From atop the Stoa this Christmas night, I wonder how it is that even incredibly educated individuals can display and express fantastic ignorance about Catholicism, Christianity, and the teachings of Jesus. This group I chat with says the most curious things sometimes.
The discussion group prefers to remain in anonymity, so I will endeavor to not give them away (lol). Some snippets:
Pope Francis is an open border Marxist. Well, he sure sounds that way to me. Though it must be pointed out that getting a Vatican Passport is harder today then it was for a Centurion to get a date with a Vestal Virgin in 100 BC. I also notice tall walls and a Swiss security detail with machine guns around his home. Yes, there does appear to be some hypocrisy at play here.
The Meek shall inherit the Earth. Benny Hill had a wonderfully intuitive response for that one...they shall inherit the Earth only when the rich and powerful are done with it. I don't know if that originates with him, but he is the first one from which I heard it. However, as I understand it, the ancient connotation of, "Meek" was not the docile milksop that we think of today. Instead they were understood to be strong, yet restrained; armed, but responsible. They were the ones who always seemed to have to pick up the pieces after the latest warlord rampaged through their lands. I believe they may be called, "The Silent Majority" in today's America.
Christians must love unconditionally. Christians will forgive, for only an individual, in their own heart, can forgive another. It is not the same as love. Christians recognize the divine spark of our creator in everything. Every person they meet, no matter how tainted, twisted or cruel they may be is a portion of the divine. One can love a person that shows you only hate, but that does not mean that you allow them to bury a dagger in your chest or the chest of one you love. Evil must be confronted and defeated. The vast majority of our soldiers in WWII did not hate the Germans, but they were determined to end their evil plans. No hate required, just the cause of the righteous.
Jesus says to give away everything you own to the poor and live among them. I think people really misunderstand or cherry pick various teachings out of context. If I recall my youthful catechism classes he asked his apostles to so this, not the people at large. Cuz reasons too involved to get into here...but I digress. Imagine if Ebeneezer Scrooge had given away every shilling he had in his safe and simply gave all his rented properties away to those who occupied them ... He would be unable to help anyone next year, and the people who now own those properties are now responsible for the maintenance, upkeep, and taxes on the property and the structures. How many of them will lose the property and end up in debtors' prison? Kindness must be responsible. Jesus did not want Israel to become Zimbabwe.
Jesus kicked over the moneylender's table not because he was against loaning people money, but he was, however, against usury.
Jesus was not a pacifist...sometimes his messengers came armed with swords. Just look at some old statues of St. Michael the Archangel. When he showed up to speak to you it certainly wasn't going to be about the weather.
Please don't lose touch with the foundational principles of whatever religion you practice. Don't let modern culture pollute your belief system retroactively.
Jesus was not a Marxist. He was a free market kind of guy. No other economic model provides a win-win transactional structure...but that is another posting.
It is late and I wish to spend this time being with the ones I love.
Live well. Trust in God. Believe in Jesus. Love everyone.
Zavost
Wednesday, December 25, 2019
Thursday, December 19, 2019
Redefining Impeachment
From atop the Stoa this night I slowly shake my head in somber disbelief. Did this just happen? Did the leaders and the powers that be in the Democrat Media Complex just ramrod this...hell, words escape me at the moment...
This was the United States of America. A constitutionally provided Federal Republic. What these partisan World Citizen Trans-national Progressives have done is nothing short of absurd.
Impeachment is a serious, sober business. They have been trying to impeach Trump since before he was even inaugurated. His impeachment has been a moving target that has ranged far and wide from colluding with Russians (negated by a multi-year, $30+ million investigation), to obstructing said non-crime, to doing what prior presidents have done, to calling Ukrainian Presidents, to following a treaty signed in 1999 by President Clinton. Utter insanity. Ridiculous, actually.
I must be one of the very few people outside of Government to have actually read both Articles of Impeachment. I had to read them several times to force down the bile and disbelief that washed over me time and time again. It is absolutely filled with personal, subjective accusations and sprawling juvenile sophomoric whining. There are no actual crimes listed in there. Not even a misdemeanor. Has the threshold for impeachment been redefined downward? Does this end when the Senate either acquits or dismisses the case? I seriously doubt it...very much. They will do what one does when you miss with every shot...you lead the target and keep shooting. I'm certain that they will simply roll onto another item, another scandal, another phone call or another lame Deep State holdover trying to take out the King again.
The old adage about a Grand Jury being able indite a ham sandwich has now morphed into Congress being able to Impeach one. Good God this ridiculous. I am so incredibly embarrassed for my country. This is such an absurdity. The markets are giving this a big yawn, though I am still shaking my head over this.
Live well...and read the articles of Impeachment. Educate yourself.
--Zavost
This was the United States of America. A constitutionally provided Federal Republic. What these partisan World Citizen Trans-national Progressives have done is nothing short of absurd.
Impeachment is a serious, sober business. They have been trying to impeach Trump since before he was even inaugurated. His impeachment has been a moving target that has ranged far and wide from colluding with Russians (negated by a multi-year, $30+ million investigation), to obstructing said non-crime, to doing what prior presidents have done, to calling Ukrainian Presidents, to following a treaty signed in 1999 by President Clinton. Utter insanity. Ridiculous, actually.
I must be one of the very few people outside of Government to have actually read both Articles of Impeachment. I had to read them several times to force down the bile and disbelief that washed over me time and time again. It is absolutely filled with personal, subjective accusations and sprawling juvenile sophomoric whining. There are no actual crimes listed in there. Not even a misdemeanor. Has the threshold for impeachment been redefined downward? Does this end when the Senate either acquits or dismisses the case? I seriously doubt it...very much. They will do what one does when you miss with every shot...you lead the target and keep shooting. I'm certain that they will simply roll onto another item, another scandal, another phone call or another lame Deep State holdover trying to take out the King again.
The old adage about a Grand Jury being able indite a ham sandwich has now morphed into Congress being able to Impeach one. Good God this ridiculous. I am so incredibly embarrassed for my country. This is such an absurdity. The markets are giving this a big yawn, though I am still shaking my head over this.
Live well...and read the articles of Impeachment. Educate yourself.
--Zavost
Saturday, December 14, 2019
Do you know what you've done?
Words mean things. Why else use them?
There are even lots of rules in grammar to aid one in using each word appropriately for the intent of both the communicator and the intended recipient. Nuance, I believe to be the appropriate word.
In relation to the utter tragedy taking place on Capitol Hill these days, I have more than a few words I would like to discuss with the, "Powers that be".
I would like to assume that the elected officials, who supposedly stand in for the voting block, representing constituents in our Federal Republic, have read and understand both the words and the meaning behind the Constitution of the United States of America? Not this so-called, "Living Document", but the one drafted by the Founding Fathers. That document had the ability to be amended, to evolve with the changing times, but it did not make it by any stretch of the Progressive imagination to be, "Living", i.e. whatever we want it to say, when we want it to say it.
So, assuming that, I have to ask myself, Do you all (collectively) know what you've done? Did you intend to vastly over reach your job description or did you do it, blinded by party politics? This, to me, would be the difference between a malicious attack on the Constitution and an ignorant one. By Constitution, I mean the, "We The People" part of it.
Do you know what, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" means? Bribery? How about extortion or trading in influence? Does the President's veto power really mean that he is obstructing the will of Congress or is he performing his duties as President to prevent bad legislation from becoming law (according to his opinion). Is it Obstruction for him not to turn over records that you demand from him? Or to force testimony from his staff (remember, everyone working in the Executive Branch works for him). No. Remember, there are three branches to our government, supposedly co-equal with defined responsibilities. Can the President demand the meeting minutes behind a committee closed door session? No, he can't. If you want it, you'd better make your case to the third branch of government, the Judiciary. It had better be a good case, too.
This rabid assault on a duly elected President is unseemly. It is reckless. It is, perhaps, a precedent.
If a party that is anti-Constitutionalist (I'm looking at you Democrats) makes a rabid assault on a President they can not abide by, and fails, it just means that they will re-group and try another tact until they get what they want, be it in the press, public opinion, courts, or mob violence. History is full of this. Traditions get ignored, laws and rules get watered down. Chaos is always close behind.
How does a law get watered down? Well, when it applies to one, but not another individual in society. Usually predicated on that person's position in society. Examples you say? How about Roger Stone? This guy goes to jail, likely for the rest of his natural lifetime, because he was caught in a procedural lie that had absolutely nothing to do with the case against the President simply because he was an ally of the President. The ex-CIA Director, a fellow named Brennan, sits down in front of Congress, is placed under Oath to tell the whole truth, and then proceeds to tell one lie after another as documented in the Inspector General's report. Straight up lied. No apologies or nuance, just flat out lied. I have to note that the man is not only free this day, but completely un-indited for his lies. In fact, the man is making money from CNN as a consultant and contributor. Apparently, Mr. Brennan's position in society permits him to lie to Congress and get away with it, while Mr. Stone goes to jail for giving a different answer to question #38 that was asked several different ways over several different interviews. I guess that is how it works in today's America.
Does Schiff, Nadler, and Pelosi et. al. really understand what they are wreaking upon our Federal Republic? The precedent they are unlocking? This is a double edged sword here. What happens if another President as unpalatable to many Americans such as Obama gets elected in the future? Is the other side going to sit back and say, "Oh, we'll get another shot in 4-8 years, we will have to work on our message and outreach." Or will they look to what is happening now, analyze its failures and then make another attempt to unseat a duly elected President with a flippant, translucent body of evidence? Worse yet, what if the so-called, "Deep State" dispenses with the window dressing of the Constitution and simply over-turns, in broad daylight, the will of the people and simply raises their own Emperor to the purple?
Can't happen you think? Probably not today. Maybe not tomorrow, but who knows when. When enough laws get watered down, enough traditions get eroded away and the will of the people snuffs out, what then? How long before this illusion of choice gets wiped away? Sooner or later, someone will come along and simply say it means what they say it says and to believe otherwise gets you censured, banished, or killed.
Any changes to tradition or law must be made within a common framework, duly deliberated and executed according to a standard set of rules...let's call it the Constitution. Once someone decides to "deconstruct" the "intent" of the Framers, then that someone (or group) has set our feet firmly upon the path to political dissolution. Full stop.
Try to live well in these trying times. We live in a momentous era in this country, and I know not what it will look like in 20 years time.
Zavost
There are even lots of rules in grammar to aid one in using each word appropriately for the intent of both the communicator and the intended recipient. Nuance, I believe to be the appropriate word.
In relation to the utter tragedy taking place on Capitol Hill these days, I have more than a few words I would like to discuss with the, "Powers that be".
I would like to assume that the elected officials, who supposedly stand in for the voting block, representing constituents in our Federal Republic, have read and understand both the words and the meaning behind the Constitution of the United States of America? Not this so-called, "Living Document", but the one drafted by the Founding Fathers. That document had the ability to be amended, to evolve with the changing times, but it did not make it by any stretch of the Progressive imagination to be, "Living", i.e. whatever we want it to say, when we want it to say it.
So, assuming that, I have to ask myself, Do you all (collectively) know what you've done? Did you intend to vastly over reach your job description or did you do it, blinded by party politics? This, to me, would be the difference between a malicious attack on the Constitution and an ignorant one. By Constitution, I mean the, "We The People" part of it.
Do you know what, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" means? Bribery? How about extortion or trading in influence? Does the President's veto power really mean that he is obstructing the will of Congress or is he performing his duties as President to prevent bad legislation from becoming law (according to his opinion). Is it Obstruction for him not to turn over records that you demand from him? Or to force testimony from his staff (remember, everyone working in the Executive Branch works for him). No. Remember, there are three branches to our government, supposedly co-equal with defined responsibilities. Can the President demand the meeting minutes behind a committee closed door session? No, he can't. If you want it, you'd better make your case to the third branch of government, the Judiciary. It had better be a good case, too.
This rabid assault on a duly elected President is unseemly. It is reckless. It is, perhaps, a precedent.
If a party that is anti-Constitutionalist (I'm looking at you Democrats) makes a rabid assault on a President they can not abide by, and fails, it just means that they will re-group and try another tact until they get what they want, be it in the press, public opinion, courts, or mob violence. History is full of this. Traditions get ignored, laws and rules get watered down. Chaos is always close behind.
How does a law get watered down? Well, when it applies to one, but not another individual in society. Usually predicated on that person's position in society. Examples you say? How about Roger Stone? This guy goes to jail, likely for the rest of his natural lifetime, because he was caught in a procedural lie that had absolutely nothing to do with the case against the President simply because he was an ally of the President. The ex-CIA Director, a fellow named Brennan, sits down in front of Congress, is placed under Oath to tell the whole truth, and then proceeds to tell one lie after another as documented in the Inspector General's report. Straight up lied. No apologies or nuance, just flat out lied. I have to note that the man is not only free this day, but completely un-indited for his lies. In fact, the man is making money from CNN as a consultant and contributor. Apparently, Mr. Brennan's position in society permits him to lie to Congress and get away with it, while Mr. Stone goes to jail for giving a different answer to question #38 that was asked several different ways over several different interviews. I guess that is how it works in today's America.
Does Schiff, Nadler, and Pelosi et. al. really understand what they are wreaking upon our Federal Republic? The precedent they are unlocking? This is a double edged sword here. What happens if another President as unpalatable to many Americans such as Obama gets elected in the future? Is the other side going to sit back and say, "Oh, we'll get another shot in 4-8 years, we will have to work on our message and outreach." Or will they look to what is happening now, analyze its failures and then make another attempt to unseat a duly elected President with a flippant, translucent body of evidence? Worse yet, what if the so-called, "Deep State" dispenses with the window dressing of the Constitution and simply over-turns, in broad daylight, the will of the people and simply raises their own Emperor to the purple?
Can't happen you think? Probably not today. Maybe not tomorrow, but who knows when. When enough laws get watered down, enough traditions get eroded away and the will of the people snuffs out, what then? How long before this illusion of choice gets wiped away? Sooner or later, someone will come along and simply say it means what they say it says and to believe otherwise gets you censured, banished, or killed.
Any changes to tradition or law must be made within a common framework, duly deliberated and executed according to a standard set of rules...let's call it the Constitution. Once someone decides to "deconstruct" the "intent" of the Framers, then that someone (or group) has set our feet firmly upon the path to political dissolution. Full stop.
Try to live well in these trying times. We live in a momentous era in this country, and I know not what it will look like in 20 years time.
Zavost
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
