.:[Double Click To][Close]:.

US Ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman resigns. Preparing for 2012?

Politico: Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the U.S. ambassador to China, sent a resignation letter to President Barack Obama on Monday and now is likely to explore a Republican presidential bid, a close associate told POLITICO.
In a letter hand-delivered to the White House, the former Utah governor said that he wants to return to the United States by May, the associate said.

GOP allies of Huntsman have already begun laying plans for a quick-start campaign should the former Utah governor decide to enter the ill-defined Republican field.
While Huntsman has no direct involvement in it, a group of operatives that could eventually comprise his strategy team has set up an entity called “Horizon PAC” to serve as a placeholder for his political apparatus. [MORE]
Needless to say the administration is already sounding rather snarky about the whole thing.  They appointed Huntsman to take him out of the running in 2012.  Instead they ended up giving him massive foreign policy experience.  How does that old saying go; "one good screw deserves another"?
Jon Huntsman is the perfect Romney clone.  

  • Moderate RINO - check.
  • Mormon - check.
  • Good Hair and presidential looks - check.
  • Very wealthy - check.
I for one am glad Huntsman may run.  This is because so many conservatives are still looking for  "The One". The risk here is that conservatives could end up casting their votes all over the place, while the establishment and moderate Republicans quickly coalesce around Mitt Romney and give him the nomination. With Huntsman (and hopefully other RINOs) running, the establishment and moderates will face the same dilemma as conservatives.  This will make the chance of a true conservative winning the nomination more equal.


I think Huntsman stands a good chance of raining on Mitt's parade.  Surely, moderates and establishment Republicans must be worried that Mitt is going to struggle mightily at the hands of conservatives.  Perhaps, they will look at Huntsman as a less caustic option.


At any rate, I say, bring on the RINOs!


Via: Memeorandum
Via: Politico

Strike Two: Florida judge rules ObamaCare unconstitutional

Today Justice Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola ruled that the individual mandate clause of ObamaCare is unconstitutional. Furthermore, Justice Vinson notes that since the mandates are so integral to ObamaCare, the entire 2,700 page nightmare is unconstitutional.


You can read Justice Vinson's entire ruling below (h/t: Michelle Malkin)




For an extra nice touch, Justice Vinson uses Obama's own words against him.


The Washington Times:In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal JudgeRoger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, when the then-Illinois senator argued there were other ways to achieve reform short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.[...]


The footnote was attached to the most critical part of Judge Vinson‘s ruling, in which he said the “principal dispute” in the case was not whether Congress has the power to tackle health care, but rather whether it has the power to compel individual citizens to purchase insurance.
Judge Vinson cited Mr. Obama‘s campaign words from an interview with CNN to show that there are other options that could pass constitutional muster including then-candidate Obama‘s plan.
The only thing Justice Vinson did not deliver on was an injunction stopping the immediate implementation of ObamaCare.
The New York Times: [...]The judge declined to immediately enjoin, or suspend, the law pending appeals, a process that could last two years. But he wrote that the federal government should adhere to his declaratory judgment as the functional equivalent of an injunction. That left confusion about how the ruling might be interpreted in the 26 states that are parties to the legal challenge.
The insurance mandate does not take effect until 2014. But many new regulations are already operating, like requirements that insurers cover children with pre-existing health conditions and eliminate lifetime caps on benefits. States are also preparing for a major expansion of Medicaideligibility and the introduction of health insurance 
Even though this ruling doesn't stop ObamaCare in its tracks, the left isn't happy.  On Memeorandum, you can hear them screaming "judicial activism".  The White House even had the gall to call this ruling an overreach!  That is comical seeing how the Democrats overreached all over the place to pass ObamaCare!
What this ruling does is to help advance the battle to repeal ObamaCare to the Supreme Court.  There if all goes well, ObamaCare will meet its demise.  Fingers crossed!

David Axelrod deixa o cargo de conselheiro sénior do Presidente e regressa a Chicago para ajudar na campanha da reeleição de Obama


Um artigo de Glenn Thrush, no Politico.com:

«Bill Russell, the reclusive Boston Celtics Hall of Famer, was visiting the White House last year when David Axelrod seized the chance to settle a personal score dating back to the mid-1960s.

As a kid growing up in Manhattan, Axelrod shagged players’ autographs outside Madison Square Garden. Most visiting players obliged, but not Russell, one of the league’s first black superstars and an early Axelrod idol. So when Russell and his daughter sat down for lunch in the White House mess, Axelrod put on the squeeze in his genial but unyielding way – and Russell broke a lifelong no-autographs policy to scrawl his name on a White House souvenir basketball.

That ball nested on a bookshelf in Axelrod’s West Wing office until he packed up the boxes on Friday after two tumultuous years as President Barack Obama’s message man and avuncular alter ego. It was a testament to Axelrod’s water-against-rock persistence — and a competitive fire that belies the caricature of Axelrod as a Woody Allen character in an administration of steelier David Mamet types.

“David is as competitive and driven as the president and I am. He wants to win,” said former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, a longtime friend who, like Axelrod, initially opposed Obama’s plan to push full-speed ahead with health care reform in 2009.

In a personal sense, Axelrod’s departure will have an immediate impact on a close-knit team that has served with him for five uninterrupted years. Colleagues say they’ll miss his back-and-forth pun contests with counsel Bob Bauer, the oatmeal-on-the-glasses eating habits, and the Axe-isms, including one often mocked by Emanuel and his interim successor Pete Rouse: “Tough things are hard.”

But inside the White House, no adviser had more access to the president or lobbied more aggressively, or patiently, to have his opinions prevail. And Axelrod’s advice to Obama, regardless of the issue or his immediate prospects of winning, was always the same: Don’t forget who you were in 2008.

While Obama has sometimes rejected Axelrod’s tactical advice, he’s increasingly turning back to that vision of an elevated politics as 2012 approaches. Thanks to Obama’s successful lame-duck session, the widely praised Tucson speech, whose drafting he oversaw, and presidential approval numbers that are clocking in at 50 percent for the first time in a year, Axelrod, who celebrates his 56th birthday next month, leaves on a professional high note.

“He would always talk about going back to first principles,” said Obama pollster Joel Benenson, a longtime friend who describes Axelrod as “the kind of keeper of [the message] in a way I don’t think anybody else is.”

Those principles include transparency, bipartisan compromise and a rejection of Beltway cynicism – and Axelrod thinks Obama’s recent rebound is sustainable if he sticks to them.

“We do have a greater opportunity in the next two years because of all the work we’ve done in the first two years. We have a clear field in front of us,” he told POLITICO between bites of salad in his West Wing office about a week before closing up shop.

“I’m happy. I’m feeling like we finally marched through the valley and got to higher ground.”

Yet as Obama’s fortunes improve, Axelrod’s own legacy is the subject of intense debate among some Democratic allies who say he failed to conceive and execute a coherent messaging strategy to sell Obama’s stimulus and health reform bills or deal with the economy, leaving Democrats dangerously exposed in the midterms.


Even as the acrimony fades, there is a widespread feeling among the diminished ranks of Democrats on the Hill that Axelrod was the architect of a strategy that often portrayed them as part of corrupt, wicked “Washington” – and that Axelrod only scaled that back after an ugly confrontation with then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi last year.

“He was a lot better at covering Obama’s rear end then selling the country on Obama’s programs,” said one senior Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of offending Obama’s team.

Axelrod, who still describes himself as an “outside the Beltway consultant” after two years of sitting several paces from the Oval Office, said his return to Chicago will be good for Obama, giving him some much-needed “above the trees” political perspective from Manny’s, the Jewish deli in Chicago that lets him run a tab.

“I’m going to go home to Chicago… there needs to be some space, some time to reflect,” Axelrod said. “I’m going to do some speaking, I might do some consulting, and obviously I’m going to help out here as we get ready for reelection, as the reelection campaign unfolds. I’ll ease back into the role I played last time, which is senior strategist.”

Over the next few weeks, he’ll rest, maybe take a vacation, spend a lot more time with his adult daughter, who lives in a Chicago group home to help deal with the effects of severe epilepsy. He might write a book, but only after the 2012 campaign. He’ll probably help out a few political friends, especially Emanuel, whose name was recently restored to the Chicago mayoral ballot.

“We talk all the time,” said Emanuel.

When asked for details of Axelrod’s advice, he barked, “None of your business.”

Obama will miss Axelrod, but the arrival of David Plouffe who is taking Axelrod’s office eases the transition and has comforted a staff rattled by a major personnel shake-up. Still, it’s hard to imagine Obama having a more relaxed relationship with Plouffe than he had with Axelrod.

The president was a regular visitor to Axelrod’s cluttered office – a small workspace stuffed with paper and mementos, crumpled dress shirts and food-spattered ties hanging off a hook on the door — peppering Axelrod with questions or simply venting. (One memorable moment came about a year ago, when a flabbergasted Obama ducked in to ask if Massachusetts Senate candidate Martha Coakley had really, actually mocked Fenway Park during her doomed bid to replace Ted Kennedy.)

On his last day on Friday, Axelrod gave two emotional farewell speeches, the first at a small 7:30 a.m. daily huddle with senior advisers in the office of new chief of staff Bill Daley. The second, a more emotional send-off, took place amid hugs and tears at the larger 8:30 a.m. staff meeting in the Roosevelt Room. That night the Axelrods and Obamas had a private dinner in the president’s residence.

But Axelrod is keeping his apartment near Logan Circle (“He will be back here on a regular basis,” a senior administration official said) Gone, however, are his invitation-only Wednesday night strategy meetings there with Benenson, other consultants and White House hands, including deputy senior adviser Stephanie Cutter and Dan Pfeiffer, Obama’s communications director.

“His legacy is that he helped elect President Obama and that he ensured, at every step of the way in the White House, that the president stayed true to what he talked about, that he hewed as close as he could to the central themes” of the 2008 presidential campaign, Emanuel said.

West Wing colleagues describe Axelrod as a kind of in-house political carbon monoxide detector, a highly sensitive alarm that protects Obama from the toxic atmosphere of Beltway politics. The problem, they admit, is that alarm was often disabled to accommodate the realities of the financial crisis and Obama’s own ambitious legislative agenda.

For the first 18 months of Obama’s term, Axelrod’s political advice was often brushed aside in the name of legislative sausage-making, much to his frustration, according to people who talked with him at the time.

The first blow came soon after Obama took office, when a liaison to the Hill proudly trumpeted the fact he’d slashed the number of earmarks in a spending bill; Axelrod suggested banning all of the earmarks, but was quickly overridden.

A short time later, Axelrod counseled Obama to crack down on bonuses given to executives at TARP-recipient banks. This time Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner won the argument – resulting in a political disaster when it was revealed that aid recipient AIG was doling out millions in bonuses.

Health care was a more complicated issue for Axelrod. On the one hand, he knew the issue could be politically perilous for Obama. But own his bitter personal experience trying to force an HMO to pay for his infant daughter’s epilepsy treatment in the late 1980s drew him deeply into the fray.

“The night that health care passed,” he recalls, “the president and the staff were all in the Roosevelt Room watching it on television and I came in here by myself, and I closed the door and I just had a good cry because I realized that there are other families that won’t have to go through what we went through. No one will have to look at their child and say I don’t know if I can afford what you need.”

Other administration officials, including Emanuel and his deputy Jim Messina, took their lumps from congressional Democrats trying to close the health care deal, but Axelrod was the most effective surrogate on the Hill.

He was good at soothing frayed nerves and also had a capacity, perhaps inherited from his father, a therapist who committed suicide when he was teenager, to patiently endure criticism, even abuse. That included a memorable Feb. 2010 tirade from Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) who laced into Axelrod for what he viewed as the administration’s messy messaging on health care.

A more serious confrontation took place in late 2009 when Pelosi, then-Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn held a secret meeting with Axelrod to call him out for Obama statements they believed portrayed Hill Democrats as villains.

Axelrod, according to a person who attended, politely countered by suggesting they embrace earmarks reform and lobbying disclosures. The House leaders demurred, but the two sides struck a compromise: Benenson would join forces with the DCCC’s pollster to focus-group unified messaging strategies.


Relations warmed for a while, but by the spring of 2010, after the reform package finally passed, Pelosi and Co. began picking up renewed signs that Obama was again campaigning against “Washington” – and summoned Axelrod to the speaker’s office.

When one of the participants griped “You can’t criticize Washington – we are Washington!” Axelrod guffawed, then calmly reminded his hosts that this wasn’t the best selling point in the midst of a tea party uprising.

Still, Obama obliged and then some, lighting into Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and memorably referring to the GOP as “enemies.”

For anyone other than Obama, this was standard presidential politicking. But Axelrod – a Pelosi admirer who defended her during internal White House meetings — had always positioned his boss on a higher plane. And he couldn’t wait for it all to end, fretting to friends that the midterms were putting too much “torque” on Obama’s core image as a positive force.

He soon had his chance to reclaim lost ground with moderates and independents. Late last year, when wounded liberals demanded Obama block renewal of all tax cuts rather than accept a temporary extension of those for the wealthy, it was Axelrod who spoke up most forcefully in favor of compromise with Republicans, arguing that that the extension of middle-class tax breaks and unemployment insurance was well worth the trade-off.

Axelrod now returns to Chicago to help set up the reelection campaign and freshen the Obama brand. The still-evolving message, unveiled in the State of the Union, seems to be “Green Tea,” a fusion of Obama’s vision of green jobs-fueled recovery and his new focus on the deficit, a distinct Tea Party flavor.

In Axelrod’s view, the sluggish but steadying recovery gives Obama “the luxury” of focusing not only on jobs but a larger, more optimistic and confident message of American revival, in the vein of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

“It’s important to him, and for him, to be out in the country,” Axelrod said of Obama, “not just to promote our initiatives but to promote the fundamental strength of his country… We have to be more about telling this story [of private-sector] innovation long-term. That’s the fundamental strength of America — not any program of ours or any initiative of Washington.”

From a personal perspective, Axelrod’s most satisfying victory may have come during last week’s State of the Union, when Obama announced he would automatically veto any spending bill that contained earmarks.

Like many of Axelrod’s victories it was a defeat avenged: Even as Obama publicly ridiculed John McCain during the 2008 debates over McCain’s obsession with earmark reform, Axelrod privately pressured Obama to embrace the effort.

“The [earmarks ban] meant a lot to David. He’d never admit it, but it was a real vindication,” said one White House ally.»

Year A Fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time

Readings: Zeph. 2:3; 3:12-13 Ps. 146:6-10; 1 Cor. 1:26-31; Matt. 5:1-12a

Preaching on the Beatitudes is a daunting task because they constitute the very heart of the Gospel. Therefore, it is wise to begin by looking at today’s second reading from St. Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, in which the apostle urges the Christians of Corinth to consider their calling, that is, their selection by God, the call to which baptism and participation in this Eucharist are responses. I think what Paul writes about the Christians in ancient Corinth applies just as well to our congregation: not many of us are wise by human standards, not many of us are powerful, which means able to influence people and events on a large scale, my guess is that not many of us belong to wealthy, influential families (1 Cor. 1:26). This brings up some questions- "Why did God choose me?" "Why did God choose us to accomplish His purpose in the world?" Surely, there must be people better equipped to help usher in the victory that Christ won for us.

Paul gives us the answer in a very straightforward way: "God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong, and God chose the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, to reduce to nothing those who are something, so that no human being might boast before God" (1 Cor. 1:27-29). Indeed, Jesus of Nazareth was born a marginal person among a marginal people, which is why Fr. John Meyer entitled his magisterial three volume work on the historical Jesus A Marginal Jew.

"The Beatitudes," we read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "take up the promises made to the chosen people since Abraham” and "fulfill the[se] promises by ordering them no longer merely to the possession of a territory, but to [the realization of] the Kingdom of heaven," which also means extending the covenant to all people (par. 1716). In addition to conveying to us "the countenance of Jesus Christ," the Beatitudes express our baptismal vocation, which begins our initiation, our immersion, into the Paschal Mystery of Christ’s Passion and Resurrection (par. 1717). These teachings constitute the very core of Christian praxis, shedding "light on the actions and attitudes characteristic of the Christian life" (par. 1717). On Christian terms, the best way of determining the authenticity of these teachings is to see that "they are the paradoxical promises that sustain hope in the midst of tribulations; they proclaim the blessings and rewards already secured, however dimly, for Christ's disciples; they have begun in the lives of the Virgin Mary and all the saints" (par. 1717).

What is meant by calling them paradoxical? Well, let’s look at just one-"Blessed are those who mourn" (Matt. 5:4). It is important to note that the word "blessed," with which Jesus begins each of the nine beatitudes in Matthew’s Gospel, is the Greek word makarioi, which simply means "happy." Well, for anyone who is now mourning, or who has ever mourned, probably one word you would not use to describe this experience is "blessed," let alone "happy." As the text indicates, happiness is not the result of mourning, but the result of being comforted. The paradox, then, arises from the fact that in order to be comforted you must first mourn. Another way to translate the Greek word we usually translate as "shall be comforted" is, hearkening back to the Latin Vulgate, "consoled," which comes from the word consolatio, which suggests being with another in her/his solitude precisely so that s/he ceases to be alone. But even when we think of being comforted in our mourning our thoughts likely turn to someone putting their arm around us, or giving us a hug, and telling us it will be alright. While this is nice and, for most of us, even necessary, it does not make us happy because it cannot change what has happened that caused us to mourn in the first place. It is possible to analyze each of the beatitudes in this way. For instance, how can persecution of the kind our Christian sisters and brothers are now experiencing throughout the Middle East be a source of happiness? It is not the persecution that makes them happy, but Christ’s promise of the kingdom of heaven.

Martyrdom of St. Lawrence (deacon), by Valentin de Buologne 1621-1622

Death and suffering are for many great obstacles to faith. In his encyclical letter, Spe Salvi, Pope Benedict addresses the issue of suffering, which, he notes, "stems partly from our finitude and partly from the mass of sin which has accumulated over the course of history" (par. 36). While following Christ requires us to "do all we can to overcome suffering," our finitude prevents us from simply banishing "it from the world altogether" (par. 36). "[O]nly a God who personally enters history by making himself man and suffering within history," the Holy Father continues, is powerful enough to do this (par. 36). Hence, only through faith in the victory of Jesus Christ over sin and death has "hope for the world's healing… emerged in history," making it a well-founded hope (par. 36). Christ does not just give us hope, he is our hope. It is our hope, which is not yet fulfillment, the Holy Father teaches, "that gives us the courage to place ourselves on the side of good even in seemingly hopeless situations" (par. 36). When we speak of the theological virtue of hope, which, like faith and love, is a gift from God, too often we think of it as synonymous with wishing, but what it really indicates is trusting in a promise. As we all know from experience, a promise is only as good as the one who makes it.

Our desire for happiness, that is, for beatitude "is of divine origin," which "God has placed" in every human heart in order to draw each one of us to Himself (par. 1718). As St. Thomas Aquinas observed, "God alone satisfies" (par. 1718, quoting Exposition on the Apostles Creed, I). Everyone wants to be happy. "In the whole human race," wrote St. Augustine, "there is no one who does not assent to this proposition" (par. 1718 quoting Of the Morals of the Catholic Church, 1.3.4). So, the Beatitudes show us the goal of our existence, which is happiness, total and complete satisfaction, not just eventually, but right now! Indeed, in every circumstance we face "God calls us to [experience] his own beatitude" (Catechism, par. 1719). This call is addressed to each one of us personally and to the whole church, which is comprised of "the new people," about whom Zephaniah prophesied, the people who believe the promise "and live from it in faith" (Catechism, par. 1719).

Let’s end as we began, by turning to First Corinthians, where read that "Christ Jesus…became for us wisdom from God" and that he is our "righteousness, sanctification, and redemption" (1 Cor. 1:30). Just as it is not enough to say that Christ gives us hope, neither is it enough to say that Christ redeemed us. We must acknowledge that He redeemed us for Himself. He is our beginning and our end. He is our beatitude. We seek beatitude because we are made for it. So, with St. Augustine, we pray- "let me seek you, [O Lord], so that my soul may live, for my body draws life from my soul and my soul draws life from you" (Confessions 10, 20). Fully recognizing this, my friends, is beatitude.

Purgatorio, the fire within

Sandro Magister's 17 January article over on Chiesa in which, prompted by Pope Benedict XVI's 12 January catechesis on St. Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510), he took up the topic of purgatory is something I have thought a lot about this past week. St. Catherine of Genoa is best known for her vision of purgatory. In particular, Magister points out the congruence between the Holy Father's audience and a passage from his magnificent encyclical letter, which is too little known and read: Spe Salvi. I cannot think of purgatory, however, without taking into consideration N.T. Wright's objections to what he sees as a late-developing and uniquely Catholic doctrine.

Wright lays out his objection to the doctrine of purgatory in a chapter of his book Surprised By Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. In fact, Wright's vehement argument that purgatory is effectively a made-up doctrine, like the doctrine of limbo- that place in between heaven and hell that was posited to give unbaptized infants a place to go and that was effectively retracted by the International Theological Commission, which belongs to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a 2007 document that was some ten years in the making, The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized- sparked a charge of anti-Catholicism against him by the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus. The good news is that these two friends, while never agreeing about purgatory, did attain reconciliation. Anyone who is interested can read Fr. Neuhaus' objections to Wright's critique in his piece The Possibilities and Perils in Being a Really Smart Bishop in the April 2008 issue of First Things and Wright's response in the June/July 2008 issue of the same journal.

It is not my intent to lay out Wright's argument contra purgatory at great length. "Purgatory," he correctly observes, "is basically a Roman Catholic doctrine. It is not held as such in the Eastern Orthodox church, and it was decisively rejected, on biblical and theological grounds and not merely because of antipathy to particular abuses [i.e., the selling of indulgences] at the Reformation." Wright goes on to accurately observe that purgatory was intially laid out at some length by "Aquinas in the thirteenth century and Dante in the early fourteenth." It is here that Bishop Wright points out something very vital about purgatory that gives the idea impetus and theological credibility, namely that as a result of these treatments of purgatory, likely more Dante's than Aquinas', "the notion became woven deeply into the entire psyche of the whole period." Of course it remains deeply woven into the psyche of subsequent periods, too. Wright goes on to note that "[t]he poetic and dramatic power of the idea of purgatory is evident," not only in Dante, but also in Newman's lovely poem Dream of Gerontius.

Lust, which artwork based on Dante's Purgatorio I chose due to another post I read and commented on today

The his catechesis on St. Catherine of Genoa, the pope notes that "Catherine, in her mystical experience, never received specific revelations on purgatory or on the souls being purified there." Nonetheless, in her writings about purgatory we encounter "characteristics that were original in her time." First among her unique insights is "the 'place' of the purification of souls." Prior to her time purgatory "was depicted mainly using images linked to space: a certain space was conceived of in which purgatory was supposed to be located." For Catherine purgatory is "an interior fire." This insight flows from "her own experience of profound sorrow for the sins committed, in comparison with God’s infinite love." So, from the first "moment of [her] conversion... [she] suddenly became aware of God’s goodness, of the infinite distance of her own life from this goodness and of a burning fire within her. And this is the fire that purifies, the interior fire of purgatory." So, rather than locating purgation in the afterlife, St. Catherine "begins with the inner experience of her own life on the way to Eternity."

"'The soul', Catherine says, 'presents itself to God still bound to the desires and suffering that derive from sin and this makes it impossible for it to enjoy the beatific vision of God'. Catherine asserts that God is so pure and holy that a soul stained by sin cannot be in the presence of the divine majesty." We, too, are "aware of the immense love and perfect justice of God and consequently [we] suffer for having failed to respond in a correct and perfect way to this love." The Holy Father concludes that "love for God itself becomes a flame, love itself cleanses it from the residue of sin."

Magister points out that the relevant parts of Spe Salvi are paragraphs 43-48. Central to this part of the Holy Father's letter on hope is when he points to the writings of "recent theologians" who "are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgement. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves. All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses. Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives become evident to us, there lies salvation. His gaze, the touch of his heart heals us through an undeniably painful transformation 'as through fire'. But it is a blessed pain, in which the holy power of his love sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally ourselves and thus totally of God" (par. 47).

As Pope Benedict and Bishop Wright both indicate, such matters are too important to be left entirely to theologians. Painters, poets, composers and, in modern times, film-makers demonstrate how consonant the doctrine of purgatory is with the human heart (how deeply woven it is into our Christian psyche), arising from our experience of being fallen creatures in a fallen world, albeit one in the process of being redeemed and purified (Rom. 8:18-30). The obvious example is the Purgatorio of Dante's Divine Comedy (I urge you to check out the Divine Comedy via the University of Texas' wonderful website). Cardinal Newman's Dream of Gerontius holds a special place for me, as does Elgar's brilliant oratorio that sets Newman's poem to music, which I was privileged to hear at The Cathedral of the Madeleine back in August 2009.

Obama comenta situação explosiva no Egipto

"Nothin's gonna help you more than rock n' roll"


I heard this song on Monday morning and, well, it just hit me in the heart with a much needed ray of light. So, Boston's Feelin' Satisfied is this Friday's traditio:

"You gotta have a little rock 'n' roll music
To get you through the stormy weather
And do whatever you feel"

Mike Pence will not run for President in 2012


It is official; Rep. Mike Pence will not seek the Republican nomination for President in 2012
Mike Pence’s Facebook page: Friends and Supporters, 
Over the past few months, my family and I have been grateful for the encouragement we have received to consider other opportunities to serve our state and our nation in the years ahead. 
We have been especially humbled by the confidence and support of those who believe we should pursue the presidency, but after much deliberation and prayer, we believe our calling is closer to home. 
The highest office I will ever hold is husband and father. As a family, we feel led to devote this time in our lives to continuing to serve the people of Indiana in some way. 
In the choice between seeking national office and serving Indiana in some capacity, we choose Indiana. We will not seek the Republican nomination for president in 2012. [MORE]
On the down side, this means one less true conservative candidate to choose from in 2012.  On the up side, in the event Obama is reelected, Mike Pence will be an even stronger candidate in 2016.

The chief executive experience gained by being a governor is nothing to sneeze at.  For the last two years we have witness firsthand what happens when someone tries to run this nation without it.  The GOP has some great new faces (e.g. Allen West, Marco Rubio, Michele Bachmann, Paul Ryan, etc) but they too could benefit from a stint as governor before seeking the Big Chair.

Experiencing resurrection in the here and now

Today I glanced over the notes from Fr. Carrón's most recent School of Community, in which he discussed the final chapter of the third volume of Is It Possible to Live This Way:? An Unusual Approach to Christian Existence. The chapter is about virginity and how it applies to the lives of all Christians.

As I scrolled down my eyes came to rest on the words of a letter written to Fr. Carrón by a woman whose father-in-law passed away suddenly (through a mutual friend, Carlo, I was able to learn that her name is Rossella). Given the circumstances I am living I was very struck by her words, not because I am bereft, but because her words are descriptive of, or at least consistent with, my own recent experiences:

God the Father, by Quellinus Erasmus II, 1682
"I also felt moved by the tenderness the Mystery had for us in these last few days, because He had us experience a fatherhood that is even bigger than this man’s. Pain did not crush us. Instead, it put us face to face with the need for conversion, so we had to wonder: we had to ask ourselves questions about the reasonableness of faith. Saying that not everything is over with death, and that he is in the Lord’s arms, is either just an idea, or it is because of the Presence that we have experienced ever since we encountered the movement. So, faced with something about which the whole world can only say, "I am sorry: I have no words"...the funeral, and friends have been the sign of a Man Who has entered our life, and Who can say, 'Woman, don’t cry!' So the question about my father-in-law’s destiny made me realize that this fatherhood dominates all my days, more so than my feelings (which otherwise would be low, due to the recent circumstances). Whatever happens, I am embraced."

What can save us from ourselves?: The tragedy in Arizona

I noted in the immediate aftermath of the tragic shootings in Tucson, Arizona that ideological moralizing is an inadequate response to evil. Beyond that, it is an act of self-deception, in which we try to convince ourselves that a few feeble legislative actions will solve the problem of evil in the world. The following is a statement by Communion and Liberation in the U.S. on this horrendous event and proposes the only adequate response, Christ Jesus, the Lord:

Who cannot be saddened and sickened by the shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and seventeen others, including six who died, among whom was a nine year-old girl? Yet, we so quickly seek the source of blame. We announce our findings. We accuse others or inadequate policies. We provide solutions that can be implemented. Then we argue about them for a time and move on. These events, however, invite us to ask profound questions, such as why such a thing should have happened in the first place, or to ask questions regarding the meaning of justice and evil.

We all thirst for love and truth, for goodness and fulfillment, and the shootings in Tucson outrage us for they contradict these desires. Yet, despite our thirst, evil dwells in all of us. This dramatic event is a reminder of the wound that affects each and every one of us, a reminder of our own evil.
We desire justice, and yet human justice is so limited in front of evil: it possesses so little power to restore the good destroyed by it. No one can give back the lives of those killed. No policy can resurrect a nine year-old girl. There is only One who possesses the power to restore all the good destroyed and he ardently desires to use it: God. “Man […] needs an answer that he himself cannot give,” as Pope Benedict states in his most recent book.

What is needed on our part? That our thirst for happiness become a simple acceptance of the gift of His presence among us. A real conversion is needed, and “Part of this conversion is putting God in the first place again. […] We must, so to speak, dare again the experiment with God—so as to allow him to work within our society.”(Benedict XVI)

We offer the words of Pope Benedict in his homily on Christmas Eve as the most adequate statement on such a tragedy, particularly pained by the suffering of the families of those who died or were wounded:

"God has anticipated us with the gift of his Son. God anticipates us again and again in unexpected ways. He does not cease to search for us, to raise us up as often as we might need. He does not abandon the lost sheep in the wilderness into which it had strayed. God does not allow himself to be confounded by our sin. Again and again he begins afresh with us. But he is still waiting for us to join him in love. He loves us, so that we too may become people who love, so that there may be peace on earth."

Communion and Liberation
January, 2011

Sarah Palin on Obama’s State of the Union Speech: WTF?

Gateway Pundit: “Well, speaking of last night, that was a tough speech to sit through and try to stomach because the president is so off base in his ideas in how it is he believes government is going to create jobs. Obviously, government growth won’t create any jobs. It’s the private sector that can create the jobs. His theme last night in the State of the Union was the WTF, you know, “Winning the Future,” and I thought OK, that acronym, spot on. There were a lot of WTF moments throughout that speech.”
Sarah Palin must have read several million minds last night with that line. 
The left is trying to make February “a Palin Free Month”. Um, good luck with that one.  The time for them to have ignored Palin came and went two years ago. The left is seriously addicted to Palin and trying to ignore her now is like a hardcore crackhead trying to go cold turkey.

The second Sarah Palin makes a comment like this one next month, the left will abandon their Palin embargo and go right back to spewing their bile all over the place.  Oh well, at least they were smart enough to pick the shortest month out of the year to attempt their hopeless endeavor.

To see Palin’s full interview with Greta head on over to The Right Scoop.

Just words just speeches: Harry Reid calls Obama’s bluff on earmarks

It looks like Harry Reid is throwing Obama under the bus over earmarks.  During the SOTU Obama vowed not to sign any bills with earmarks in them. Now most of us realize that Obama’s vow is just another steaming pile of BS, but for Harry Reid to straight up admit it is rather interesting.
ABC News: In an interview with ABC's Jonathan Karl, Reid launched a vigorous defense of pork, the pet projects that members of Congress insert into bills to benefit their home states.
"I think it's taking power away from the legislative branch of government and giving it to the executive branch of government," Reid said of the president's plan. "The executive branch of government is powerful enough and I think that I know more about what Nevada needs than some bureaucrat down on K Street."
"So you think the president is wrong about this?" Karl asked.
"Without any question," Reid replied.
 "I understand it's great for an applause line, but it's really not solving anything to do with the deficit. It's only for show."
"So you're saying that earmarks will be back?" said Karl.
"Of course they'll be back," said Reid. 
I think Harry’s harsh words is just a set up for Obama to knock him down,  thus providing Obama with another opportunity to employ smoke and mirrors in order to look centrist again for 2012. 

In the video below, Harry Reid goes into detail about his defense of earmarks.


If Reid was even remotely serious about ceding power to the Executive Branch, he would have squawked about the explosive number of czars, or the EPA doing end runs around Congress, or ObamaCare which leaves huge chunks to be written by bureaucrats. Sorry, I am not buying this excuse.

Time will tell, but I think I will be right and Harry is just playing strawman for Obama to knock down.

CBO rains on Obama’s parade: $1.5 Trillion deficit for 2011


Last night Obama gave his second State of the Union address chock full of new “investment” [spending] ideas.  Today the CBO is raining all over that parade with some very sobering news.
For 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that if current laws remain unchanged, the federal budget will show a deficit of close to $1.5 trillion, or 9.8 percent of GDP. The deficits in CBO's baseline projections drop markedly over the next few years as a share of output and average 3.1 percent of GDP from 2014 to 2021. Those projections, however, are based on the assumption that tax and spending policies unfold as specified in current law. Consequently, they understate the budget deficits that would occur if many policies currently in place were continued, rather than allowed to expire as scheduled under current law.
We hear it every day from both sides of the political spectrum that the current deficits we are running are unsustainable. This is why the spending freeze Obama announced last night seems so reckless and irresponsible.   


I have little doubt that this sobering bit of news from the CBO will not be heeded by the Obama administration.  As Nile Gardnier from The Telegraph puts it, [t]he Obama Presidency remains in a dangerous state of denial. God help us.

 

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Congressional Budget Office

Via: The Telegraph

Discurso sobre o Estado da União (II): resumo dos momentos-chave

"East Germany with a good PR company"

Sadly, conservatism in the U.S. usually gets conflated to a few silly notions mostly revolving around firearams and free market economics. However, there is a conservatism worthy of the name, one that takes its cues not from any powerful gun lobby and especially not from big multinational corporations, but a conservatism that seeks above all to conserve our humanity. To my mind, Mr. Peter Hitchens, whose brother is Christopher Hitchens, is an exemplar of what I am tempted to call "true conservatism." This kind of thinking is also articulated very well in the writings and observations of G.K. Chesterton.


In his Mail Online blog on Monday, Hitchens, being "profoundly bored by scandal" turns to writing about what he calls "small matters." He writes about how we have let ourselves become enslaved to our gadgets. His frustration with his cellular phone leads him to the observation I want to take note of, namely his "many reasons" to doubt "that 'market forces', left to themselves, will make us all free and happy." He goes on to observe that these "market forces" often seem more "like East Germany with a good PR company and more efficient distribution. East German cities used to have uniform high streets in which the same basic goods were available everywhere, or not available, in more or less identical shops. So do we, except that we have an illusion of variety. And before anyone goes on about fresh fruit and vegetables, I have been virtually unable to find a fresh Cox's Orange Pippin apple this season (a pulpy, smooth-skinned impostor which tastes as if it has been in a chiller for ten years and goes soft in a day, is offered under this name, but it is not a proper rough-skinned Cox) and only a very few decent Russets. Foreign varieties, often from the far side of the world, are sold here even during the English apple season."

Hearkening back to my post from a week ago Monday, Hitchens gives more concrete examples of his thesis, like the "razor that worked" just fine, but has now "been improved, and replaced by another one that is far more expensive and actually not as good. The marmalade that you like has been wiped off the stock list of all the (supposedly competitive) supermarket chains, and can now only be obtained by mail order via the United States, though it is made in Manchester."

His point is that we are not the driving force behind the market. Rather, the market drives us. More choice does not equal more freedom. I went to a store last week to find black shoelaces. What an enlightening experience that was! In other words, having 100 kinds of soda pop to choose from does not equal freedom. Of course, the fix is not massive governmental interference or regulation, but a recognition of the dehumanizing forces at play and the appropriate resistance this recognition calls forth.

Discurso sobre o Estado da União (I): 'Winning the Future'

Notes on Obama’s SOTU and the responses from Ryan and Bachmann


I just finished watching Obama’s second State of the Union address, along with the GOP’s response by Rep. Paul Ryan and Rep. Michele Bachmann’s response to the Tea Party Express.  Of the three, Paul Ryan was clearly the best because it seemed like the one speech that addressed the true reality of the state of our union.  In short, we are broke and we need to address it now.

Obama’s speech

Obama’s speech sounded like it was best suited for the Clinton era when the nation was running surpluses. Obama’s call for investments seems so bizarre given that we are currently borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we are spending.  Furthermore, I found so much of Obama’s rhetoric not credible given his actions over the last two years.

Case in point, I laughed out loud over these lines.
For example, over the years, a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries. Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and it has to change. (Applause.)
So tonight, I’m asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system. Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years –- without adding to our deficit. It can be done. (Applause.)
This coming from a man and his party that promised repeatedly to go through the budget line by line to find savings, yet when given the chance he and his party never passed a budget at all.  Sorry Obama, fool us once ….

Since the Shellacking, Obama has been pulling out all the smoke and mirrors he can to cloak himself in centrist clothing.  This SOTU speech seems like it undid a lot of the cloaking.  All that talk of “investment” (i.e. spending) with little next to no realistic ideas on cutting spending, seems to have exposed big spending liberal Obama once again.

By the way, did you catch Obama’s TSA joke?
Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail. (Applause.) This could allow you to go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. For some trips, it will be faster than flying –- without the pat-down. (Laughter and applause.) As we speak, routes in California and the Midwest are already underway.
I think this would have been a real knee slapper had the groping rule not have been passed under his administration.  However, seeing that it was, the joke came off like a real disconnect.

Paul Ryan’s Speech



Once again, I have to ask, are there any Republicans who know how to speak without that ding dong Happy Voice? So much of Ryan’s word would have been far more effective without the Happy Voice and the smile. 

A few years ago, reducing spending was important. Today, it’s imperative. Here’s why.
We face a crushing burden of debt. The debt will soon eclipse our entire economy, and grow to catastrophic levels in the years ahead.
On this current path, when my three children – who are now 6, 7, and 8 years old – are raising their own children, the Federal government will double in size, and so will the taxes they pay.
No economy can sustain such high levels of debt and taxation. The next generation will inherit a stagnant economy and a diminished country.
Frankly, it’s one of my greatest concerns as a parent – and I know many of you feel the same way.
Most people would be sad or angry at the thought of passing on a diminished America to their children, yet Ryan delivers this very serious line with his Happy Voice.  Memo to Republicans: forget all this foolishness about toned down rhetoric and let the emotions fly.

Happy Voice aside, Ryan’s speech captured the true state and concerns of the nation. The previous Congress spent like drunken sailors and now the nation is perilously close to going over the edge. These are the words that Obama should have spoken.
Speaking candidly, as one citizen to another: We still have time… but not much time. If we continue down our current path, we know what our future will be.
Just take a look at what’s happening to Greece, Ireland, the United Kingdom and other nations in Europe. They didn’t act soon enough; and now their governments have been forced to impose painful austerity measures: large benefit cuts to seniors and huge tax increases on everybody.
Their day of reckoning has arrived. Ours is around the corner. That is why we must act now.
Michele Bachmann’s Speech


Much media noise has been made about how Michele Bachmann was stepping on Paul Ryan and the GOP’s toes with her Tea Party response. After viewing it, that clearly was not the case. Bachmann’s speech seems more like a pep rally for Tea Party Americans than a rebuttal to Obama’s speech or a competing response to the GOP.

Bachmann does dovetail some of Ryan’s words with her recounting of the massive spending under Obama and the Democrats as well as the foolishness of ObamaCare.

Bachmann’s best moments are when she makes direct appeals to the people to be the solution of this problem.  This is something neither Obama nor Ryan did.
The perilous battle that was fought in the pacific, at Iwo Jima, was a battle against all odds, and yet the image of the young G.I.s in the incursion against the Japanese immortalizes their victory. These six young men raising the flag came to symbolize all of America coming together to beat back a totalitarian aggressor.
Our current debt crisis we face today is different, but we still need all of us to pull together. We can do this.

This kind of appeal is how you rouse the America spirit.  If Bachmann take a stab at running in 2012, talk like this will get her very far.

Via: CNN