Mass Conservative News

The Boston Globe on Tuesday took John McCain to task for suggesting, while speaking in an evangelical church, that “Our Judeo-Christian principles dictate that we do what we can to help people who are oppressed throughout the world.” (McCain’s ‘Judeo-Christian values’ reference puzzles)

Interestingly enough, the Globe’s criticism of McCain did not broach whether it really is the United States responsibility to be the Welfare Office/International Police Force/Knight-in-Shining-Armor for every other country in the world. They just took umbrage to the phrase “Judea-Christian” and suggested that it was something sinister.

The articles author, Peter Canellos, implies that it was a McCain gaffe when he suggested in 2006 that the killing of Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was an elimination of a threat in “this titanic struggle we are in between western Judeo-Christian values and principles and Islamic extremists”. Canellos suggests that making such observations may offend some Muslims. Perhaps someone might refresh his memory that the “War on Terror” began when Islamo-facists (that is, Muslim extremists) determined that it was high-time to bring their jihad on Christians and Jews to the western continent.

Canellos suggests that perhaps McCain should be saying “American Values”, and that the extremists are attacking us because they hate “our freedom”.

Such a substitution, however, can only blur the lines of truth, and ultimately be detrimental in the war on terror.

Islamofacists don’t hate us because we have “American Values” and put a premium on “Freedom”. They just want to kill Jews, Infidels (ie. Christian) and, as a tenet of faith, want everyone living under Sharia (Islamic) law, which is completely incompatible with contemporary ideas of Western freedom. If the Globe doesn’t get that, then they have no idea what the War on Terror really is.

It is imperative that it be noted loudly, and as often as possible, that the Islamofacists are Muslims, and are howling “Allah Ackbar” every time they saw off the head of an innocent relief worker, or gleefully blowup a retarded girl with a remote detonator in a marketplace. And Muslims should be offended, and not at the media, but at the terrorists who are doing these abominations it in the name of Islam.

If indeed such terrorists are not really representing Islam, then the greatest wrath that should fall upon them is that of the “true” Muslims whose religion is being so grossly slandered by such acts.

Every sheik and iman should have called for an immediate jihad after 9/11 against the extremists, and the first one’s into to take out Al Qaeda in Afghanistan should have been Special Forces from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, and other developed countries that consider themselves “Muslim”.

But that wasn’t the case.

There was either a deafening silence, or a weak rationalization, condemning the attacks, but qualifying it with some statement against the United States’ support of Israel. Many Muslim populations were and still are entirely sympathetic to the attackers.

It is time that someone finally came out and said it. Western countries that were founded on the principles on “Judeo-Christian” principles hold ideals like mercy, equality, justice and individual rights as the highest moral good for a society. Countries that have Islam as their moral bedrock are misogynist, are mass sociopaths, have disdain for individual rights, and see nothing wrong with mass murder, as long as you can kill some Jews in the process. These are the simple facts.

There are plenty of Muslims in Islamic countries who abhor the backwards, oppressive, Stone Age zeitgeist of their homeland, and recognize that the core of the offense is Islam. However, it is a capital crime in those nations to convert from Islam to another religion, or to even question the teachings of Islam.

So if it helps the Boston Globe understand this better, let me spell it out. The world needs more “Judeo-Christian Values”. That is a good thing for us to be exporting. The world needs less “Muslim Values”. That is the source of the conflict.

Friday, August 1st, Barack Obama announced that he intended on seizing “excess” profits from oil companies to give families in the form of $1000 checks per family.

Granted, the oil companies did make a tremendous profit this year.  Obama, who has never held a job in the private sector, probably thinks that profits from oil corporations are stuffed into pillow cases and squeezed into the closets filled with other ill-gotten gain by evil Texas oil tycoons.   He pictures them snickering, as they stuff it all in, reaching for more pillowcases, being careful not to inadvertently grab their Ku Klux Klan sheets that they sport at their monthly meetings. 

If he had any inkling of how a publicly traded business works in the free world, he might realize that there are no “excess profits” in a corporation.  Businesses exist to make a profit.  They have no other reason for being. Once they have covered their operating costs, a corporation pays taxes on their profits.   Literally billions of tax revenue is going to the Federal government this quarter because the oil companies made money.   After the taxes, profits are paid out to the shareholders.  And that is not just “typical” rich white people who receive the dividends.  That is normal people.  Those with money in the stock market, and even 401Ks at their place of employment.  Average people see their 401K grow when a corporation has “excess” profits.

Keep in mind too that individuals above a certain income level pay taxes on those dividends they receive.  The profits were already taxed once, and now they are taxed again.

And when all the taxes and shareholders are paid, whatever is left over is used to assure the oil company will still be profitable in the future, which in this case, would mean research and development on alternative fuels, and investing in that which would lower their operating costs in the future.

However, Barack Obama wants to forcibly seize profits from the oil companies.  It is impossible to tell what that would do to the stock market when the government could arbitrarily, with no legal jurisprudence, seize the profits or assets from any corporation because they want to redistribute the wealth.  I am not sure why no one has pointed out that this is the cornerstone of Communism. 

However, this works for Obama.  As long as it is the evil rich people getting pillaged by the downtrodden underclass, it will play well on election day.  It worked well for a time for Karl Marx.  It just has to work for Obama through November. 

By 5 pm Tuesday, April 29th, candidates for the Legislature, Governor’s Council and county offices must file their nomination papers with local clerks. It’s a required step for anyone who wishes to compete in the Sept. 16 state primaries or the Nov. 4 state election.Lawmakers and challengers will be watching to see whether competitors are lining up or, as is the case for many incumbents, they’ll get a free ride to another two-year term. The election marks an opportunity for Gov. Deval Patrick, who has been frustrated by the Legislature, to help candidates who support his agenda to win public office.

Eric Francke

As Pope Benedict is meeting in Washington with some of the local victims of the clergy, much of the mainstream press is presenting the event as a cathartic, healing bonanza that finally rectifies many of the criminal acts of the Catholic church in the mind and hearts of her congregants.  The fact of the matter, is that it is far from it.   Without dragging out the appalling details, lets review the scope of the crime:

The John Jay College of Criminal Justice, which did a study for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, found that 4,392 priests had been accused of abusing 10,667 individuals between 1950 and 2002.   Much of that happened in the Boston area, where the local bishops, including Cardinal Law, were complicit in moving the pedophile priests from parish to parish, to rape more children, rather than turn them over to authorities. 

Beyond the unfathomable damage done to the children and their families involved, the Church sullied its moral authority and any vestige of respect the outside world might have for it. There may be no recovery for victimizer, nor victim in this matter.

The church should be hunting down offenders, rather than giving them safe haven.  Much of this however, is water over the dam.

If the church wanted some real resolution to the issue, it needs to deal with many of the cultural aspects in the Roman Catholic church that werecontributory to the scandal.  

For example, why would anyone be surprised, that if you took a fraternity of males, drilled it into their heads that it is good not to be with a woman, and gave them unquestionable authority over young boys, that there would be a plethora of accounts of sexual abuse of young boys?   Who didn’t see that one coming?   When I myself was a theology major at a Catholic university, intending on becoming a priest, it was simply understood that a disproportionate number of candidates for seminary were gay- and that sex with a male was not regarding by many of them as taboo as was sex with a female. 

In the future, the Roman Catholic Church will have to deal with eradicating the culture of homosexuality it has created within the seminaries. 

For starters, how about allowing priests the option of marrying, if they so desire?  It is interesting how several times in the Bible, it is mentioned that Peter had a “mother-in-law” (Mark 1;30) and that he and the other apostles had wives accompanying them on some missionary journeys.  Celibacy for the priesthood was not even a consideration for hundreds of years after the church was founded.  Why then do we considered it part of the tradition of the church, and why is it that no one sees how it has played into the pedophilia scandal? 

In the New Testament, even a bishop is told to be the “Husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:2-4).   How much clearer could it be?  The Roman Catholic church has to dispense with ideals or practices which are neither biblical, apostolic, or serve a specific purpose today.  Toss the johnny-come-lately practices which have done nothing but to hamstring its ability to serve its churches, and been contributory to the ongoing sex scandal.  

I’m not one to spontaneously rave about a movie, and actor, or any other type of celebrity.  Frankly, the lack of originality in Hollywood I find absolutely maddening, and the sorry excuse that passes for dialogue and acting today is not even worth the effort to critique it.

However, I have a special affinity for the work of Charlton Heston.   Of course, I enjoyed the Ten Commandments, and Planet of the Apes.   But those don’t compare to the depth and drama of Ben Hur, which arguably is one of the best films ever made.

The movie, subtitled as “Another Tale of Christ” is more than just a big 40’s epic with a chariot race.   It is one of the best depictions of the life and mission of Jesus Christ ever put on the screen, all without overtly showing Christ.   Throughout the entire movie, Judah Ben Hur (Charlton Heston) is recounting how “someone did something nice for me once”, referring to how Christ gave him water in Nazareth, thus saving his life.   At the end of the film, in Jerusalem, when Judah suddenly realizes it was the carpenter’s son, now being led to his crucifixion on the via Del Rosa, he tries to reciprocate and give him water…only to have it knocked from his hand.  It this moment, it is communicated that no one can ever pay Christ back for what he has done for us.   Although Judah, a prince in Jerusalem, would try to return the favor, it is impossible.   Thus, the Gospel of Grace, through such symbolism, rings out loud and clear.   More overt is the symbolism of the Blood of Christ running down from Cavalry, healing Judah’s mother and sister, and then diffusing out to the world, but that has been discussed ad nausem.

You will certainly be missed, Charlton Heston.

           Tuesday, March 4th, the Joint Committee on the Judiciary will be hearing a number of bills pertaining to the relaxing of ethical standards in relation to sex.  Starting at 1:00 PM in room A-1, they will be hearing testimony on a bill granting transgendered individuals new legal standing, a bill codifying same-sex marriage, a bill repealing any legal repercussions to behavior such as adultery, and a bill allowing same-sex couples to marry in Massachusetts, even in their state bars same-sex marriage.   There are two bill also slated that pertain to parental consent for abortions for minors.

Bill  H1710  would codify same-sex marriage in law in Massachusetts. The Supreme Judicial Court instituted same-sex marriage in Massachusetts through its decision in 2003, which was enacted by Gov. Romney in 2004.  However, the actual ruling only required the legislature to amend the constitution to allow for same-sex marriage, which they never did.    This bill is an attempt to actually put same-sex marriage on the books for the first time. 

Bill H1709  is meant to repeal current sexual ethics laws.  It would gut longstanding laws that say society disapproves of adultery, sex outside marriage, and other violations of sexual ethics. Though these laws have seldom been enforced in recent years, to repeal them now would send the message to our children that there are no standards for sexual conduct.

Bill H1722 would add the vague category of “gender identity or expression” to the state ban on discrimination, with the ultimate goal to deny the immutable biological differences between the sexes. Among the consequences of this law are: a) school children would be taught that they can change their gender if they want and b) women and children would be put at risk since access to sensitive areas such as single-sex bathrooms, locker rooms and women-only fitness facilities would be open to anyone, regardless of biological sex. 

Bill H1728/S800 would allow same-sex couples from outside of Massachusetts to come to the state, marry and return to their states in an attempt to force their state to recognize their marriage, leading to legal challenges across the nation.     Interestingly enough, the same court which ruled for same-sex marriage in the Goodridge case actually ruled against allowing such out-of-state couples marrying in the state in April of 2005.

There are also two abortion laws.  H1687 would require a 24 hour waiting period, and require that clinics inform potential candidates for abortion of the other alternatives to abortion.   Bill H1734/S831 would relax the current abortion laws, having the effect of deregulating the practice.  

One might think that, having just finished…err…almost finished the countries largest public roadway project in U.S. history, we might be able to coast for a little while with respect to more transportation bills.

After all the billions spent on the Artery and Big Dig (ignoring the perpetual improvements to the MassPike) we are still told by supporters of the new transportation bill that Massachusetts Ranks 48^th among state with major roads and highways in either “good” or “very good” condition.

The price tag on this is only $2.9 billion for Massachusetts, with the Federal Government picking up another 1.9 Billion. It will be earmarked for road, bridge, and rail projects throughout the state.

The Massachusetts Legislature must still sign off on the bill, however with the way the Unions have been pulling the strings on our esteemed lawmakers, not only will they sign off on it, but one can bet that they will stuff some more pork in there wherever they can.

The next question is, of course, how to pay for this new set of projects.

Just last year, we were talking about removing some of the tolls on the MassPike, since the roadway has been paid for decades. Not too likely under this administration and its burgeoning budget.

On the contrary. We now know that tolls will actually go up, particularly for trucks on the MassPike. And …get ready…undoubtedly there will be a proposal for adding a toll booth on the artery, 128, or 95.

But, don’t worry. It will only be “temporary” just like the MassPike tolls.