The Alinskyite prince of South Side: crowned arbiter pietatis by South Bend’s renegade priests.

Candid readers, the “Catholic” theologians denouncing Notre Dame’s Obama protesters as like the Klan, badly need a refresher in irony. This man of blood, with his “Against abortion? Don’t have one,” is on the same logical and moral level as the antebellum slavers who said “Against slavery? Don’t own one.” And yes, there IS a place for Catholics who publicly dissent from the Church’s teaching authority — it’s called Lutheranism.

As is traditional, George Weigel deftly sees through the postures and rhetoric of Vatican II laicism about Obama at Notre Dame to ask cui bono, and the answer is: Obama’s, in the Electoral College:

In order to secure the political advantage Obama had gained among Catholic voters last November, the president of the United States decided that he would define what it means to be a real Catholic in 21st-century America…  He, President Obama, would settle the decades-long intra-Catholic culture war in favor of one faction — the faction that had supported his candidacy and that had spent the first months of his administration defending his policies…

Rather like Napoleon taking the diadem out of the hands of Pope Pius VII and crowning himself emperor, President Obama has, wittingly or not, declared himself the Primate of American Catholicism…

What the bishops of the United States have to say about this usurpation of their authority will be very interesting to see. Whether Obama’s Catholic acolytes will recognize a genuine threat to religious freedom in what they are already celebrating as their Notre Dame victory over the pro-life yahoos and reactionaries will also be instructive.

Indeed.  This is, of course, a live issue not only in Roman Catholic (and Orthodox) moral theology and Church governance, but in Constitutional law as well, which necessarily and passionately engages evangelical and other traditionalist Protestants.  These include once-and-future Republican Presidential candidate Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR), who during his campaign last year made the slavery/abortion analogy for federal law explicit, with some learning lightly worn about the Kansas-Nebraska Act and Dred Scott v. Sandford:

What are we saying to the generation coming after us when we tell them that it is perfectly OK for one person to own another human being?  I thought we dealt with that 150 years ago when the issue of slavery was finally settled in this country, and we decided that it no longer was a political issue, it wasn’t an issue of geography, it was an issue of morality. That it was either right or it was immoral that one person could own another human being and have full control even to the point of life and death over that other human being.

Huck is politically shrewd as well as ethically principled here.  An Old America strategy of invoking the natural law that undergirds the civil, is essential to conservatives’ building big enough coalitions to defeat the secular Left electorally on issues like the sanctity of life and marriage.  It was for instance the fervent participation of the black and Latino churches of California in the Yes on 8 campaign last fall, that enabled us to beat back the homosexual “marriage” lobby here (a majority of whites in the state, nine to nothing concentrated in the liberal littoral, voted to sacramentalize sodomy).

In this connection, herewith video of Dr. Alan Keyes, Obama’s Republican opponent in the 2004 Illinois Senate race, arrested for trespass along with 21 others at Notre Dame, while peacefully praying the Rosary to protest Obama’s presence.  The actual taking into custody, when the police replace the Rosary around Keyes’ wrists with handcuffs, is at about 2:20 in:

A picture or rather video is worth a thousand words; it started precisely this way with Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., one recalls.

Advertisements

Arsehole babies separated at birth: Backstabber Arlen Specter…

specter

and backshooter Phil Spector.

US Phil Spector Trial

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who uncannily resembles his undead namesake, convicted murderer Phil Spector, has announced he’ll turn his coat and be a Dhimmicrat now, as preliminary polls showed him getting destroyed by Pat Toomey in next year’s Pennsylvania Republican primary.

My tears flow like a river — all crocodile.

Dry your eyes, Wall Street Republicans; the weak old temporizer couldn’t even be bothered to vote against Obama’s hideous porkulus bill, among many other measures hostile to your capitalist interest.  And rejoice fellow conservatives, who hold our noses tightly and vote Republican because they’re not quite as far to the secular Left as Democrats: Specter was an orthodox liberal on abortion, homosexual “marriage” and other desiderata, and will live in infamy as a Republican betrayer who kept Robert Bork, the most learned jurist of our time, off the Supreme Court.

Naturally country-club Republicans, and the leftie MSM who love to interview them on these occasions, are in emotional tatters over Specter’s little tempest in a teacup.  Woe is the GOP, they cry, rending their garments and smiting their bosoms like some less-talented Vivien Leigh opposite Clark Gable.  What ever shall we do to win elections again?  Where ever shall we go to cobble together an electoral majority?

Here’s a hint, idiots: Stop trying to outpander the Democrats.  Return to the Reaganite fiscal discipline and social conservatism that used to win national elections, and big.  Even now, with the likes of grey, pudgy, and patently unappealing Mitch McConnell and John Boehner heading the GOP in Congress, Rasmussen reports Republicans lead Democrats 41%-38% on the generic Congressional ballot, a mere 100 days into Obama’s reign of error.  Well, well, well.

Conservatives, the GOP may yet be worth our time, with good riddance to bad rubbish like Arlen Specter. Don’t waste a moment’s ire on political whores who sell to the highest bidder; Specter’s thirty pieces of Democrat silver won’t get him far.  Far better to have your enemy out in the open, where you can see him, than constantly fearing his knife in the back you know not when.

In a word, candid readers: FAT.  That, and the fact that Carrie’s upright in both senses: full of moral probity, and tall as a willow tree, to May-gun’s squat, dumpy barrel cactus.

Yes, Carrie Prejean, Miss California who “chose truth over a tiara” in Maggie Gallagher’s words, is the Queen Esther of her times, physically lovely but discreet too, willing to put herself on the line to speak truth to power:

Contrast this, candid reader, with the bovine eructations of Meghan McCain, as likely to shoot from the lip as her amnesty-crazed father but, incredible as it may seem, even more ethically challenged than the old Keating Five womanizer himself:

How dare this dumpy cow lumber onto a national stage, belching and farting her country-club Republican twaddle to any leftie who’ll book her on his show, especially looking like that?  (You know the country-clubbers’ pious mantra: Cut my taxes — but keep abortion legal so my slut daughter can fornicate consequence-free.)  I thought she’d learned from the scars earned in her battle of the wits, though sadly unarmed, with Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham, like that gaping new one ripped between her ass’s ears.  How do I detest thee, Meghan?  Let me count the ways…  I can’t do better here than quote the patron sage of this blog, Jonathan Swift, describing female horse’s asses who try to impress beyond their abilities:

Some try to learn polite Behaviour,
By reading Books against their Saviour;
Some call it witty to reflect
On ev’ry natural Defect…
But, sure a Tell-tale out of School
Is of all Wits the greatest Fool;
Whose rank Imagination fills,
Her Heart, and from her Lips distills;
You’d think she utter’d from behind,
Or at her Mouth was breaking Wind.

(Strephon and Chloe, 1731)

Oral wind-breaking — yes, that pretty well sums up May-gun McLame.  Back to your stall now, Old Bossy, and give that flapping jaw, and your sorely overtaxed hooves, a rest.

Meanwhile, why exactly is ass-ugly gossip blogger Perez Hilton allowed even to enter the presence of gracile beauties like Carrie Prejean, let alone question them?  Does anyone who doesn’t huff amyl nitrite even know who this coarse little scrub is?  Doubtless spawned in some estaminet of Huntington Park, a coffee shop drudge or simpering bag boy at Gelson’s until last week, Perez is stunted and beetle-browed, like so much East Side ethnojetsam washed up on the kosher West Bank of L.A., lately gone from working the corners of Santa Monica Boulevard on to modest fame among homosexuals.  Yes, look closely at the face: the joke stage name conceals low peasant origins, probably one generation removed from an auto body shop on Washington Boulevard, two from some shithole jacal in Jalisco.   Hardly a eugenic or edifying specimen, before one even gets to the illiteracy and repulsive Gay Mart couture.  Indeed, the little pouf’s relentlessly pinched face and lemony sneer suggest a shredded or prolapsed anus, or some kindred sodomite ailment — you see what happens when you shove Coke bottles, various combinations of your own digits, and multiple strangers’ penile Petri dishes up your backside on a nightly, drug-fueled basis.

Bra-less wonder Perez Hilton before emergency makeover: What shat that?

perehiltongettingsued

That’s precisely why bourgeois liberals’ push for homosexual “marriage” is such a joke — “gay” and “marriage” are contradictions in terms, as every candid queer from Mark Simpson to Camille Paglia has observed, and not just because marriage originated as a sacred union framed for the procreation and protection of children.  Everybody who’s not a Prozacked white lady in the Seattle suburbs, dutifully twitching when the Obamatards pull her strings, knows gay men are polygamous almost to a man.  No matter what claims they make in public about their “relationships,” they are except in rare cases industriously promiscuous unless body fat, clock-stopping ugliness or some other structural flaw precludes it, as with blobby toad Perez.

This is not speculation, friends — though a strict celibate myself, my oldest and dearest friends are two gay men, as are a constellation of lesser friends and acquaintances, and believe me, they bear me out unerringly.  Nor, I might add, do very many of them buy into this manipulative liberal “gay marriage” schtick.  Gay men of all people know that male lust, freed of any limits in female reticence, is for all practical purposes unbounded; it drives unerringly for the maximum number of sexual partners, stopping only when structurally limited by the physical exhaustions of age, disease or both.  Nor, they’ve told me for years, would they want it to be; it’s precisely their hedonist, libertine refusal of respectable social norms — the self-restraint and voluntary sacrifice needed for the protection and procreation of women and children — that keeps the gaiety in gayness for them.

And I’m not just picking on the gays here.  Consistent reactionary that I am, I zealously assert divorce must be illegal except in cases of proven adultery; separation, perhaps, but rupturing a sacramental union, never.  “Husband and wife are one body in the same way as Christ and the Father are one.”  (St John Chrysostom) And hetero fornicating is quite out of the question too, as is indeed marital intercourse not open to the transmission of life.

Get with the program, self-described Christians: either human beings wholly own their bodies and can use them any way we damned well please — or not.  Half-measures and casuistry, the hypocrisy of “Christians” who condemn homosexual acts while having hetero sex for pleasure, are just intellectual and moral flab — be for real:

The unitive aspect of sexual love, therefore, is a blessed and joyful corollary to procreation.  It is a gift for which we can rejoice and give thanks.  It is so, however, only inasmuch as it derives from the more fundamental purpose of Christian marriage, which is to participate directly in God’s creative work through the bearing and raising of children.

(Very Rev. John Breck, The Sacred Gift of Life: Orthodox Christianity and Bioethics, 90)

So is marriage a sacred institution framed to hallow the procreation and protection of children, or isn’t it?  As several Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians have observed, married couples who copulate using birth control are simply masturbating; it is every human being’s duty to abstain from sexual acts not open to the transmission of life.  Husbands and wives who contracept are, therefore, as antisocially selfish and morally foul as the randiest sodomite.  How’s that for consistency and even-handedness?