The Insalaco Telegraph

I understand the teaparties were about more than taxes. But nevertheless, that's the piece I want to address because it presents the biggest problem, by far, to conservatives. Not because we all hate taxes. That's not the point or the problem. The problem is that liberals have a dramatic advantage over conservatives on taxes. Why? Because they fundamentally agree with each other.

Liberals are not only on the same page with taxes, they're in the same paragraph.

This poses the biggest problem for conservatives in the elections to come. Not only are we NOT on the same page ... we're not even in the same chapter. Hell, at times we're not even in the same book.

And conservatives seem to be prancing around either unaware or hoping it will just go away. It will not go away. It poses, perhaps, the most dangerous problem to conservatives. Dangerous, because this alone will lose elections.

Three examples:

One - Republicans in general are always advocating tax cuts. I've never been comfortable with this incessant mantra. So much so that I have recently decided that I can no longer support or advocate tax cuts. The Republican argument is always the same: lower taxes always result in higher revenue for the federal government. Don't misunderstand. I absolutely agree. In fact, it strikes me as rather bizarre that its even debated. Lower taxes, indeed, results in higher revenue for the federal government. And the federal government needs higher revenue ... because ... why? In short, you cannot advocate for smaller government on the one hand and larger revenue for that government on the other. The two are absolutely inconsistent.

Republicans have often been successful increasing revenue for the federal government. When have they shrank the size of government? Never. Not ever. Not once.

Two - Mr. Forbes advocates a flat tax. Given no other choice, I would vote for him and a flat tax but I will never get excited about it, i.e., become actively involved. With all due respect to Mr. Forbes (and I mean that), I cannot figure out where he is coming from on this one. A flat tax, by definition, means that congress will have to leave it alone - completely leave it alone - in the years to come. Seriously, Mr. Forbes. Are you kidding?

To my mind, nothing less than a complete, total and unconditional repeal of the 16th amendment will be acceptable.

Three - This brings us to our second example. Gov. Huckabee advocates the fair tax. Initially, I was somewhat excited about this. It included this bizarre thing about a monthly refund for the poor but on that I decided ... whatever, I guess I can live with that. But then I saw that he was talking about 23% (or something like that). WHAT?! Governor - again, with all due respect - you can't be serious.

To my mind a national sales tax would hover somewhere around 10%. Now, I know what the Governor and others would think of this, would think of me: He's very naive. The federal government could never operate such an amount.

And herein lies the impasse. The stalemate. Because, you see Governor, I'm thinking the very same thing about you.

Now we're talking about a 10% national sales tax for health care alone?

God help us.

4/16/09 / Updated 5/30/09

Be aboslutely clear: None of the wannabes have ever answered the question, Does God Exist? All have offered arguments about the legitimacy of religion. None have addressed the existence of God.

The current - state of / legitimacy of - religion and the existence of God are two completely unrelated issues.

The greatest minds of western civilization all offered arguments for the existence of God - Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, and Kant to name only the most prominent. All of them argued for the existence of God without a single mention, not even a nod, towards religion. The entire crop of current atheists barely acknowledge these great minds, much less actually take on the arguments. Dawkins, for example, gives Aquinas one paragraph. His entire book is an argument against the legitimacy of religion and has little or nothing to do with the existence of God.

Could this be any more nonsensical? Actually, I'm not sure I could count the number of fallacies in these arguments. Yet they are received by academics as great thinkers.

My concern is compounded when the wannabes are given credibility by notable intellectuals such as Dinesh D'Souza who often debates the wannabes in public forums. With all due respect to the Christian apologist, he should know better.

BEGRUDGINGLY DEFENDING THE FAITH.

It would be more than a little helpful if religion in the United States would stop giving these wannabes and other mindless liberals ammunition. Many conservatives are often accused of failing to criticize President Bush for his domestic agenda which ran contrary to their views. In the very same way, conservatives too often fail to criticize religious groups and engage in a blanket and blind defense of religion. This is a gross mistake. Just as conservative politicians should be engaged when they fail to act like conservatives ... so too should religions be engaged when they fail to act religious. All too often religion fuels the liberal agenda and conservatives stand by and allow it to happen.

I always defend religion - Catholics, Jews and Protestants - when I'm confronted with a liberal agenda or intellectual wannabes. But it's a chore and I'm never happy to do it. The truth is, the current state of religion in the United States is an abysmal embarrassment.

Catholics in the U.S. are led by spineless creatures most of whom have egos that put anything D.C. or Hollywood have to shame. Forget the laity who are Catholic in name only. Many Catholic bishops are, in fact, Catholic in name only. Including my own local Bishop of St. Petersburg. He, as do too many other bishops, exhibit a failure to understand the world around them, and their proper role in that world.

American Jews, specifically Reform Jews, have little idea what they believe anymore. The only thing they're certain of is that they better cough up forty grand for their kid's Bar Mitzvah or risk being ostracized. And lets not forget the extent to which they have turned their back on Israel.

And Protestants. I'm not even sure where to begin. They continue to insist that the solution to every problem is to start a new church. Many, particularly in the northeast, have become pagan-like in that they have abandoned Christ in favor of worshipping culture. And some in the south are now trying to Christianize Capitalism - which is no less bizarre than any attempt to Christianize Marxism.

Still, I have and will continue to defend religion. Even if I do feel like I need a shower afterwards.

The point is, however, it would never occur to me that any of this nonsense occurring in Religion has anything at all to do with the existence of God. Or the nature of God. I really don't care what the academic degree or where that degree is from. Giving intellectual wannabes the time of day is an anathema. In this context, it gives the illusion that Atheism is on the rise.

And illusions have a way of fading into reality.

Easter, 2009

assuming there is a relationship between one's level of intelligence, and one's position. A United States Senator, a CEO of a major corporation, a president of a major university - they all must be exceptionally intelligent, otherwise they would never have attained such prestigious positions.

At some point, we really need to get past such jejune naivety.

Jenkins should lose his job for a few reasons. But first and foremost, he should lose it because he is unqualified for the position. He displays a cognitive deficiency that by its nature disqualify's him from such a position. And it would be unfortunate for anyone to interpret this as somehow derogatory as this is not my intent. The fact is, Obama played Jenkins like Perlman on a violin. Like a chessmaster playing an amateur in a park.

That Jenkins allowed himself to be played to such a dramatic extent is evidentiary of a larger deficiency. A chessmaster may allow themself to be played during a match but only inasmuch as it serves a greater purpose, namely, checkmate. In other words, smart people know when they're being played and only allow it, if and only if, it serves a greater purpose.

Jenkins, I submit, has no idea Obama played him. He has no idea what he allowed to occur at his university. If this is the case - and it is - then Jenkins lacks the necessary coginitive abilities the position should demand.

Obama walked in and handed thousands of impressionable minds (every liberal's favorite kind) propaganda in its purist form: All we really need to do is limit the number of abortions. Minimize them so there isn't so many. And, if we can do that then we can all get along and we'll all love each other and the world will be a better place.

Checkmate. Match to Obama.

WHY WASN'T IT STOPPED BEFORE IT STARTED?

The first nonsense spread through the media was that the Bishop of South Bend, John M. D'Arcy, apparently is unable to assert any authority over Fr. Jenkins. This is simply not true. Any priest or religious operating in a diocese is subject to the bishop of the diocese. Granted, Notre Dame has a budget that is probably one hundred times that of the diocese which, no doubt, is the source of blurred lines. Is the size of a budget determining the authority of the Church? No doubt their response to this would be go something like this: It's not that simple, it's complicated. No. It's not.

And Fr. Jenkins actually has a couple of other bosses. One would be Rev. David T. Tyson, C.S.C., Provincial Superior of the Indiana Province of the Holy Cross Order. He is responsible for overseeing the Holy Cross presence at both the University of Portland and the University of Notre Dame.

But of Fr. Jenkins' bosses the most significant is Very Rev. Hugh W. Cleary, C.S.C., The Superior General of The Holy Cross Order. He operates out of Rome and owns responsibility for the "administration of religious houses and the apostolic works of the community entrusted to thirteen provinces and ten districts," including the United States. Including Notre Dame.

Jenkins could have, and should have, been recalled to his house (i.e., his order).

That Jenkins and Notre Dame are allowed to operate in some sort of vacuum, outside the auspices of Rome, is yet another example of the Church's cowardice. They most certainly can do something about, not only Notre Dame, but all Catholic institutions that seem to have no idea who they are, or why they exist.

That Notre Dame and other institutions can and should be stripped of their "Catholic-ness," their Catholic Identity, if you will, is not a solution, even if it could be done (which it can't). But the termination of Jenkins would have sent shockwaves through all Catholic institutions. And sent a powerful message.

JENKINS ASIDE

Someone should ask Obama the question. He should be made to answer the question.

Why should we limit the number of abortions? Whether 100 abortions per year, or 1,000,000 abortions per year - what's the difference? What difference does it make, Mr Obama?"

MAY, 2009