Interesting article that argues for voting for Judge Roy Moore over his Democrat rival

I've not been following this Roy Moore story much, what with all the sex scandals in D.C., it's sort of a bore. For example, I see now that Matt Lauer has now been exposed as a crazed sex fiend and that that scumbag Garrison Keillor has been fired for "improper behavior", I don't know anything about Lauer, never having watched "Today", but I used to listen to Keiller's Prairie Home Companion until in another venue I saw that he had written that "Republicans are Brownshirts in pinstripes", something so egregiously insanely stupid (like calling Trump a Nazi) that I immediately ceased any and all contact with Keillor. 

However, Judge Roy Moore is accused of trying to date teens back 40 years ago, and these were legal-aged teens and he asked their fathers, but only recently was he accused by two of these of some sort of sexual assault. Now the author of this piece below points out how common it was in the past for older men to try to marry much younger women, and he also details how shaky those two assault claims are, but for the sake of the argument, admits them, and then writes the following (highlights mine):

The question before us is whether one can still maintain faith and one’s moral integrity while voting for a lesser of two evils. The answer is, yes, in both cases.

All voting is voting for the lesser of two evils, and it’s almost never wrong to vote for the lesser of the two. There are no perfect candidates. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, sometimes bigly. Assuming Moore did what’s been alleged, let’s turn to his rival, Democratic candidate Doug Jones.

Doug Jones Is a Moral Monster Or Moral Ignoramus

Jones has gone on record that not only does he support abortion, but he supports unrestricted abortion, even opposing a ban on abortion after 20 weeks. This is morally equivalent to supporting infanticide. So either Jones knows exactly what he’s doing in supporting killing babies in utero but doesn’t care, in which case he’s a moral monster, or his moral compass is in such need of calibration that one should never trust his judgment in moral matters. Politics, of course, is inextricably bound with such matters.

In my mind, Jones’ position is so extreme that a vote for him is a vote for the greater of two evils by a wide margin. It’s hard to imagine much worse than the mass murder of innocents. That’s also not taking into consideration his many other views with which conservatives disagree.

Furthermore, there is no reason to think that Moore, as an old, married man, is still trying to have sex with teens. All the accusations target his early thirties before he was married. But Jones supports infanticide in utero today. Virtue-signaling Republicans condemning other Republicans for voting for Moore strike me as being more concerned about their own appearance than the seriousness of abortion and the mental state of someone supporting it.

Why are no Republicans or Democrats calling for Jones to step aside if not for the fact that they are really not that serious about the immorality of supporting infanticide in the womb? If Moore should step aside, so should Jones. Of course there is another alternative, one that I support: Elect Moore and support the Senate not giving him a seat. This would bring about another special election.

An Préachán again: He says the Senate should refuse to seat Moore but to that I'd say just two words: Al Franken.

Anyway, the article is worth a close read. The author is an associate professor of philosophy at Ouachita Baptist University. He is a former member of the 82nd Airborne Division, father of five, and a foe of political correctness. 

An Préachán

Germany's Troubles and the Dismal Reality of Modern "Democracy"

Germany is having troubles forming a government.

This article linked to above is just an overview it but lists various issues (such as immigration) and the different parties' problems with the issues, so it is a useful article.

Hmmm...modern politics. Let me quote from the Trad Catholic historian Henry Sire:

“…But one needs to say that what the modern world calls democracy is close to being the opposite. Parliamentary politics as they have developed today ensure that power is held not by the ordinary man but by a breed diametrically opposite: a breed consisting of the ambitious, the devious, the greedy, the loud-mouths, the aggressive, and the fanatical. If we look at the character of modern political life, we rather see it defined by the spirit of these than of the ordinary man."

I myself think very little of the British Parliamentary system of "governance by party". The U.S. system was designed (supposedly) to operate without parties. James Madison loathed "factions", i.e., parties. 

The U.S. House of Representatives was supposed to be just that: i.e., it is supposed to represent the people. not parties. The lower house of the British ('mother of parliaments') Parliament, the "Commons", represented not the people per se, as individuals, but the commoners as groups: peasants had no voice but business interests did, city burghers, trade guilds, the corporate medieval society. Lords of course represented the nobility, lay and clerical. But the people as a mass, as citizens -- they didn't exist as individual citizens: they were subjects of the crown. And of course the peasants had no representation at Parliament. They belonged to the land owners (either as outright serfs, or as free tenants, etc.).

Now I point all this out because I think this carried over into today's party system, for the parties don't represent the people either, but parties, i.e., their own interests, just like the Commons represented towns, districts, trades, & business interests. Clearly in the U.S. the American Blacks are still the "property" of the Democrats, who treat them as serfs. (And they'll do the same to the millions of Latin Americans they're importing.) They may no longer be slaves, but "The Party of Slavery, Sedition, and Secession" certainly treats them like some medieval churl class. Equally clearly, the GOPe (the Establishment Republicans) could care less about the actual people who vote for them: the GOPe represents business interests and party factions just as the Commons once represented such hierarchical groups in late medieval/early modern England.

Something else to point out, the U.S. Senate was NEVER supposed to represent the people, either, but rather the states qua states. The 17th Amendment (that made senators directly elected) was an outright treason against what the Founders envisioned and the great "deal" they made to get the states to ratify the 1787 Constitution in the first place. So was the 16th Amendment, which gave us an income tax: no greater power grab occurred in U.S. history except for the attempt to establish a national bank in the early 1800s and then the establishment of the "national bank" we have now, "the Fed" (Federal Reserve Board). (N.B. The Bank of England basically ran England from the late 1600s till the early 20th century, when WWI bankrupted the British Empire. Henry 8th replaced the medieval Engish noble oligarchy with an oligarchy of "squireens" he created through grabbing medieval Church land; that lot ran the place until James II//VII was deposed; with William of Orange as king, the Bank of E. was established and called the shots -- pretty much -- thereafter.)

So all this is prelude to Germany's troubles. The "English System" that has been so widely adopted in the world is coming up short for Germany (and that's obviously not good for Europe). Being a failure at actual democracy is built into the parliamentary system. Sire again:

The first of these mechanisms (of government systems to defend oligarchy) is the party system, which is nowadays regarded as an essential feature of democracy, but is in fact the chief device for keeping parliamentary politics undemocratic, for keeping them the preserve of professional politicians. It is the party system that prevents the people from electing genuine representatives and limits them to choosing among activists selected by party machines. Contrast this with the politics of ancient Greece, in which election was regarded as the mark of oligarchic states, while in democratic ones the rulers were chosen by lot. … It also promotes the influence of pressure groups, supremely in the United States, where the two-party alignment saves lobbyists the trouble of scattering their resources among several patrons, and ensures their maximum influence.

(After a discussion of how France adapted the parliamentary system since 1871, Sire writes:)…In Germany, after 1945, the leaders of the country were painfully aware that the only really popular government there had been in the recent past was Hitler’s, and they were determined not to make the same mistake again. They devised a system in which the people’ s will was to be guided by the wise and good, by whom they had in mind themselves: the capitalists, the bureaucrats, the academics, and those who share their view of how things should be done. In countries such as Italy, Spain, and Portugal, politicians have little idea of what democracy is, except that it is different from the Fascist past. The countries mentioned have combined to form a political union which is the showcase of modern pseudo-democracy, one that takes government further from the people and puts it in the hands of a political class.

…Everywhere the shock troops of the oligarchy are the journalistic profession, which thrives on the domination of affairs by facile and over-heated views. If an attempt were made in the Western world to introduce genuine democracy, representing ordinary opinion, one would find the journalists fighting in the last ditch to prevent it, rather like the armies of well-drilled henchmen who in Hollywood films immolate themselves in the service of the master-villain.

An Préachán again: As you can see, Henry Sire (of French ancestry, born in Barcelona, educated in England, etc, a true European.) gives a pretty dour and no-nonsense take on our presumptions. The basic underlying problem is just where government gets its authority from. In medieval and ancient times, the source of such was religion (basically, except for the classical Greeks) and today, since John Locke (1632-1704), we supposedly have government founded on the consent of the people. But in reality, as Sire details, oligarchy rules absolutely, and rules all to suit itself. Hence its hatred of any type of Donald Trump or Geert Wilders who threatens to upset the apple cart. (Sire's book, Phoenix from the Ashes, was published in 2015.)

Such is our world. Pompous, lying, self-flattered and flattering, essentially dishonest. Kinda like Pope Francis' inner circle, actually, come to think of it. (Talk about conforming yourself to the world!)

An Préachán

"And thus is history recast." The Overthrow and Murder of Ngo Dinh Diem

The Overthrow and Murder of 

South Vietnam's Ngo Dinh Diem

One of my brothers was in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive, down in the Mekong. And I've always been interested in getting the truth of that country's story out. This new book on seems to go a long way toward that.

The book review is excellent and I heartily recommend it. Here are two short extracts:

On 2 November, groups of Vietnamese men, women, and children will gather for memorial services across the world to honor the death of a man largely forgotten in American historical memory. Once this man was a household name, frequently featured on the front pages of our nation’s newspapers and spoken from the mouths of reporters on the nightly news.

That man is Ngo Dinh Diem, president of the Republic of Vietnam (better known as South Vietnam) from 1955 to 1963, his rule and life cruelly ended in a military coup tacitly supported by the U.S. government. A recent book on Diem’s life, “The Lost Mandate of Heaven: The American Betrayal of Ngo Dinh Diem, President of Vietnam,” by military historian Geoffrey Shaw clarifies why Americans would do well to mourn the tragic loss of a man many deemed to be Vietnam’s best chance of defeating communism.

Diem was rarity in history as a devout Catholic head of state in Asia. He has not been served well by the most popular American appraisals of the Vietnam War era.

Indeed, he's not been. Second extract:

Shaw’s biography of Diem paints a far different picture of “America’s Mandarin.” For starters, Diem was a deeply religious man, whose Catholic faith was central to every decision in his life. Often attracted to the religious life, Diem had to be constantly pushed to embrace his natural skills as an administrator and politician.

Diem had a reputation both as an ascetic scholar and a capable bureaucratic, one who seemed to perfectly fit the role of the ideal Vietnamese Confucian leader. Indeed, as Shaw shows, Ho Chi Minh admired Diem’s austerity, and likely sought to emulate it. Even at the height of his power, Diem lived meagerly, and was known to constantly give money away to any in need. He was known to rise early every day to attend Mass, and worked brutal 16-hour days.

Nor was he a distant, removed politician unfamiliar with the people he governed. According to many first-hand accounts, Diem seemed most alive when tramping through the Vietnamese countryside meeting with peasants, hearing their stories, and seeking to improve their lives. Nor is “Diem the anti-Buddhist” a fair caricature. Diem’s government poured large sums of money into supporting the preservation or revival of Buddhist buildings and organizations.

The Buddhist protesters who so famously undermined Diem’s regime in the months leading up to his ouster were in fact a minority within the south, incited by Buddhist extremist leaders very likely supported by the communists. Rather than a reflection of the teetering authority of the government, the Buddhist crisis was more likely a propaganda effort to obstruct what so many contemporary accounts and historical documents suggest: Diem and his brother were incrementally winning on both the political and military fronts.

And Jack Kennedy was the "first Irish-Catholic American President". Of course, he was about as Catholic as the Grand Turk. I'm sure the U.S. media's anti-Catholic bigotry played a major roll in how they saw Diem.

The Church in Vietnam is definitely a Martyr Church.

Say an Ave for 'em.

An Préachán

The Vatican Issues a Martin Luther Stamp? C'mon!

And after I wrote my two-part essay on the Herr Doktor, too.

Honestly, though, this is absurd.

An Préachán

"34 jihadist attacks in 13 countries over just six days this past week (Oct. 21-27), resulting in 444 killed and 114 injured..."

Considering this recent Muslim terrorist attack in New York City...

Alas, the news media doesn't report to you how bad things are with the Muslims. See the title quote and find it also further below. 

• A point I keep making is that you can't "reform" Islam without getting rid of Muhammad, who is the original murder-rapist extraordinaire of the religion, and the paragon of all virtues for Muslims. 
• It would be like taking Buddha out of Buddhism or Christ out of Christianity. Too many Muslims know too much about Muhammad (of course, in reality, he either didn't exist or was so different from the legend as to be unrecognizable) to ever believe some milquetoast version of it. 
• They won't allow it. An attempt to do that will just make 'em angrier than they already are.

Only three options exist; convert them to a living Faith; i.e., Christianity, isolate them in some unknown manner, wall them off from the rest of the world. Or liquidate them. 

• All three seem either unthinkable or impossible. 
• The latter might well occur, however, if these depredations continue. One day, the Muslim radicals might go too far. After all, according to Muslim Eschatology, they themselves must bring on the end times. This is a basic goal of ISIS, for example. Russia and China have the ability to turn vast areas of the Earth to glass, and if one nuked the Mideast, destroying Mecca, etc., and the heartland of the religion, the religion probably wouldn't survive. 

The other remotely possible option is conversion, but the West, at least (and China, etc.) have nothing to convert anyone to except metaphysical materialism, and that is the worst, soul-killing religion ever conceived (well, maybe Islam could give it a run for its money). 

• The Chinese leadership is forcefully embracing the stupidest metaphysical materialist "religion" of all, Marxism, and is so much of the Western Intellectual Elites. 
• And the irony is, both Communism and Islam insist they, themselves, decide was basic morality is, what "Truth" is. Read the Communist manifesto, i.e.,

"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religious, moral, philosophical

and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of

historical development.  But religion, morality philosophy,

political science, and law, constantly survived this change."

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice,

etc. that are common to all states of society. But Communism

abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all

morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it

therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

Islam does it a bit differently: 

• Since Allah is incomprehensible in his out-of-control wilfulness, and can changes even the most basic moral law from one second to the next, one can only know what Allah's will is is to try to do whatever you feel moved to do: no matter how horrible your urge it, do it and that's the only way you'll know it is Allah's will, or not.

Anyway, it is like God sent us Islam with the message: "This 'gift' will kill you unless you convert it, and you can only convert it if you really believe in Me."

I also came across this article the other day: 

https://pjmedia.com/trending/calling-cops-europe-dont-bother/

That's another thing we can thank Islam for: police in Europe simply being overwhelmed.

For those interested: the main article...

Roger L Simon Reform Islam or Live the New Normal Forever