USCCB actually helped to fund Obama’s Alinsky lessons.

        And yes, the bishops were for the health care legislation. They thought they could walk right up to the fire of progressivist statism, which is inherently hostile to the Church, and not get burned. “Something has to be done” is absolutely no excuse for acting foolishly and recklessly, with no regard to what that “something” is, and whether it’s likely to make things better or worse.

        • ds


          • The Deuce

            So, ds, are you trying to defend the bishops spending church money for a young leftist community organizer to take lessons in neo-Marxist power politics? You think that’s a reasonable use of the funds the congregation entrusted to them, or that it can be legitimately defended as part of Christ’s mission? You don’t think there’s any take home lesson from the fact that that self-same community organizer is now trying to crush the Church using the same tactics they paid for him to learn?

            Or are you just trying to avoid thinking about this at all by dismissing me for mentioning Alinsky? Look, you don’t have to learn anything you don’t want to, but those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Do you actually want to defeat the HHS mandate and avoid the errors that allowed it to happen or not? If you would prefer to just get duped again and again, and complain about it afterwards each time rather than do anything about it, then fine, just keep doing what you’re doing.

            • ds

              I don’t want to defeat the HHS mandate.

              I am dismissing you for mentioning Alinsky. I am trying to avoid thinking too much about your bizarre fantasies. You probably fear Alinsky hiding under your bed at night for all I know.

              There’s plenty to oppose Obama about without having to shout the he will CRUSH THE CHURCH! ALINSKY!! PROGRESSIVE BISHOPS!!!

              I think you’re the dupe. I bitch a lot but I don’t equate that with complaining.

      • There were a number of alternatives to Obamacare that the Bishops could have supported, but didn’t. These alternatives will likely go on to replace Obamacare because something *does* have to be done. If the Bishops seriously thought it was Obamacare or nothing, my opinion of them actually goes down from sincere but misguided on certain economic questions irrelevant to their teaching authority to a fear that they are too incompetent to lead.

    • Ted Seeber

      Capitalism itself is to blame for why abortion is so prevalent. From the Doctors (who, if they are capitalistic and care more about profit than human life, are given the choice between earning $6000 for 72 hours of work spread out over 9 months, or $1600/hr for performing 4 abortions an hour), to the insurance companies (live birth for $6000 or an abortion for $400, which would you rather pay for?) to the parents themselves (around $2 million over 18 years to raise a child) right-wing fiscal libertine Randroid philosophy would say that it’s a waste of resources to share with the next generation.

      • The Deuce

        Lust after money is largely to blame. I’m not sure where you get the idea that capitalistic economic policy (as opposed to corporatist state/business cronyism) specifically is to blame, unless you’re making a lazy equivocation between capitalism and money in general.

        • Ted Seeber

          I don’t see any moral distinction between capitalist philosophy which places profit as the highest virtue, and coporatist/cronyist philosophy which places profit as the highest virtue.

          From the standpoint of destroying the right to life for profit, they’re equal.

          • The Deuce

            I’m not sure what you mean by “capitalist philosophy”. Capitalism is an economic policy, not a philosophy. Are you trying to say that people who think that a capitalist economy is better than a socialist or corporatist one place personal material gain above all else, or do so more than people who promote those other policies? I’ve seen little evidence of that, and in fact corporatists and socialists seem to me to be generally more corrupt and obsessed with power and wealth.

            • Ted Seeber

              Economics IS philosophy. Like all philosophies, it has it’s assumptions, axioms, and theories.

              But then again, any systemic thought is a philosophy in my book.

          • The Deuce

            Anyhow, the particular problem you’re describing has nothing to do with capitalism or socialism per se. It’s just a basic fact of reality that raising a child requires more time and resources, and thus costs more (regardless of the economic or monetary system), than killing a child, which means that there’s always an incentive for people without scruples who want to avoid the costs to do the latter.

            • Ted Seeber

              There is a system of economic thought which includes love and friendship as higher virtues than monetary cost; I suggest you look into it. A great place to start is with Rerum Novarum.

              • ivan_the_mad

                There you go distributing your ideas throughout the comboxes again … eh? EH? Distributing???

              • The Deuce

                Look, even under distributism, you can’t do away with the underlying reality that raising a child is more resource-intensive than killing one. The problem here is not one created by an economic system. You can say that people ought to place love and friendship above monetary cost, and I would agree with you, or that abortion is murder and should be illegal, and I would also agree with you, but neither statement is an economic statement.

      • Corita

        If you mean that the capitalism that facilitates materialist buying and selling of the human body via promiscuity (and the resulting potential income from beauty products, contraception, and everything you need to Catch a Mate), then I agree with you.

        Otherwise I disagree that abortion is somehow “oushed” on us by docs who want to make money. Abortion has *always* been in demand, in every society where women live, love, give birth and suffer. Of course, wanting not to suffer, at all, is a also capitalist-encouraged mindset, certainly.

        • Ted Seeber

          Well, that too- for which contraception is a must (and by extension, abortion when the contraception fails).

        • enness

          Nevertheless, I think it presents an industry with an incentive to obscure the truth.

      • Ted Seeber – There may be shortsighted morons who actually think as you say but you go beyond all reason to lay abortion at the feet of capitalism. Abortion and infanticide are well established pre-capitalist practices and saying otherwise is just historically ignorant. Abortion is as cheap as it is to a great extent because abortionists are insulated from the liability of their practice and they get to cut fiscal corners that no other doctor gets to do. That’s not a capitalist issue. That’s a problem in medical regulation. What do you think that mantra about “backdoor restrictions” is about? It’s all about making abortion more lucrative than it should be.

  • Ted Seeber

    And I can’t even be sure of Ron Paul- or any other second-generation-or-larger Protestant. They’re the ones who caused this mess to begin with.

  • Peggy R

    I agree that the Dem party is no place for Catholics. No doubt. I see our “mission,” politically that is, to rout the GOP establishment again and again to put in candidates who are conservative, who do take action we desire on abortion, just war, marriage, etc. Now, most of these issues that concern us are domestic and properly handled by state and local governments. Quit looking to national office holders and candidates to push laws that we want. They do have some roles, ie, in federal funding and judge appointments, but the pro-life actions are occurring in state legislatures. Look at Mississippi shutting down its last abortion mill with a law requiring compliance with generally applicable safety standards. We are a union of states. I think liberty and conservatism are on the ascendency in the GOP. No, not all the candidates are preferred or desirable, but we’re making headway. Keep pushing. This is where we have a chance. or you can begin work on a third party that will take a generation at least to obtain enough presence to provide a presidential candidate who could win.

    My theory is like the quote you pulled. The Dem party is reliably evil, while the GOP is unreliably good.

    • Ted Seeber

      What makes you think the profit motive is redeemable at all?

      • Peggy R

        I don’t know where I spoke of the profit motive, but I don’t object to a businessman making more money than his cost to run the business. He has to feed, clothe and house his family, right? Maybe take a vacation once in a while? No? You’d have us all barely getting by? Working by candle light? We could all resort to autarky and go back to self-sufficient farms I guess. Money is a means, not the end. Money is to serve us, not us serve it.

        • ds

          Not to be snarky,
          but I do think you might have
          misspelled autarchy.

          • Autarchy = autocracy.
            Autarky = refusal to trade with anyone else.
            Two different words, formed from unrelated Greek roots. (Arkhein ‘to take the lead’ vs. arkein ‘to suffice’.)

        • Ted Seeber

          The generous man is always “just getting by”- because he cares enough about his neighbors to never get ahead.

      • Mr. Seeber – Where the profit motive is absent, people tend to die in much larger numbers than in otherwise. It’s a pretty deep motivation that one really has to activate Caesar to get rid of any expression of so let me ask you this, what possible moral platform are you standing on to justify deep state oppression and increased poverty, misery and death. I frankly don’t see it and absent some major moral cause, find repression, misery, and death to be morally dubious in and of themselves.

  • Peggy R

    I do believe I am right. Econ is my profession and training.

    “autarchy” is a different but somewhat related concept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarchy

    no snark taken.

    • Ted Seeber

      You were right. I am definitely for autarky, informed by the Catholic principles of solidarity and subsidiarity. Together, these three principles form my own definition of distributism.

    • Ted Seeber

      Also, I reject autarchy, not because I reject liberty, but because I reject the concept that a single human being, thinking alone, can know enough to rule himself justly.

      • Peggy R

        Yes, as I think about it, autarchy is not desirable. It sounds akin to Ayn Rand’s Objectivism in which she sees each man as unto himself, his own god. I reject that theory of Rand’s–but yes, I agree with her criticisms of collectivism by govt fiat.

  • ds

    Thus, I have been schooled!
    Though I fear none the wiser
    Econ’s not my thing.

    • Peggy R

      No worries. One could argue for autarchy being desirable as well, I suppose. Cheers!

  • enness

    Pssst, Mark…I know every tissue is a Kleenex and every copy is a Xerox, but coffee is still coffee! 😉

    That quote does get it pretty well. I’ve turned in my R-card in all but the literal sense…I’m just hoping maybe I can have a little control at the local level. But I could get used to being a woman without a party, more or less.

  • donna

    well agree ..peace…