In the United States, the political contest has now entered the “serious” stage, we have seen both the Republican and Democrat conventions and they have together brought about a very definite emotional reaction in me. Unfortunately that reaction was depression. At the GOP convention we saw a succession of politicians who, during the primary, had called Mitt Romney basically “Obama-lite” come out, do a quick about face, and declare him the only man who can save America. We heard very few specifics, which is to say really no specifics beyond lowering taxes and cutting regulations. That sounds good (at least to me) but so long as we have a tax code the size of an encyclopedia it makes little difference to me who says what about taxes since only those with armies of accountants will be able to decipher the code and find the many loopholes both parties have interwoven throughout the whole complicated mess. There was not much energy at the Republican convention compared to the Democrats and it is no wonder. Mitt Romney is the living embodiment of boredom.
The only people with any zeal were the Ron Paul people who the party bosses ensured were soundly ignored after enacting a quick rule change to deprive them of their voice. I would feel more sympathy if they had not helped Romney win the primary in the first place and, I suppose, from the point of view of the GOP there is really little point in doing them any favors since they are most definitely not good, little, loyal Republicans. If Romney loses it will be interesting to see what had the bigger impact; picking a candidate who could not inspire Republicans to vote or disgruntled Ron Paul fans taking support away from the GOP ticket. Of course, the Republicans were perfectly excellent when it came to pointing out problems and listing all of the mistakes of the Obama administration but actual solutions were in very short supply. Like libertarian journalist John Stossel, I would have preferred to hear about what Romney plans to do as President rather than that his dad used to pick a flower for his mom every morning. Most of what came out of Tampa was simply, “Obama stinks but if you vote for us we’ll fix it”; even though that would require majorities in the House and Senate that I doubt Republicans have a prayer of winning.
Was there at least any entertainment value? Not as far as I was concerned. For me, the only highlight was Clint Eastwood, but I’m biased on that count having been a fan of his ever since his “spaghetti western” days. Well, we did get to see Paul Ryan give a great performance in pretending the budget Romney proposed is a great thing despite being far inferior to his own proposal but we got no verbal acrobatics from Mitt Romney in an effort to explain how he is now opposed to so many things he used to be for. He talked about his faith (a nicer-sounding word than “religion”) yet he failed to explain how, with such a deep faith and high position in his church, he managed to have such radical, and so numerous, changes on major moral issues always around election time. Funny that. He never even talked much about what one would think to be the backbone of the republican campaign; a smaller government with greater individual responsibility. No, instead it was a long list of praise for those plucky small businesses and a parade of minority-women-Republicans (See! We’re inclusive too!) and not much more. No clear plan, no specifics, just vague promises for something a little better than what we have. Yawn.
But, of course, it was excitement central at the Democrat convention in Charlotte, entertaining at least in watching them scramble to deal with one misstep after another. Thankfully Chairman Debbie was there to tell us not to believe our own eyes and ears as only someone like her can. This is the same woman who once said that Republicans wanted to ‘make it against the law to be an illegal alien’. Don’t think about that statement too much or your brain will start to bleed. They got into a little trouble with their party platform, leaving out any reference to God or Jerusalem being the capital of Israel (there were some other items but none that threatened to cause trouble with key voting blocs like these). There was a fuss brewing and Obama ordered them put back in to head off any bad press. Unfortunately, not too many were pleased with that decision and there were boos when the convention chairman took a vote and declared a majority favored the changes in spite of this obviously not being so. The Republicans pounced on it of course, and rightly so. After all, they had been clever enough to simply change the rules on everyone to avoid a scene like this while the Democrats were silly enough to actually have the delegates vote on something. Amateurs.
The Democrats, of course, accused the Republican Party of going too extreme and being dominated by the Tea Party “radicals”, which seems rather odd when the GOP candidate is someone not terribly popular with the Tea Party, someone who was Governor of a very liberal state and who had previously been okay with abortion and gay “marriage”. Mitt Romney hardly fits as a hard-line conservative. About the only thing “radical” (a good thing in my view) that happened in Tampa was calling for an audit of the Federal Reserve (don’t hold your breath for that one) and otherwise it was typical GOP business as usual. However, it was at the Democrat convention in Charlotte that the radicals on the left really did seem to have taken over. It could be called the convention of the Abortion-Birth Control-Homosexuality Party. About one third of Democrats (they say) are pro-life but one would never know it from the convention where anyone opposed to abortion, publicly funded contraceptives or legalizing gay “marriage” is clearly not welcome. About the only humorous moment was seeing Sandra the-taxpayers-need-to-buy-my-birth control-pills Fluke speaking in a primetime slot at a national convention on cable and network television to an audience of millions about how women are being “silenced”. That was a riot.
I try not to preach when it comes to my observations, but in this case I cannot help delving a bit into religion as the Democrat convention seemed to be both a really big slap across the face of the Catholic Church as well as an indication of, well, just what the state of the Catholic Church is these days I suppose. Here was a convention where, for the first time ever in the USA, gay “marriage” was made an official plank of the party platform, along with the right to abortion at any time for any reason and that taxpayer-funded birth control is a “human right”. All of these things the Catholic Church opposes (supposedly anyway). Yet we saw a parade of one Catholic after another cheering for all of these issues and for a President who was against saving the life of a child who happened to survive an abortion (so blatant infanticide in other words). In just one day there was LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (divorced, adulterer pro-abortion and gay “marriage” Catholic -his openly gay cousin John Perez also spoke but he doesn‘t claim to be Catholic anymore as far as I know), Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez (big supporter of “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender” issues), union boss Richard Trumka, Congressman John Larson, Senator Patty Murray, Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy (champion of the transgender crowd), former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (who has actually said the Catholic Church doesn’t enforce the no-birth control rule, and I guess she’s been proven right on that one), Secretary Tom Vilsack, Senator Barbara Mikulski (who led a big cheer for “reproductive rights” at the convention), and do I need to go on? We also had Vice President Joe Biden (who beat Obama in endorsing gay “marriage”) and a pro-Obama Catholic nun.
We also had Caroline Kennedy who said that “as a Catholic woman” she supported the Democrat platform of pushing “reproductive rights” for women. Why was she there? Why does anyone care what she says? Because her daddy was President and anyone who says the United States doesn’t do royalty is living in deep denial. The first speaker was, of course, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, another pro-abortion, pro-gay “marriage” Catholic. The last to speak (though many networks cut him off) was Cardinal Archbishop Dolan of New York who gave the closing prayer, as he did at the Republican convention, calling for a greater respect for life. I admire the Cardinal for praying on such an issue in front of such a crowd but I have to scratch my head in confusion when so many Catholics promote what the Catholic Church says is wrong and that so many Catholics vote for these people. I live in a heavily Latino and heavily Catholic part of the country and it is so overwhelmingly Democrat that Republicans don’t even bother to run where I live and none of the social issues taken up by Democrats over the years have changed that. It really starts to look like the Catholic Church doesn’t care as much as it claims to or a whole bunch of Catholic politicians would be excommunicated -and don’t tell me the Church doesn’t do that because the Church excommunicated more than one southern politician for opposing de-segregation. Of course, if I’m missing something, feel free to let me know.
We did get to see all the old favorites. President Jimmy-the source of all problems with Iran-Carter, President Bill Clinton and finally President Barrack Obama who rightfully chided Republicans for giving no specifics and then proceeded to give none of his own. In fact, he gave fewer specifics than he did the last time which is probably because he failed to deliver on any of the promises he made back then regarding certain goals. He did learn one thing in office it seems. People don’t like it when you don’t keep your promises so -just stop making promises! Simple enough. He accused the GOP of having no new ideas, just the mantra of “lower taxes and cut regulations” while repeating the worn and weary liberal mantra of “higher taxes and more regulations”. Because that is what it all comes down to for the Dems; there is no problem that cannot be solved by throwing money at it and putting the government in charge of it. Romney hid from his record, Obama just lied about his. And to all of you people living in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, Spain, The Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and so on…this is how Presidents are made folks. By collections of professional liars in huge conventions where party bosses work to thwart the will of their own delegates. And despite all the talk of “hope and change”, trust me, you can NEVER change it. Just ask Ralph Nader or Ron Paul. It is a disgusting, disheartening process and while I don’t doubt that between Obama and Romney one would certainly be the worse of the two, I still think the country will lose no matter who wins. I look at the two of them, their parties and all I can think is “you just don’t get it”. And they don’t, because the people don’t either. My oh my is politics depressing…
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."
The Catholic Church is opposed to abortion, contraceptives, and gay marriage. These worthless politicians who go up there claiming to be Catholic and for these things are a bunch of phonies and are a slap in the face to all decent Catholic who do practice their faith and take pride in it. These politicians use their faith, or the lack thereof, as a tool to get votes by people stupid enough to believe them. If you are a Catholic and you think abortion is fine then you need to find a new church. These people should be excommunicated as you said; they are a disgrace to all Catholics. After the big contraceptive issues the dems had last year they felt the need to have all these nominal Catholics get up there and assure everyone that it is ok to go completely against everything your church stands for, they make all Catholics look bad and I can’t stand them.
Yet in the last election a large majority of Catholics voted for the most pro-abortion President in history (favoring it even after birth). "Princess" Caroline stood out the most by specifically referencing her Catholicism and promoting "reproductive rights". I'm rather fed up with the double-talk. If this is acceptable, tell the world the rules have changed, if it is not acceptable there need to be a whole bunch of excommunications. If the bishops can excommunicate people over segregation they should have no hesitation to do so over abortion. Last I checked, the Catholic Church is not a democracy so there should really be no excuses. Excommunicate them and if a priest takes their side, dismiss him. If a bishop won't enforce the rules, the Pope can dismiss him too. The way things are going now the Church looks either extremely dishonest or extremely cowardly.
It's been building for a while but this public display was just scandalously shameful.
Benedict XVI has been very up front about the fact that he would rather see the Church lose members, than violate it's most sacred values simply to appeal to "modern" society. I, for one, agree with that concept, sort of a case of putting quality over quantity.
I'd say it's about time to start putting those ideas into practice. Catholics that don't like what the Church teaches, especially on the major issues, such as sanctity of human life, can either leave willingly or be excommunicated. There really isn't a debate on this, you can't be for abortion and be a Catholic at the same time, or at least, in a perfect world you couldn't be.
A Church with its members divided against themselves is newsworthy, a Church that stands united is not news, and eventually the media would stop paying attention to some of these people.
As a liberal Protestant I have to agree with you; how are the politicians you mentioned Catholic? They are pro choice, for contraception and gay marriage. I do not understand the hypocrisy of beliefs. We in the United Church of Christ would welcome them but at least practice what you believe. This is the 21st century; NOT the 15th. People do not have to fear for their lives by expressing their convictions. That is freedom of speech.
They can say what they like, champion what causes they like, but why misrepresent yourself? If you don't agree with the Catholic Church, pick another -there are literally tens of thousands to choose from. Heck, you can just start your own 'Democrat Church of the Supreme Being' and make up your own rules. But don't stand up in front of millions and say you're a Catholic while championing the exact opposite of what the Church teaches. And Papal visits aside (they get media) I doubt many of these people actually go to mass every Sunday.
Pardon me for the interruption and for such a late message, but I suggest you watch the ChurchMilitant.TV for it might help you understand why bishops aren't giving excommunications openly. You can watch them on their Youtube channel or their official website.
By the way, it is also possible that the reason why bishops don't openly confirm the excommunication of these people is that in the case of abortion, and other intrinsic evils, the excommunications are automatic.
I have watched it before but was a little (or alot) turned off when he made a video calling for monarchy as the ideal Catholic form of government but then pulled it off the internet when it caused controversy. However, I have heard before the whole "automatically excommunicated" argument and it just doesn't cut the mustard for me. If that is the case, they should at least say so publically and name names as to who has been automatically excommunicated. Personally, it seems to me that most are just afraid to take what would be a controversial and unpopular position.
I didn't know that they removed the video, which is a shame. About the bishops I agree completely. Unfortunately we live in a world that Catholics want to be everything but a catholic, and this has also affected the minds of our clergy. This could be explained by the misinterpretation of Vatican II and its contradiction with Tradition which creates confusion, which in turn leads to a watered down faith.
Meh, I used to have some sympathy for Ron Paul, but lately he just seems more and more like a shrill and bitter old man. He won 190 delegates to Mitt Romney's 2,061 - which is to say, he lost the election. He lost fair and square, and he lost spectacularly. It's not like he was somehow disadvantaged, he was included in all the debates, raised more money than any other candidate save Romney, and had the largest and most dedicated base of volunteers in all 50 states and the biggest presence in social media.
As a maverick Republican defying his own party, he also assumed the role of (pre-2008) John McCain in becoming the momentary darling of the liberal mainstream press, which was generally quite soft on its criticism and more than willing to give him plenty of free publicity.
Despite all that, he lost. In a campaign season where there seemed to be a different front runner every week, Paul was alone among the "major" candidates to never once hold the top place in national polling. There were times when he actually placed behind people that were never even declared candidates (Trump, Christie, Palin).
He lost. Huckabee lost, Santorum lost, Bachmann lost, Huntsman lost, Paul lost. It's how elections work. The person that wins the most votes clinches the delegates that get him the nomination. Ron Paul is no different than the rest of the losers, with the exception that the rest of them apparently have a better grasp of mathematics. Another difference is that the rest of them are also able to be magnanimous in defeat and put on a united front for the sake of the country, while Paul still blindly clings to the notion that Romney and Obama are twins separated at birth. Is Romney more moderate/liberal that I would prefer? Yes. Is he going to be less dangerous to the country, our limited government, the religious freedom, etc. while also being friendlier to our allies, like the UK and Israel? Yes.
There is a distinction between the two. It may not be as wide a gulf as I'd prefer, but it's at least a broad channel, and, for better for worse, in a two party system that insists on choosing its head of state in a popularity contest, it'll have to do.
I've always said Ron Paul doesn't have a prayer of ever being elected President, partly because of the nature of the movement he tries to lead; it's very hard to get individualists to agree. But even if he was elected there is not much he would be able to do and even less that he would allow himself to do given his views on the presidency. His supporters would suffer the biggest let-down in history. To really accomplish what they want to accomplish, they need to forget about the presidency and get more 'Ron Pauls' elected to Congress as that's about the only place they could make a real difference.
Actually, Rob, Ron Paul managed to achieve around 500 delegates, or somewhere around 25%. He would have admitted defeat anyway, but the GOP party leaders changed a couple of rules and only 190 delegates were then allowed to vote for Paul. Unfortunately, the Paul supporters are most likely going to vote for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate that supports abortion and same-sex marriage.
Romney himself will most likely turn the economy around in a 360 degree circle, doing absolutely nothing, while Obama has already done just that. I don't even know who to vote for now. I might as well just do Paul's failed ticket.
And Mr. Monarchist, I agree with you about the Catholic part. The Democratic Catholics just seem so contradictory. I also agree with your talk about electing 'Ron Pauls' to Congress. None of his ideas will really work without Congress, and I'm surprised that not many people notice that.
Here is the my two cents. The Republican Party is the "right-wing" and the Democratic Party is the "left-wing" of the same hideous bird called collectivism. Differences between the two are merely superficial. The USA loses no matter who becomes President of the USA. Each political party grows the government (whether federal, state, or local), thus we're becoming an ever growing collectivist dictatorship. Give me a king to leave this mess!
Probably true. I was hoping this time around the GOP would endorse real *change* by calling for a radical simplification of the tax code or ditching the IRS altogether in favor of the 'fair tax' or 'flat tax' -that would be a good first step in my book. But, alas, instead we get more of the same from both parties, the election will probably come down to turnout which will probably mean Obama wins and things will either get worse or stagnate because no one will work with anyone else. Even if Romney wins, I have big doubts that any of Obama's legislation or regulations will be repealed.
To your earlier comment. The Catholic Church hasn't changed its position on any of these issues. It has been the same and remains the same, these morons get up there and they speak for themselves and not the church. The whole point is that these politicians are not adhering to the tenants of their faith. They go against it and site their religion because they want others to go against it and vote democrat. Catholic who are actually serious about their faith do not believe in abortion, or gay marriage. The church is in a bad position no matter what they do. If they come out against these people then they are portrait as being political activists for the right, which has happened to Cardinal Dolan. If they say nothing it looks bad too. I think they need to come out anyway though. This garbage should not be tolerated. Like I said, it make all of us Catholics look bad.
Well, as I mentioned in the article, they didn't seem to mind being "political" when Archbishop Rummel excommunicated a judge and 2 private citizens for opposing de-segregation. He said they were displaying flagrant disobedience by their continued opposition to racial mixing and publically excommunicated them. Surely Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Caroline Kennedy and all the rest are doing exactly that. And if the Catholic Church means what it says about life begining at conception, then surely depriving someone of their life would be a greater sin than denying someone the right to associate with people of another race. Yet, when it comes to abortion (or homosexuality etc) not one person has been excommunicated.
I would like to add to the discussion, if I may. We must bear in mind there two types of Christians (Protestant, Catholic, etc.). The first type of Christian is conservative and orthodox. The second type of Christian is liberal and unorthodox. The former remains true to Biblical doctrine. The latter modifies Biblical doctrine to be "relevant" with the times. The latter perverts the Word of God just to be "accepted" with secularists and unbelievers.
"And to all of you people living in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, Spain, The Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and so on…this is how Presidents are made folks."
There's a recurring theme among monarchist by using the presidential system (primarily the US model) as an example on how republics are bad. But they run in to some problems because many republicans in these countries advocate a parliamentary republic, where the president is separate head of state and functions as a ceremonial figurehead.
I would like to know your (along with other monarchists) detailed opinion on parliamentary republics. Using the presidential system is a great tool for monarchists to use and show how republics don't work, I must admit. But as long as parliamentary republics go unchallenged, it would give republicans better ammo and say "see? we don't have to be like America to be a republic". Worse yet it would give assurance to fallen monarchies with those systems to stay that way.
I have addressed it many times before. There is no way in which a parliamentary republic President is better than a monarch and many ways in which they are worse. The people do not vote for them, so in that regard they are no better than a monarch as far as being "democratic" goes. They are chosen by the politicians and thus only represent the politicians whereas a monarch represents the entire history of the country as a whole. They are still partisan figures, which monarchs are not, and in an effort to avoid this or at least minimize it they are often total nonentities to the effect that no one in the world even knows who they are. They may as well not exist at all, many people in their own countries couldn't name them.
Strange since many republicans praise parliamentary republic Presidents as directly elected and nonpartisans/independents who are free from politicians. These republicans don't mind that they're total nonentities, in fact they want that since they think if a royal "acts up" it will embrace the country where a president acting up goes on relatively unnoticed by even their own countryman. Also the part that they may as well not exist at all is also fine with many republicans since its "less wasted money" on a head of state of any type and think that other institutions and "the people" do a better job at representing the country.
How is that "strange". Do you even know how parliamentary republics work? They are NOT directly elected, they are elected by the members of parliament, usually from amongst the retired members of the party in power. And do you really think people count it as a great accomplishment when people around the world ask, "President who?" And they still get attention over a scandal but that's the only attention they do get. And if people really want an anonymous head of state why did the leaders of the EU boast that their president would "stop the traffic" in Beijing and Washington? And it is not "less wasted money" -do just a little homework first. Republics spend more on their presidents than most monarchies do on their royal families. Because instead of having one family to support, you have the families of every past President to support. As far as "the people" better representing their country; the President of Italy used to be a communist -does they reflect on most of his people? Democrats didn't think Bush represented them and Republicans don't think Obama represents them vert well either.
You're grasping at straws, which is your right to do but you could at least be honest about your own point of view and stop referring to "these republicans". If you want a President Cameron, President Merkl or President Berlusconi why not just say so?
Yes, most parliamentary republics do elect the president by the members of parliament. But I'm referring to the parliamentary republics in which the president is directly elected. Serbia, Austria and Mongolia come to mind (as well as Ireland, a favorite among British republicans). The "less wasted money" bit refers to republicans who want no head of state at all. "the people" better representing their country is an argument I hear from republicans claiming that individual people, from musicians, artists, scientists, academics, athletes, and "your everyday guy" can showcase and represent a country better so to make a head of state of any kind unnecessary.
NO! I am not a republican. I'm a monarchist and proud of it. I just go for the "know your enemy" when debating republicans so I often go to republican websites or get these kind of arguments when debating republicans. If you want, I'll give you a good amount of links. But I warn you, some of these arguments are so ludicrous, it's more depressing than what you described in this blogpost.
Anyone who is directly elected is going to have or gain power. The United States itself is an example (Serbia, Austria, Ireland and Mongolia are very recent) as the President did not originally have near as much power as he now does yet, because he is the only political figure directly elected by the nation as a whole (assuming the popular vote and the vote of the Electoral College are the same, which they usually are) he can claim a greater mandate than any other figure and eventually you have a President who essentially has the power of life and death over everyone.
No head of state at all? Can you name any such country? Unless a land is in complete anarchy there will be someone presiding over the government, whether they want to call themselves the head of state or not. As for the rest of the list; how does a musician represent the people who are not musical? How does an artist represent the un-artistic or thosse who favor a different style? Who does a scientist represent those who are not scientific or don't believe in science? How does an academic represent the uneducated or an athlete the non-athletic? Royals represent a country because their history and the history of their family is the history of the country.
As far as arguing with republicans; if they are actually in favor of anarchy or making one of the Spice Girls the President, I would say it is a waste of time to argue or debate with them at all.
Oh I am ever so pleased. There's nothing like trying to argue in favor of actual, established governments against idealistic visions of utopian republics that don't actually exist.
Being a pragmatist, I'll end up backing Romney- Better a republican than a closet socialist who hates God. My wife and I were talking, and she's of the opinion- and I, to a lesser degree, that this country has gotten too large to continue as it has for the last 200 plus years. Odd as it is, Lincoln's "house divided" would have brought the US a few more years of stability. The South would have gone its way, done things its way, leaving the North to its own devices. She's an ardent Confederate. I, on the other hand, agree that the regions are under-represented and the people by default, and the mess we are in, is not because of Politicians- at least not directly. Politicians do, and always will, have a tendency to do anything to get in office- Lie, cheat, slander, steal, "Game" the system. As a result, Politics in a Democracy/Republic, has a tendency to be made of duplicitous, dishonest people in general. No Republic in history, no matter how well-intentioned has ever been free of corrupting, and often Sabotaging influence. People fail to realize that Nazi Germany did not emerge from Kaiser Wilhelm II. It rose from the Weimar Republic. Nor did Soviet Russia emerge directly from the Czar, but from the failed Kerensky government. No Republic will work for long, simply because those who organize it have an innate desire to everyone represented- Except Monarchists- Even those whose goal is to destroy it from within. I've said it before and it bears repeating. A democracy is the only form of government that will place a pistol to its own temple and pull the trigger with a smile on its face amidst great applause.
Here in the Czech republic, there will be presidential election too, early next year. It is the first time the Czech president will be elected directly, as our constitution was recently amended to change from the indirect presidential election (in a rather populist move from our politicians).
But what is interesting: There is an openly monarchist presidential candidate! His name is Emil Adamec and he is a sculptor and landscape architect. Most media described him as a joker or loony, but he is apparently an intelligent and well-mannered man (though sometimes a little bit eccentric as artists are) and takes it seriously. He is a Habsburg legitimist and is in favour of giving the Czech throne back to the descendants of our kings (namely archduke Karl von Habsburg-Lothringen or his son Ferdinand Zvonimir). Of course even if he wins the election (which is higly unlikely), he will have no power to change the constitution. But his candidacy itself is an interesting event from the monarchist point of view and it will hopefully raise the profile of the monarchist movement in the Czech lands. Perhaps you may write something about it. If you are interested you can look at googletranslated Wikipedia article about Emil Adamec: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=cs&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fcs.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FEmil_Adamec (alas there is no English article about him yet)
As I said, and Apparently I was so tired last night that I failed to finally make my point, She's in favor of a Confederate system, however, I am quickly becoming fond of the Holy Roman Empire's organizational system, pre-Bismarck. America as a series of Principalities and minor Kingdoms, elector dukes who choose one of their own as King.
I've heard people say that if America stays together it will be because a dictatorship takes over. If that happens, I doubt America will be lucky enough to have a Julius Caesar or even a Francisco Franco but it will probably be a Hitler or Stalin type dictator.
My main issue with America at least in the last 20 years is that culturally, we are underachievers. We have not yet hit our best years, the years when the people realize the limitations of the republic and choose a king of the American people.
I hope things are better where you are, I have heard better things about some of the bishops over there. It just seems to me that this should be very simple, and it applies to the extremes of the left and right alike; if you think abortion or gay "marriage" is okay you are not a Catholic and if you don't submit to the Pope or the bishops in council you are not a Catholic. Start your own church or join someone else but these people should not call themselves Catholics.
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."
ReplyDelete–G. K. Chesterton
The Catholic Church is opposed to abortion, contraceptives, and gay marriage. These worthless politicians who go up there claiming to be Catholic and for these things are a bunch of phonies and are a slap in the face to all decent Catholic who do practice their faith and take pride in it. These politicians use their faith, or the lack thereof, as a tool to get votes by people stupid enough to believe them. If you are a Catholic and you think abortion is fine then you need to find a new church. These people should be excommunicated as you said; they are a disgrace to all Catholics. After the big contraceptive issues the dems had last year they felt the need to have all these nominal Catholics get up there and assure everyone that it is ok to go completely against everything your church stands for, they make all Catholics look bad and I can’t stand them.
ReplyDeleteYet in the last election a large majority of Catholics voted for the most pro-abortion President in history (favoring it even after birth). "Princess" Caroline stood out the most by specifically referencing her Catholicism and promoting "reproductive rights". I'm rather fed up with the double-talk. If this is acceptable, tell the world the rules have changed, if it is not acceptable there need to be a whole bunch of excommunications. If the bishops can excommunicate people over segregation they should have no hesitation to do so over abortion. Last I checked, the Catholic Church is not a democracy so there should really be no excuses. Excommunicate them and if a priest takes their side, dismiss him. If a bishop won't enforce the rules, the Pope can dismiss him too. The way things are going now the Church looks either extremely dishonest or extremely cowardly.
DeleteIt's been building for a while but this public display was just scandalously shameful.
Benedict XVI has been very up front about the fact that he would rather see the Church lose members, than violate it's most sacred values simply to appeal to "modern" society. I, for one, agree with that concept, sort of a case of putting quality over quantity.
DeleteI'd say it's about time to start putting those ideas into practice. Catholics that don't like what the Church teaches, especially on the major issues, such as sanctity of human life, can either leave willingly or be excommunicated. There really isn't a debate on this, you can't be for abortion and be a Catholic at the same time, or at least, in a perfect world you couldn't be.
A Church with its members divided against themselves is newsworthy, a Church that stands united is not news, and eventually the media would stop paying attention to some of these people.
As a liberal Protestant I have to agree with you; how are the politicians you mentioned Catholic? They are pro choice, for contraception and gay marriage. I do not understand the hypocrisy of beliefs. We in the United Church of Christ would welcome them but at least practice what you believe. This is the 21st century; NOT the 15th. People do not have to fear for their lives by expressing their convictions. That is freedom of speech.
DeleteThey can say what they like, champion what causes they like, but why misrepresent yourself? If you don't agree with the Catholic Church, pick another -there are literally tens of thousands to choose from. Heck, you can just start your own 'Democrat Church of the Supreme Being' and make up your own rules. But don't stand up in front of millions and say you're a Catholic while championing the exact opposite of what the Church teaches. And Papal visits aside (they get media) I doubt many of these people actually go to mass every Sunday.
DeletePardon me for the interruption and for such a late message, but I suggest you watch the ChurchMilitant.TV for it might help you understand why bishops aren't giving excommunications openly. You can watch them on their Youtube channel or their official website.
DeleteBy the way, it is also possible that the reason why bishops don't openly confirm the excommunication of these people is that in the case of abortion, and other intrinsic evils, the excommunications are automatic.
I have watched it before but was a little (or alot) turned off when he made a video calling for monarchy as the ideal Catholic form of government but then pulled it off the internet when it caused controversy. However, I have heard before the whole "automatically excommunicated" argument and it just doesn't cut the mustard for me. If that is the case, they should at least say so publically and name names as to who has been automatically excommunicated. Personally, it seems to me that most are just afraid to take what would be a controversial and unpopular position.
DeleteI didn't know that they removed the video, which is a shame. About the bishops I agree completely. Unfortunately we live in a world that Catholics want to be everything but a catholic, and this has also affected the minds of our clergy. This could be explained by the misinterpretation of Vatican II and its contradiction with Tradition which creates confusion, which in turn leads to a watered down faith.
DeleteMeh, I used to have some sympathy for Ron Paul, but lately he just seems more and more like a shrill and bitter old man. He won 190 delegates to Mitt Romney's 2,061 - which is to say, he lost the election. He lost fair and square, and he lost spectacularly. It's not like he was somehow disadvantaged, he was included in all the debates, raised more money than any other candidate save Romney, and had the largest and most dedicated base of volunteers in all 50 states and the biggest presence in social media.
ReplyDeleteAs a maverick Republican defying his own party, he also assumed the role of (pre-2008) John McCain in becoming the momentary darling of the liberal mainstream press, which was generally quite soft on its criticism and more than willing to give him plenty of free publicity.
Despite all that, he lost. In a campaign season where there seemed to be a different front runner every week, Paul was alone among the "major" candidates to never once hold the top place in national polling. There were times when he actually placed behind people that were never even declared candidates (Trump, Christie, Palin).
He lost. Huckabee lost, Santorum lost, Bachmann lost, Huntsman lost, Paul lost. It's how elections work. The person that wins the most votes clinches the delegates that get him the nomination. Ron Paul is no different than the rest of the losers, with the exception that the rest of them apparently have a better grasp of mathematics. Another difference is that the rest of them are also able to be magnanimous in defeat and put on a united front for the sake of the country, while Paul still blindly clings to the notion that Romney and Obama are twins separated at birth. Is Romney more moderate/liberal that I would prefer? Yes. Is he going to be less dangerous to the country, our limited government, the religious freedom, etc. while also being friendlier to our allies, like the UK and Israel? Yes.
There is a distinction between the two. It may not be as wide a gulf as I'd prefer, but it's at least a broad channel, and, for better for worse, in a two party system that insists on choosing its head of state in a popularity contest, it'll have to do.
I've always said Ron Paul doesn't have a prayer of ever being elected President, partly because of the nature of the movement he tries to lead; it's very hard to get individualists to agree. But even if he was elected there is not much he would be able to do and even less that he would allow himself to do given his views on the presidency. His supporters would suffer the biggest let-down in history. To really accomplish what they want to accomplish, they need to forget about the presidency and get more 'Ron Pauls' elected to Congress as that's about the only place they could make a real difference.
DeleteActually, Rob, Ron Paul managed to achieve around 500 delegates, or somewhere around 25%. He would have admitted defeat anyway, but the GOP party leaders changed a couple of rules and only 190 delegates were then allowed to vote for Paul. Unfortunately, the Paul supporters are most likely going to vote for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate that supports abortion and same-sex marriage.
DeleteRomney himself will most likely turn the economy around in a 360 degree circle, doing absolutely nothing, while Obama has already done just that. I don't even know who to vote for now. I might as well just do Paul's failed ticket.
And Mr. Monarchist, I agree with you about the Catholic part. The Democratic Catholics just seem so contradictory. I also agree with your talk about electing 'Ron Pauls' to Congress. None of his ideas will really work without Congress, and I'm surprised that not many people notice that.
Here is the my two cents. The Republican Party is the "right-wing" and the Democratic Party is the "left-wing" of the same hideous bird called collectivism. Differences between the two are merely superficial. The USA loses no matter who becomes President of the USA. Each political party grows the government (whether federal, state, or local), thus we're becoming an ever growing collectivist dictatorship. Give me a king to leave this mess!
ReplyDeleteProbably true. I was hoping this time around the GOP would endorse real *change* by calling for a radical simplification of the tax code or ditching the IRS altogether in favor of the 'fair tax' or 'flat tax' -that would be a good first step in my book. But, alas, instead we get more of the same from both parties, the election will probably come down to turnout which will probably mean Obama wins and things will either get worse or stagnate because no one will work with anyone else. Even if Romney wins, I have big doubts that any of Obama's legislation or regulations will be repealed.
DeleteTo your earlier comment. The Catholic Church hasn't changed its position on any of these issues. It has been the same and remains the same, these morons get up there and they speak for themselves and not the church. The whole point is that these politicians are not adhering to the tenants of their faith. They go against it and site their religion because they want others to go against it and vote democrat. Catholic who are actually serious about their faith do not believe in abortion, or gay marriage. The church is in a bad position no matter what they do. If they come out against these people then they are portrait as being political activists for the right, which has happened to Cardinal Dolan. If they say nothing it looks bad too. I think they need to come out anyway though. This garbage should not be tolerated. Like I said, it make all of us Catholics look bad.
ReplyDeleteWell, as I mentioned in the article, they didn't seem to mind being "political" when Archbishop Rummel excommunicated a judge and 2 private citizens for opposing de-segregation. He said they were displaying flagrant disobedience by their continued opposition to racial mixing and publically excommunicated them. Surely Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Caroline Kennedy and all the rest are doing exactly that. And if the Catholic Church means what it says about life begining at conception, then surely depriving someone of their life would be a greater sin than denying someone the right to associate with people of another race. Yet, when it comes to abortion (or homosexuality etc) not one person has been excommunicated.
DeleteI would like to add to the discussion, if I may. We must bear in mind there two types of Christians (Protestant, Catholic, etc.). The first type of Christian is conservative and orthodox. The second type of Christian is liberal and unorthodox. The former remains true to Biblical doctrine. The latter modifies Biblical doctrine to be "relevant" with the times. The latter perverts the Word of God just to be "accepted" with secularists and unbelievers.
DeleteTrue, though I don't understand how anyone can fail to see that those who make accomodations with modernity are the ones with empty churches.
DeleteAbout the last bit:
ReplyDelete"And to all of you people living in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, Spain, The Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and so on…this is how Presidents are made folks."
There's a recurring theme among monarchist by using the presidential system (primarily the US model) as an example on how republics are bad. But they run in to some problems because many republicans in these countries advocate a parliamentary republic, where the president is separate head of state and functions as a ceremonial figurehead.
I would like to know your (along with other monarchists) detailed opinion on parliamentary republics. Using the presidential system is a great tool for monarchists to use and show how republics don't work, I must admit. But as long as parliamentary republics go unchallenged, it would give republicans better ammo and say "see? we don't have to be like America to be a republic". Worse yet it would give assurance to fallen monarchies with those systems to stay that way.
I have addressed it many times before. There is no way in which a parliamentary republic President is better than a monarch and many ways in which they are worse. The people do not vote for them, so in that regard they are no better than a monarch as far as being "democratic" goes. They are chosen by the politicians and thus only represent the politicians whereas a monarch represents the entire history of the country as a whole. They are still partisan figures, which monarchs are not, and in an effort to avoid this or at least minimize it they are often total nonentities to the effect that no one in the world even knows who they are. They may as well not exist at all, many people in their own countries couldn't name them.
DeleteStrange since many republicans praise parliamentary republic Presidents as directly elected and nonpartisans/independents who are free from politicians. These republicans don't mind that they're total nonentities, in fact they want that since they think if a royal "acts up" it will embrace the country where a president acting up goes on relatively unnoticed by even their own countryman. Also the part that they may as well not exist at all is also fine with many republicans since its "less wasted money" on a head of state of any type and think that other institutions and "the people" do a better job at representing the country.
DeleteHow is that "strange". Do you even know how parliamentary republics work? They are NOT directly elected, they are elected by the members of parliament, usually from amongst the retired members of the party in power. And do you really think people count it as a great accomplishment when people around the world ask, "President who?" And they still get attention over a scandal but that's the only attention they do get. And if people really want an anonymous head of state why did the leaders of the EU boast that their president would "stop the traffic" in Beijing and Washington? And it is not "less wasted money" -do just a little homework first. Republics spend more on their presidents than most monarchies do on their royal families. Because instead of having one family to support, you have the families of every past President to support. As far as "the people" better representing their country; the President of Italy used to be a communist -does they reflect on most of his people? Democrats didn't think Bush represented them and Republicans don't think Obama represents them vert well either.
DeleteYou're grasping at straws, which is your right to do but you could at least be honest about your own point of view and stop referring to "these republicans". If you want a President Cameron, President Merkl or President Berlusconi why not just say so?
Yes, most parliamentary republics do elect the president by the members of parliament. But I'm referring to the parliamentary republics in which the president is directly elected. Serbia, Austria and Mongolia come to mind (as well as Ireland, a favorite among British republicans). The "less wasted money" bit refers to republicans who want no head of state at all. "the people" better representing their country is an argument I hear from republicans claiming that individual people, from musicians, artists, scientists, academics, athletes, and "your everyday guy" can showcase and represent a country better so to make a head of state of any kind unnecessary.
DeleteNO! I am not a republican. I'm a monarchist and proud of it. I just go for the "know your enemy" when debating republicans so I often go to republican websites or get these kind of arguments when debating republicans. If you want, I'll give you a good amount of links. But I warn you, some of these arguments are so ludicrous, it's more depressing than what you described in this blogpost.
Anyone who is directly elected is going to have or gain power. The United States itself is an example (Serbia, Austria, Ireland and Mongolia are very recent) as the President did not originally have near as much power as he now does yet, because he is the only political figure directly elected by the nation as a whole (assuming the popular vote and the vote of the Electoral College are the same, which they usually are) he can claim a greater mandate than any other figure and eventually you have a President who essentially has the power of life and death over everyone.
DeleteNo head of state at all? Can you name any such country? Unless a land is in complete anarchy there will be someone presiding over the government, whether they want to call themselves the head of state or not. As for the rest of the list; how does a musician represent the people who are not musical? How does an artist represent the un-artistic or thosse who favor a different style? Who does a scientist represent those who are not scientific or don't believe in science? How does an academic represent the uneducated or an athlete the non-athletic? Royals represent a country because their history and the history of their family is the history of the country.
As far as arguing with republicans; if they are actually in favor of anarchy or making one of the Spice Girls the President, I would say it is a waste of time to argue or debate with them at all.
Well that makes a whole lot of sense. Thanks for the exchange.
DeleteOh I am ever so pleased. There's nothing like trying to argue in favor of actual, established governments against idealistic visions of utopian republics that don't actually exist.
DeleteBeing a pragmatist, I'll end up backing Romney- Better a republican than a closet socialist who hates God. My wife and I were talking, and she's of the opinion- and I, to a lesser degree, that this country has gotten too large to continue as it has for the last 200 plus years. Odd as it is, Lincoln's "house divided" would have brought the US a few more years of stability. The South would have gone its way, done things its way, leaving the North to its own devices. She's an ardent Confederate. I, on the other hand, agree that the regions are under-represented and the people by default, and the mess we are in, is not because of Politicians- at least not directly. Politicians do, and always will, have a tendency to do anything to get in office- Lie, cheat, slander, steal, "Game" the system. As a result, Politics in a Democracy/Republic, has a tendency to be made of duplicitous, dishonest people in general. No Republic in history, no matter how well-intentioned has ever been free of corrupting, and often Sabotaging influence. People fail to realize that Nazi Germany did not emerge from Kaiser Wilhelm II. It rose from the Weimar Republic. Nor did Soviet Russia emerge directly from the Czar, but from the failed Kerensky government. No Republic will work for long, simply because those who organize it have an innate desire to everyone represented- Except Monarchists- Even those whose goal is to destroy it from within. I've said it before and it bears repeating. A democracy is the only form of government that will place a pistol to its own temple and pull the trigger with a smile on its face amidst great applause.
ReplyDeleteHere in the Czech republic, there will be presidential election too, early next year. It is the first time the Czech president will be elected directly, as our constitution was recently amended to change from the indirect presidential election (in a rather populist move from our politicians).
ReplyDeleteBut what is interesting: There is an openly monarchist presidential candidate! His name is Emil Adamec and he is a sculptor and landscape architect. Most media described him as a joker or loony, but he is apparently an intelligent and well-mannered man (though sometimes a little bit eccentric as artists are) and takes it seriously. He is a Habsburg legitimist and is in favour of giving the Czech throne back to the descendants of our kings (namely archduke Karl von Habsburg-Lothringen or his son Ferdinand Zvonimir).
Of course even if he wins the election (which is higly unlikely), he will have no power to change the constitution. But his candidacy itself is an interesting event from the monarchist point of view and it will hopefully raise the profile of the monarchist movement in the Czech lands.
Perhaps you may write something about it. If you are interested you can look at googletranslated Wikipedia article about Emil Adamec: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=cs&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fcs.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FEmil_Adamec (alas there is no English article about him yet)
As I said, and Apparently I was so tired last night that I failed to finally make my point, She's in favor of a Confederate system, however, I am quickly becoming fond of the Holy Roman Empire's organizational system, pre-Bismarck. America as a series of Principalities and minor Kingdoms, elector dukes who choose one of their own as King.
ReplyDeleteI've heard people say that if America stays together it will be because a dictatorship takes over. If that happens, I doubt America will be lucky enough to have a Julius Caesar or even a Francisco Franco but it will probably be a Hitler or Stalin type dictator.
DeleteMy main issue with America at least in the last 20 years is that culturally, we are underachievers. We have not yet hit our best years, the years when the people realize the limitations of the republic and choose a king of the American people.
ReplyDeleteThanks, MadMonarchist!
ReplyDeleteI have quoted you on my Facebook wall, about how depressing politics is, and your points on Catholics not practicing what they believe in.
I'm Catholic and I adhere to God's rules and will, and I can't believe how so many Catholics are like sheep these days. :(
I hope things are better where you are, I have heard better things about some of the bishops over there. It just seems to me that this should be very simple, and it applies to the extremes of the left and right alike; if you think abortion or gay "marriage" is okay you are not a Catholic and if you don't submit to the Pope or the bishops in council you are not a Catholic. Start your own church or join someone else but these people should not call themselves Catholics.
Delete