Tuesday, March 25th, 2014 | Uncategorized | 14 Comments

Homosexual homosexual?  Homosexual homosexual Homosexual Homosexual, homosexual homosexual homosexual homosexual homosexual homosexual homosexual homosexual:

Referring to gay people as “homosexual” is a practice that’s quickly falling out of favor with major news outlets due the term’s often pejorative connotation and frequent use by opponents of LGBT equality. But Fox News has yet to update its language when referring to gay and lesbian people.

Homosexual homosexual homosexual homosexual homosexual?  Homosexual?!!  Homosexual homosexual homosexual homosexual.  Homosexual.

Use of the term is also pervasive at Fox News – and not just from the likes of the network’s hate group mouthpiece Todd Starnes, who recently warned that “Christians are trading places with homosexuals” in the military. Just as the network insists on misgendering transgender subjects, Fox also has no qualms about regularly referring to gay men and lesbians by a term many of them shun.

Homosexual homosexual, “Homosexual homosexual homosexual homosexual homosexual homosexual homosexual homosexual homosexual.  Homosexual homosexual homosexual.”

Then there’s the network’s Fox Nation website. Far from merely promoting anti-gay policy positions, Fox Nation has repeatedly suggested that gay people are perverted “radicals” who want to recruit the nation’s children to their “lifestyle.” (As Peters observed in his Times piece, that claim featured prominently in activist Anita Bryant’s anti-gay crusade in the 1970s.)

Homosexual homosexual homosexual homosexual?  Homosexual, homosexual.


Sunday, March 23rd, 2014 | Uncategorized | 14 Comments

Thanks for playing:

Religion is founded on a notion that it has teachings or scriptures from a divine (supernatural) source, and this source is provides insights into ultimate truths which can not be discerned by mere mortals investigating nature.

Any religious institution which believes it needs to modernise its beliefs is admitting that its beliefs have never had such a divine source – they are man-made and, like all man-made things, need to be modernised periodically. Consequently, that institution no longer represents a spiritual belief system, but is simply a political organisation which pretends to be founded on spiritual beliefs.

That pretty much sums up the [Church of England].

Yep.  Big ups to Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.


Sunday, March 23rd, 2014 | Uncategorized | 18 Comments

According to John Bingham, What’s-His-Face has had a great start:

It could have been like one of those moments in a country parish where a trendy new vicar rolls up with plans to rip out the Victorian pews to make way for a drum-kit and an overhead projector. The arrival of Justin Welby, a former businessman whose brand of Christianity is marked with the zeal of the convert, as the 105th Archbishop of Canterbury had the potential to ruffle more than a few feathers in the established Church.

Within months of his enthronement, a year ago today, he seemed on course to do just that. He had overhauled his staff, with a series of new appointments. He had persuaded rival factions to take part in something akin to drama therapy sessions to confront their differences over women bishops, and he had delivered a blistering address to the General Synod on how it needed to face up to a sexual “revolution”.

But a year into the job – which combines the work of a medieval prelate, a FTSE chief executive and a world-weary inner-city rector – he has scored a series of successes that would have seemed unthinkable in the past. After decades of argument and years of tortuous legislative twists and turns, the Church of England is on the brink of finally approving the admission of women into the episcopate.

Instead of attracting the usual headlines about an embattled primate seeking to quell divisions, he has successfully shifted attention, at home at least, to matters such as payday lenders and food banks. And remarkably, in a country where fewer and fewer inhabitants profess any religious faith, his views on everything from banking reform to military action in distant countries is actively sought out and reported. Even what might have been his first major public gaffe – the revelation that the Church had an investment in Wonga, the lender he publicly pledged to try to put out of business – he turned to his advantage with a plain-spoken admission of embarrassment.

With less fanfare, his efforts to undo centuries of division with the Roman Catholic Church have taken significant steps forward. Last month, members of the Chemin Neuf community, an ecumenical Catholic-led order, moved into Lambeth Palace. Daily worship in the Archbishop’s chapel is being led by Catholics for the first time since before the reign of Elizabeth I.

Insert “but” here.

But now the honeymoon is long past, Archbishop Welby is preparing for what promises to be a far bigger battle for the soul of the Church both in England and in the wider Anglican Communion over an issue that has plagued it for years: its unresolved position on homosexuality. Even his admirers admit privately that in comparison with the rows over women bishops, the battle over sexuality is like “an elephant compared to the flea”.

By way of reply, North America’s oldest and fiercest Anglican presence recently did this.

The Diocese of South Carolina has been formally recognized as a member in good standing of the Global Anglican Communion.

On Saturday, March 15, the Diocese’s 223rd Annual Convention unanimously accepted an invitation to join the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (GFCA) and temporarily enter into a formal ecclesiastical relationship known as provisional primatial oversight from bishops in the Global South.

The convention’s nearly 400 participants supported clergy and delegates as they voted to create a task force to explore more permanent affiliation options for the diocese.  The task force will offer recommendations at the next Convention, which will be held next March.

Local critics of the Diocese’s 2012 separation from The Episcopal Church had said the disassociation would isolate the Diocese from the Global Anglican Communion.  While the Diocese has maintained many informal relationships with organizations that are part of the communion, this formal primatial oversight arrangement makes clear that the Diocese is officially part of the greater Anglican Church.

“There’s an African proverb that wisely states ‘If you want to go fast go alone, if you want to go far go together,’ said the Rt. Rev. Mark J. Lawrence, 14th Bishop of the Diocese, in his address to the Convention. “This will give us gracious oversight from one of the largest Ecclesial entities within in the Communion; one which includes Anglicans from a diverse body of believers from Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa, South America, the Indian Ocean and many, many others.”

The Palmetto State’s vote has been seen by many as a slap at ACNA which it, well, kind of is.  ACNA’s obsession with achieving “official” recognition from Canterbury is slowly but surely killing whatever interest I and many others used to have in it. 

While I imagine that Charleston’s relationship with ACNA parishes and dioceses will continue to be perfectly cordial, it’s obvious that South Carolina has figured out where the future of the thing that used to be called traditionalist Anglicanism lies.

Not within 10,000 miles of Lambeth Palace.


Saturday, March 22nd, 2014 | Uncategorized | 16 Comments

If you’re around animals long enough, it’s natural to feel affection for them.  And if you’re around animals long enough, I guess it’s also possible for animals to feel affection for you.


Friday, March 21st, 2014 | Uncategorized | 8 Comments

The Curmudgeon reports that the Episcopal Organization just took two in the ‘nads:

Today the Texas Supreme Court denied the losing parties’  petitions for rehearing in the two ECUSA cases pending before it: No. 11-0265Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, et al. v. The Episcopal Church, et al.; and No. 11-0332Masterson v. Diocese of Northwest Texas. The Court had delivered its opinions in the two cases last August 30. In the first case, the Court had sided with Bishop Iker’s Diocese by a closely split vote of 5-4, reversed the summary judgment of Circuit Judge John Chupp which had awarded all of the property and assets of Bishop Iker’s Diocese to the Episcopal Church and its rump diocese, and sent the case back to the trial court. The majority held that the trial court had improperly failed to apply a “neutral principles of law” analysis to the issues. The four dissenters did not disagree with that result, but instead believed that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from the trial court’s judgment in the case.

In the second case, the Court by a vote of 7-2 reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision requiring the Church of the Good Shepherd in San Angelo to turn over its building and all other assets to the Diocese of Northwest Texas. The Court definitively ruled that all Texas courts must follow “neutral principles of law” (rather than deferring to an ecclesiastical hierarchy), and that based on such an analysis, the Dennis Canon was not effective under Texas law (or that if it were effective to create a trust, the trust was not expressly irrevocable, and so could be revoked by the parish in question).


Thursday, March 20th, 2014 | Uncategorized | 84 Comments

Roman Catholics?  Many of us former Anglicans know from bitter experience that the Episcopalianization of churches always starts small.  A bishop here, a bishop there:

Two Catholic bishops in the UK have expressed hope that the upcoming Extraordinary Synod on the Family, to be held in Rome in October, will bring about massive changes to the Church’s approach to marriage and human sexuality.

Bishop Terence Drainey of Middleborough told the far-left magazine The Tablet that he is hoping for and expecting a “radical re-examination of human sexuality.”

Drainey told The Tablet that this “re-examination” should be made “in light of modern psychological and anthropological insights and the lived experience of lay people.” This, he said, “could lead to development in church teaching on all aspects of marriage and family life: contraception, homosexuality, divorce and remarriage, cohabitation; even the position of women in the Church.”

“The Church has to hold in tension its imperative to proclaim the high Christian ideals to which all should aspire with its desire at the same time to welcome with love and compassion those whose lives are complicated and messy,” the bishop said.

“A careful discussion of this dichotomy could yield pastoral solutions in the areas of family life where many are struggling, enabling the Church more readily to welcome and include these people,” Drainey said.

Bishop Drainey said the issues to be addressed by the Synod and brought up in a Vatican questionnaire are “multifaceted and complex” to which there are no “simple soundbite answers.”

Sound familiar?  If you’ve been hanging around here long enough, it better.  So you might want to hold off criticizing those Catholics who are worried about such trends or you may see a day when you yearn to hear their voices and find that they’re no longer there.


Wednesday, March 19th, 2014 | Uncategorized | 14 Comments

The Rev. James Martin, who is a Jesuit but you probably would have figured that out eventually, thinks that he’s come up with five things that none of you knew about Jesus.  Here’s one of them:

Jesus probably didn’t know everything.

This is a thorny theological question. If Jesus is divine, wouldn’t he know all things? (Indeed, on several occasions Jesus predicts his death and resurrection.)

On the other hand, if he had a human consciousness, he needed to be taught something before he could know it. The Gospel of Luke says that when Jesus was a young man he “progressed” in wisdom. That means he learned things. (Otherwise how would he “progress”?)

In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus initially refuses to heal the daughter of a non-Jewish woman, saying rather sharply, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.”

But when she replies that even the dogs get the crumbs from the table, Jesus softens, and he heals her daughter. He seems to be learning that his ministry extends beyond the Jewish people.

Jim?  The term you’re looking for here is “teachable moment.”  Think about it.  The rest of Jim’s points are equally stupid so caveat emptor and all that.


Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 | Uncategorized | 32 Comments

The Anglican world may once again get really interesting.  Anglican Ink reports that formal misconduct charges have finally been filed against Katharine Jefferts Schori:

The American Anglican Fellowship, Inc. (AAF), an organization of current and former members of The Episcopal Church (TEC), submits this Information to you regarding possible violations of the Constitution and Canons by the Presiding Bishop in accordance with Canon IV.6.2 and with the understanding that, “by virtue of Baptism, all Members of the Church are called to holiness of life and accountability to one another” (Canon IV.I).

An immediate investigation is requested of these reported violations to determine whether this information, if true, constitutes offenses that should be forwarded to the Reference Panel (Canon IV.6.4-10).  The secular lawsuits are continuing.  One lawsuit was filed by the Diocese of Chicago as recently as November 6, 2013. There can be little doubt that most Episcopalians are deeply troubled by this litigation and want TEC to put an end to the madness of Christians suing Christians and wasting millions of dollars of church funds.  The parishioners and clergy departing TEC are not mean-spirited people in an “organization who wants to put us out of business” as the Presiding Bishop has reportedly said.  To the contrary, they are fellow Christians who are faithful people acting out of Christian conscience, and they should not be subject to wolves in the Episcopate (Mt. 7:15; Acts 20:29 ).

Six charges are listed.  You’re familiar with all of them but read them anyway. The American Anglican Fellowship, many of whose members should be receiving notices of excommunication in their mail or e-mail any day now, appears to have done its homework.

What is the American Anglican Fellowship? George Conger reports:

However, Anglican Ink can report that documents filed with the Maryland Secretary State show the American Anglican Fellowship is the new name for the American Anglican Council of Washington — a seperate entity from the American Anglican Council (AAC) led by the Rt. Rev. David Anderson and Canon Phil Ashey.

Will anything come of this?  What are you, high?  At best, Mrs. Schori might be found guilty of one or, at most, two charges so TEO can claim that it’s unbiased.

But if that happens, and that’s an “if” the size of Mount Everest, all the Presiding Bishop should expect in the way of a penalty is a, “Bad Katie!!  Never do that again!!” slap on the wrist.  Which she’ll pretend to accept and ignore at the first opportunity.

So no, nothing’s going to come of this since the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Organization are as fictional as the old Soviet Union “constitution.”  Which is most certainly not to say that filing these charges is a complete waste of time.  Whatever emerges from all this, it’s always good to make people stand up and admit the truth.


Monday, March 17th, 2014 | Uncategorized | 25 Comments

Fred Phelps, one of the most repulsive human beings who has ever lived, is reportedly near death.  Jaweed Kaleem wonders if it’s okay to rejoice in that fact:

As news spread over the weekend that Fred Phelps Sr., the notorious founder of Westboro Baptist Church, was dying in a Kansas hospice, corners of the Internet erupted in cheers.

On Facebook, a “Fred Phelps Death Watch” group formed and gained hundreds of members, while other groups attracted followers by planning pickets of his funeral — in imitation of those of the funerals of gays and lesbians and military servicemen and women that have brought the church its notoriety. On Twitter, variations of “yay,” “thank God” and “cannot wait,” were among the phrases commonly associated with the 84-year-old minister as people excitedly discussed the church leader’s condition, which is being described as “on the edge of death.”

Should the impending death of a man who has become an icon of hate be celebrated? Some Americans, including those whom Westboro has targeted, are using the moment to reflect on what it means to take joy in the demise of another human.

If you’re a Christian, the answer should be obvious.  No, it isn’t.  Ever.  Because we Christians know that all of us are great sinners, all of us desperately require the mercy of God and all of us know that better than we know anything.

A change of circumstance here, a change of influence there and many of us might have become something like a Fred Phelps.  So in this situation, all Christians should do is hope that Fred Phelps repents before he dies and leave the rest to God.


Sunday, March 16th, 2014 | Uncategorized | 27 Comments

At Religion Dispatches, one of my go-to sites for pseudo-Christian leftist goofballism, Patricia Miller has a post up which is headlined, “Catholic Nuns Back [DemocraticParty]Care Contraception Mandate.”  Which Catholic nuns?  These Catholic nuns:

The National Coalition of American Nuns has announced their support for women’s right to access contraceptives under the Affordable Care Act as the Supreme Court prepares to hear the historic Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cases. While the plaintiffs in these cases are Mennonites and evangelical Christians, opposition to the contraceptive mandate was largely spearheaded by the Catholic bishops. Several key cases of Catholic non-profits, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, are making their way through the lower courts and may well end up in the Supreme Court themselves.

“NCAN is dismayed that the Little Sisters of the Poor, the University of Notre Dame and other Catholic organizations are challenging the Affordable Care Act. Spurred on by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops these organizations are attempting to hold hostage all women by refusing insurance to them for contraceptives,” said the 2,000-member group in a statement.

“This has gotten out of hand,” Sister Donna Quinn, head of NCAN, told RD. “It isn’t ‘faith and freedom’ when reproductive autonomy isn’t extended by the Catholic Church to women. Now we have other Christian religions seeing what the bishops are doing and saying we will do likewise. It isn’t freedom when a woman can be held hostage by the owner of a business.”

The nuns are seeking support for their stand through an online petition. The Rev. Debra Haffner of the Religious Institute is helping NCAN coordinate the effort. “When I saw the brave stand these nuns were taking on the mandate, I started to think about what we could do to amplify their voices. So we launched a social media campaign asking people to ‘Stand with the Nuns’,” she said.

I found this at Naughton’s.  Jim?  If you guys seriously think that this story is going to cause the Roman Catholic Church any PR problems at all, then you REALLY need to train your people on how to use this Internet doohickey that all the kids are into these days.

I did a quick Google search and discovered that the National Coalition of American Nuns consists of a few thousand of the most radically-leftist Episcopalian Catholic nuns out there.  Here’s NCAN’S web site which, as you can see, hasn’t been updated in five years.

Weak tea, Jim.


Saturday, March 15th, 2014 | Uncategorized | 59 Comments

A while back, Cardinal Walter Kasper, the former head of the of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, gave a speech on the family at the Vatican.  Robert Fastiggi found much to praise in Kasper’s speech but was greatly worried by Kasper’s suggestion that some way ought to be found for divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion:

Cardinal Kasper states that it is not divine law (iure divino) that cases of the divorced and remarried must only be handled by juridical means. He wonders whether the bishop might not entrust these cases to a priest with pastoral and spiritual experience as a type of penitentiary or episcopal vicar. This evasion, though, of the Church’s juridical process seems to have many potential dangers. If the priest is going to make a declaration of nullity of the prior putative marriage, on what basis can he make this judgment other than through the Church’s canon law? How, though, is an individual priest better able to apply canon law than an ecclesiastical tribunal? If, though, the job of the designated priest is to decide whether or when divorced or remarried couples can be admitted back to Holy Communion on what basis does he make this decision? If he admits them back to the reception of Holy Communion without a firm resolve to remain continent, then it seems that a concession is being given to have sexual relations with someone other than one’s sacramental spouse. This, though, seems like permission to commit adultery, which is contrary to divine law!

Cardinal Kasper appeals to Pope Francis’ Jan. 24, 2014 address before the Roman Rota in which the Holy Father emphasized that the pastoral and juridical dimensions should not be placed in opposition. In light of this, Cardinal Kasper points to the spiritual needs of divorced and remarried Catholics. He wonders whether the encouragement for them to receive “spiritual communion” instead of sacramental communion makes any sense in light of the fundamental sacramental structure of the Church. If these divorced and remarried Catholics can make a spiritual communion with Christ in spite of their situation, why can they not receive the sacramental communion of the same Christ? The simple response to the Cardinal’s question is that those who persist in grave sin are not to receive Holy Communion (CIC, canons 915–916). Having conjugal relations with someone other than one’s spouse is a grave or mortal sin because it is adultery. Proper care for the human person can never give way to a permission to sin. If the Church allows divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion, this would mean either that marriage is not indissoluble or that adultery is not a mortal sin. As John Paul II writes in Familaris consortio, 84: “If these people [divorced and remarried Catholics] were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.” The rules of the Church are grounded in the teachings of Christ, which are directed to the true good of every individual. There is no contradiction between applying the teachings of Christ and care for the true good of each person. It is no doubt difficult for divorced and remarried Catholics to refrain from receiving Holy Communion. Their hunger for the Eucharist, however, might motivate them to turn to the Church to see if their prior putative marriage was truly valid. Cardinal Kasper’s suggestion would eliminate the need for such an inquiry because the Church could allow them to receive Holy Communion without a declaration of nullity.

Dale Price was equally alarmed.

Put as politely as possible, Cardinal Kasper’s proposals leave an empty, sham notion of marital indissolubility on the sacramental books while effectively gutting it.

Be that as it may, make no mistake–they are a frontal assault on the Catholic claim to indefectibility.

How alarmed was Dale?  This alarmed.

Should they become Catholic practice, I don’t see how I could in good conscience remain a Catholic.

On the one hand, I guess you can make the case that Cardinal Kasper may just have been spitballing here, that these are mere suggestions and that it’s foolish to worry about something that may never happen at all.  On the other hand, many of us know from bitter experience that the Episcopalianization of any church always starts small.


Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 | Uncategorized | 50 Comments

David P. Gushee, Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics and Director of the Center for Theology and Public Life at Mercer University in Georgia, is perfectly okay with legally coercing Christians to violate their consciences.  Commenting on the recently-vetoed Arizona law that some saw as anti-homosexual, Gushee opens with this familiar passage from Paul:

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?  Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?  Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?  If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge?  I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren?  But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers!

I believe that the Arizona statute and others like it in the pipeline in other states were or are far too broadly drawn and probably would fail any constitutional test.  Plus, they address a problem that doesn’t actually exist; assuming they could accurately pick out every homosexual who walked through their doors, why would any business owner refuse to sell his or her product to a homosexual?

If you’re not too busy, see if you can document how many gays or lesbians have ever been turned away from a Chick-Fil-A.  Show your work.

Gushee’s citation of Paul’s passage is inapplicable here.  Christians aren’t the ones who are suing people; they’re the ones who are being sued by non-Christians.  Some of these Christians have been sued out their livelihoods because they hold politically and theologically incorrect opinions.  And Gushee seems to be perfectly fine with that.

Let us now imagine the person being invoked so much in this debate — the Christian florist who is asked to provide flowers to a gay wedding. She may believe that the Bible teaches that gay marriage is against God’s plan for sexuality. She may believe that she could claim the right, under the laws of her state or nation, to refuse to provide her services to this kind of couple. She may be afraid that offering this particular service would perhaps signal her approval of this kind of marriage, which she does not want to do. 

So our devout florist might say something like this: “Perhaps I could, but I will not insist on my own way here. I will be patient and kind toward anyone seeking my services. I will seek to do to them as I would want to have done for me. I will bear Christian witness to them not by rejecting them but by serving them in love. I will leave the judging to God and will be known in this situation by my love.”

Virtue is a terribly easy thing to expect somebody else to display.  But here’s the issue, Dave: if you legally force me to directly participate in a sinful activity, the true issue here, then, for all practical purposes, you have legally enshrined what is and what is not to be considered acceptable Christian theology.

Can you say “establishment of religion?”  Which didn’t used to be something that American governments had the power to do.


Tuesday, March 11th, 2014 | Uncategorized | 22 Comments

I’ve said before and I’ll say again that I would like to see a split in the Anglican world.  All of us Anglicans should be honest with ourselves and stop pretending that we’re still one church or even one religion.  But since I’m not likely to see a formal break any time soon, I should take whatever victories come my way.  Like this resolution which will be voted on at South Carolina’s upcoming convention:

Recognizing the generosity of spirit and the faithful concern for the Anglican Communion represented by the Global South Primates Steering Committee in offering a means for bodies such as the Diocese of South Carolina to have a formal ecclesiastical connection to the larger Communion and the consequent pastoral relationship,

Be it resolved that the Diocese of South Carolina accept the offer of the newly created Global South Primatial Oversight Council for pastoral oversight of our ministry as a diocese during the temporary period of our discernment of our final provincial affiliation and,

Be it further resolved that in this period of fluidity in the Anglican Communion we reserve the right to revisit this decision, as a convention, should it be necessary duringthis temporary discernment period, however long it may last.

About which, Mark Lawrence had this to say:

I want you to know, also, that I have been in conversation with Archbishop Robert Duncan of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) regarding this resolution.  It is my hope that should the Diocese of South Carolina affirm this offer from the Global South Primates’ Steering Committee for Provisional Primatial Oversight that it will not be interpreted, either by those within the Diocese or across the wider Anglican Communion, as a step away from ACNA or any other more permanent provincial affiliation. What it does offer us, and those who may be in similar circumstances, is an ecclesial way of recognizing the relationships we have in the Holy Spirit, through the bonds of affection, and in the mission and gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, as we continue in this ongoing process of discernment, this Provisional Primatial Oversight, if by God’s grace established, will give us what some might term an extra-provincial diocesan status with an ecclesial body of the larger Anglican family. It should also be noted in this regard; this Provisional Primatial Oversight, while bringing a mutual responsibility in the Gospel, commits us to neither a hasty affiliation nor alleviates our need to continue the work of ongoing discernment for a more permanent provincial relationship.

I’m not now and have never been anyone who ever cared about concepts like “primatial oversight” or “provincial relationship.”  South Carolina basically began North American Anglicanism and should be its own Anglican province; Charleston ought to be handing out “primatial oversight” and “provincial relationship” rather than seeking it.

That said, the fact that the Global South primates are taking this step suggests that the phrase “Anglican Communion” has become meaningless and irrelevant.  Nobody gives a crap any longer who’s “officially” Anglican, what Lambeth Palace decrees or what the See of Canterbury thinks about much of anything.


Monday, March 10th, 2014 | Uncategorized | 17 Comments

Jonathan Turley will not call Barack Obama a dictator.  Yet:

Recently, a bizarre scene unfolded on the floor of the House of Representatives that would have shocked the framers of the Constitution. In his State of the Union address, President Obama announced that he had decided to go it alone in areas where Congress refused to act to his satisfaction. In a system of shared powers, one would expect an outcry or at least stony silence when a president promised to circumvent the legislative branch. Instead, many senators and representatives erupted in rapturous applause; they seemed delighted at the notion of a president assuming unprecedented and unchecked powers at their expense.

Last week, Obama underlined what this means for our system: The administration unilaterally increased the transition time for individuals to obtain the level of insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act. There is no statutory authority for the change — simply the raw assertion of executive power.

The United States is at a constitutional tipping point: The rise of an uber presidency unchecked by the other two branches.

This massive shift of authority threatens the stability and functionality of our tripartite system of checks and balances. To be sure, it did not begin with the Obama administration. The trend has existed for decades, and President George W. Bush showed equal contempt for the separation of powers. However, it has accelerated at an alarming rate under Obama. Of perhaps greater concern is the fact that the other two branches appear passive, if not inert, in the face of expanding executive power.

I happen to agree with many of the president’s policies. However, in our system, it is often more important how we do something than what we do. Priorities and policies and presidents change. Democrats will rue the day of their acquiescence to this shift of power when a future president negates an environmental law, or an anti-discrimination law, or tax laws.

Sorry, Turley.  I seriously doubt that the Democrats will ever rue anything at all.  If a Republican wins in 2016, this country’s sycophantic and worthless news media, which has shown absolutely no interest in Obama’s lawlessness because it’s perfectly delighted by the idea of a progressive king, will once again find an imperial presidency to be a serious and perhaps even an impeachable matter.

It kind of makes you wonder, though, what will happen if the Republicans keep the House of Representatives and take back the Senate this fall.  Will Obama moderate?  Or will he continue on his same path, cheered on by the American media?  If he does, will the GOP confront him, rolling back or stopping his decrees?  Or will the Republicans keep on trying to be liked by people who have always despised them?

Should be an interesting couple of years around here.


Monday, March 10th, 2014 | Uncategorized | 23 Comments

Sharyl Attkisson, one of this country’s few remaining journalists, has left CBS News:

CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson has reached an agreement to resign from CBS News ahead of contract, bringing an end to months of hard-fought negotiations, sources familiar with her departure told POLITICO on Monday.

Attkisson, who has been with CBS News for two decades, had grown frustrated with what she saw as the network’s liberal bias, an outsize influence by the network’s corporate partners and a lack of dedication to investigative reporting, several sources said. She increasingly felt that her work was no longer supported and that it was a struggle to get her reporting on air.

At the same time, Attkisson’s reporting on the Obama administration, which some staffers characterized as agenda-driven, had led network executives to doubt the impartiality of her reporting. She is currently at work on a book — tentatively titled “Stonewalled: One Reporter’s Fight for Truth in Obama’s Washington” — that addresses the challenges of reporting critically on the administration.

Support The MCJ