18 February 2014

Meatless Friday Tuesday: the United States of Decline

For those of you who still retain faith in the integrity of the voting process, representative democracy, or whatever you might call it, this article from National Review is for you.

NR is as mainstream matrix-y as you can get. When it throws in the towel, what other, more comforting shelter will you find? It seems you are like a resident of the grey town in C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce, fearing the oncoming night.


2 comments:

Barto of the Oratory said...

President Obama is making unilateral changes to the Obamacare law only because tthe Congress is allowing it, only because Congress can't muster the votes to pass laws to stop it from happening. At least, this is my interpretation. But, it still seems that some aggrevieved party could sue in Federal Court over Obama's unileratal change. But perhaps that isn't happening because his changes don't harm anyone, but loosen up requirements to prevent harm. Perhaps Obamacare even has provisions that allows executive modification or postponements of some requirements. Some Republicans are getting political mileage of this "rule by decree" charge, but I suspect this is just a propaganda campaign. If President Obama was really ruling by decree the way Hitler and Stalin did, the Republicans would not be so docile. We should not treat a coordinated party propanganda campaign as if it represents any sort of real reality, even if it is being carried out by our favorite Party. President Lincoln would not approve of that. Jesus would not approve. Jesus said Satan was a liar and the father of lies. As any lawyer knows, a man who lies under oath, even if helps the lawyer's case, is not a good guy to be trusted or respected in general. All propaganda is not a lie, exactly. But to mislead people even with a skewed presentation of true facts is not a holy, blessed thing that aids in the LORD's quest for the salvation of souls. That's my opinion.

Barto of the Oratory said...

Our honorable Blog Master writes in this post that National Review magazine "is as mainstream...as you can get." I beg to different. NR has been anti-Catholic since its inception, though in cloaked way. Think of Palpatine in "Star Wars" being a protector of the Republic. William F. Buckley endorsed Gary Wills coining of the term "Mater si, magistra no." See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mater_si,_magistra_no You can't be more anti-Catholic than that. In 2009, NR published a fullsome thrashing of Pope Benedict's 2nd encyclical. Thee reasoning of the article rendered the whole of the Church's magisterium to be dismissable and disposable. See: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227839/i-caritas-veritate-i-gold-and-red/george-weigel Don't be misled by the fact that George Weigel wrote the article. He's employed by the industrial-military complex, not the Catholic Church. This is my opinion. If it is Catholic to treat a papal encyclical the way an angry pitbull treats a chihuahua, then NR is okay I guess. Otherwise, I guess not. If this is in error, please advise.