PAWaterCooler.com

            Much has been made about the new “Blogger Tax” that Philadelphia has put in place recently. Many people have stated how this tax is malicious in the fact that typically this tax is taking 6x’s the amount of money that any person has made from their individual blog. What’s also been said is how this is just another way to show how a city that is incapable of creating anything even remotely looking like a balanced budget is just trying to figure out how to shake more money loose from people’s pockets, just like a bully in your old school yard from when we were kids.

            What most people are not recognizing though is that this isn’t about money. This isn’t about taxes. This isn’t about trying to balance a budget or receiving the proper tax money that the city feels entitled and owed. This is about control.

            Anyone that has ever experienced the wrath of a bully, like myself (I mean seriously people…how could I not with a name like Ian), knows that the point of what a bully is doing to you has nothing to do with your lunch money, or wanting to really hear you scream Uncle when your arm is wrenched behind your back, or calls you names in front of the whole school to make people laugh at you. The whole point of what a bully does is to make you dance to their tune and do as he says. He wants to flex his muscles and hurt you because he can, and because it gives him power over someone that he believes is weak or powerless to stop them. Control. “I can make you do what I want and there’s nothing you can do to stop me!” That’s the credo and mantra of the bully clan, and Philadelphia just showed its true colors.

            When you decide that the voice of another person is somehow subjected to an erroneous and outrageous fee on their thoughts and words, you’re doing this not to collect the maybe couple of thousands of dollars that a city could make from such a tax, but to specifically target those individuals that have the courage to make their voices heard and speak against the wrongs of an out-of-control government. It doesn’t matter what side of the aisle that the voice speaks from, the point is to shut them up or make them pay. What do you think is the likelihood that a stay-at-home mom with no extra income, and certainly none made from her blog, is going to do when the city comes along and tells her that you need to pay us $300 right now or cease and desist speaking your mind. She’s going to stop speaking her mind, and the bully will have won. This is the government version of “Gimme your lunch money or I will punch you in the face!”

             Whether this is a local borough, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the US Federal government, the City of Philadelphia, or a big dumb jerk in the playground, a bully is still a bully.

              In my younger days, when I was a small, four-eyed, scrawny little kid, I was at the mercy of these types of bullies at first. Mine was a boy by the name of Scott. After a while though, there’s only so much pain, fear, and teasing a boy can take. It wasn’t until I stood up to Scott one day on a spring morning in 4^th-grade and fought back that the teasing stopped. Sure I lost that fight, after all he was bigger and stronger than me, but it was from that moment forward that the veil of fear was lifted from him and everyone saw that even a little pipsqueak like me could make a bully bleed. Once that happens, a bully becomes nothing. A bully becomes something to have contempt and pity for, not fear.

             This is Philadelphia’s version of the bully wrenching your arm and telling you to scream Uncle. We need to stand against this intimidation, all of us who write on the web and have people who read us. We need to focus our attention on the City of Brotherly Love, like that fits right now or has for years, and verbally punch the bully in the face and make him bleed. Once that happens, he will lose all the power of a mean boy on the playground and become what he really is, a pitiful child with no self-control and something that we “Little Pipsqueak’s” should not tolerate any longer.

Email Ian Hayes, Start the discussion or Share This...

You know what’s funny?

Making fun of the Amish.

Doubly so if your religion is trying to build a mosque at Ground Zero.

Greg Gutfeld

See, the Mosque folks don’t understand that here in America you can make fun of any religion – yes, even the Amish – and angry followers won’t throw acid in your face or behead you in front of a tripod. And, as primitive as the Amish are, they won’t even stone you to death for adultery. But the tweeting Park51 can be forgiven: maybe they thought the Amish might head out from Lancaster County and fly a buggy straight into their building. Don’t worry, “Parky:” they wouldn’t get the horses through the Lincoln Tunnel.

Anyhoo, that’s my point. We all make Amish jokes, because we can. They are nice people. The worst thing they ever did was deal meth – and in parts of rural PA, that’s almost considered a civic duty (I kid the rural PA-ers).

Meanwhile, after I made my proposal to open a gay Muslim bar next to the mosque – I was warned by friends, coworkers and deli managers that I’d end up dead. Who knew so many people hated the Pet Shop Boys?

Email AlexC, Start the discussion or Share This...

The Inky is reporting on a carnival game of very questionable taste:

Because of what he now calls “an error in judgment,” a Lehigh Valley carnival operator has sparked an outcry by running at summer church carnivals and fire department fund-raisers a shooting-gallery game that featured a President Obama-like figure.

“I didn’t think it was offensive, and you know, I made the wrong judgment on it,” Irvin L. Good Jr., 68, said Wednesday. “And that’s all I can say about it. We did away with it, and I’m apologizing to everybody in the world, I think.”

Good, who has operated Goodtime Amusements in Hellertown for 26 years, said he used the Alien Attack game for about five weeks without hearing complaints.

Then, at a July 24 carnival at Our Lady of Mount Carmel in Roseto, Kathryn Chapman, there with her family, noticed that one of the win-a-prize painted targets was a black man wearing a suit with a rolled-up “health bill” in one hand – and an eagle-emblazoned belt buckle reading, “The Prez Says.”

Error in judgment my a$$; my gut says this jerk knew exactly what he was doing and why. Here’s the game:

Now in spite of the fact that the ears are all wrong on this “likeness,” I think it’s pretty clear that Irvin Good intended this to be an image of Barack Obama. This is a pretty disgusting thing to do and in no way should it be excused. Irvin Good is clearly a moron.

Regardless of whatever Good’s intent was with his carnival game, what he has actually succeeded in doing with his little stunt is inspiring all sorts of hyperventilating from the left, who have now begun to ascribe this act of colossal stupidity to all of Christianity (because the game was in use at a church fair), the Tea Party and Conservatives in general. This is how it works now: one idiot defines a movement on the right. So way to go, Irvin Good. Way to refute those ubiquitous and unfair smears of racism against an entire movement of honest, decent people. You will now be held up as proof positive of the Right’s intolerance by the unthinking, anonymous robo-trolls of the lefty blogoshpere as they perpetuate the meme. Here are some of the notable comments on the Inky’s site:

I guess that’s what “they” do for entertainment… whey they’re not clutching their bibles and assault rifles for comfort.

Ironic isn’t it, that so many that were so critical of Bush, Cheney, Palin, etc are now offended when the shoe is on the other foot. What was it that they always said? Oh, that’s right, it’s ’satire’. Pot, meet kettle!

We all know that the Allentown area has been known for years to be the capital for the KKK.

Here’s some from NBC10:

Hillbillies and bible thumpers have to take their aggressions out somehow!

Now, now Mr. Irwin Good, Jr. let’s be honest! You were well aware of who the “alien” represented and you were called on it! Saying, “I voted for him.” is like saying, “I’m not racist, my best friend is black.” Usually means you’re racist. If that is the case you are entitled but to expose children to your hatred is unacceptable.

And here’s Kathryn Chapman, the whistle-blower who sent the pictures of the game to the local newspaper, now apparently suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome:

Chapman, who said she was a third-grader at Our Lady of Mount Carmel’s school on the day President John F. Kennedy was shot, said seeing children and adults shooting at the target conjured up bad memories.

“That was incredibly disturbing to me that they would have this type of carnival game for children to be able to play,” said Chapman, now a mother living in Massachusetts. “Even little kids, third- and fourth-graders, a lot of kids know who the president of the United States is.”

Color me as outraged as anyone that this game was even in use; there is nothing remotely amusing about taking target practice at the President of the United States. However, lets not overplay this hand, shall we? The definition of bigotry cuts both ways; the right should not be defined by kooky elements of its fringe any more than the left should be defined by it’s own fringe elements. 

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

The term social justice is thrown around like crazy these days.  I have to be honest, until a couple of years ago, the term really didn’t mean anything to me.  There is really no definition for it and it used in so many varying ways.

Which is why I was glad to see an article by Dr. Paul Kengor on the subject recently.

Most exasperating is that many who speak the language of social justice really mean “economic justice.” Unlike traditional practitioners of social justice, whose occasional noble interests ranged from prison reform to child-labor laws, many modern practitioners seek wealth redistribution, “living wages,” progressive income taxes, and an eternally-widening net of federal government power and central planning; they are inclined to class interests rather than human rights. And, by their estimate, achieving economic justice requires collectivism. They invoke social justice not to try to resolve conventional social differences as much as class/income differences.

Kengor poses some great questions you can ask your friends when they start talking about social justice:

We need to probe deeper: What do you really mean by “social justice?” How would that translate into policy? What kind of government control and taxation do you have in mind? Do you really mean “economic justice?”

I always found clear definitions helpful when having a conversation.  Besides, how can you talk or debate about something without both parties starting off with common definitions of words and terms.

Kengor cites another article that was very enlightening about the history of social justice – well worth the read if this is a topic of interest to you.

Email Matt Best, Start the discussion or Share This...

Students of Dr. Ken Howell have set up a Facebook page in support of him. Dr. Howell is the University of Illinois professor who was fired for being Catholic.

I request that all Facebook’ers who support freedom of religion, academic freedom, and basic decency join the “Save Dr. Ken” group on Facebook. This man was fired for teaching the very subject he was hired to teach. It’s not a PA school, but what kind of precedent will it set if this firing stands?

I had someone tell me that Dr. Howell deserved punishment because his teaching of Catholicism was crossing over into advocacy. While I disagree and think he was simply trying to be thorough in his lessons, since when is advocacy forbidden at universities? They are full of liberal professors who ridicule conservative beliefs, and they all hide behind “academic freedom”.

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

The subject of this post might seem sensationalistic, but that’s what this all boils down to. Isn’t it interesting that modern-day pagans have seized power and have begun to outlaw religion? I wonder when they’ll start throwing us to the lions again.

The University of Illinois hired Ken Howell to teach classes on Catholicism. Ken Howell has now been fired by the university for teaching his students about Catholicism.

Say what? You might say, didn’t they hire him to teach Catholicism? Apparently not; I can only assume that he was hired to fill some sort of quota, not to actually teach what the Catholic Church preaches.

Howell wrote the following “hate speech” in an email to his students:

“Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same.”

One of his students objected to Howell writing that homosexual acts are in violation of the Natural Moral Law. But this is essentially the same as the official teaching found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

-CCC 2357

If you want to know the real reason Howell was fired, you need look no further than the blog of PZ Myers, biology professor and infamous anti-Catholic bigot. Those in Catholic circles may recall a few years ago when Myers asked one of his acolytes to steal the Eucharist for him so that he could stick a nail through it, thus “proving” that God doesn’t exist, or something. Apparently he was unaware of the irony of his choice of desecration, in that the body of Christ was already pierced by nails. In reality, Myers’ stunt was nothing but an act of pure hate committed against Catholics.

Myers, one of the few honest liberals, admits that Howell did not say anthing hateful – and Myers is indeed an expert on hate – and goes on to say that Howell, as well as all other practicers of Catholicism, should be fired from their jobs for being stupid. And there we find the crux of the matter – referring to Biblical quotes and Catholic doctrines as “hate speech” is nothing but a cloak to hide the bigotry of those who hate Catholicism, Christianity, or religion in general.

Myers’ blog descends into extreme vulgarity as he seeks to argue against Catholic teaching on homosexuality without really understanding it. His acolytes take his lead and continue to unleash yet more vulgar and more hateful attacks on Catholics. Don’t take my word for it; read his blog to which I linked. I would not dare to quote any of what is said there here, as it is beyond the pale.

It is indeed quite strange that we would allow men and women who possess such great hatred to punish others for “hate speech”. But, I suppose it’s not much different from referring to socialism as “hope” or to child murder as “choice”.

Email John Lewandowski, Join the discussion or Share This...

I know that this is a fairly long post, but I believe in sharing with friends and this discussion gave me a snapshot of the inner mind of a Socialist.

The following was the chain for a discussion with a classmate that I have in my present Business Communications class. The initial question posed that started this chain was “Why do you feel that you can trust NPR over other media outlets? Why can you not trust other media organizations? If this is true can we change the way we gather and distribute news to our audiences?” I felt you should all see the fight we have ahead of us and the war of the minds we are waging today.

Here is how I started the response chain for the class to this question:

Honestly, why would you trust NPR over the other media news outlets, especially since NPR is National Public Radio and is paid by the Federal Government? That, in my mind, makes them even less trustworthy than any other independent organization because they are beholden to the federal government and the whims of whatever the Fed feels like giving to them depending on how much they support the federal government’s agenda than an independent organization that raises their money the independent and capitalist way, through independent contributions and companies paying money for airtime on their channels via commercial time. When an organization is dependent on an cash cow, visa-vie the Federal government, and the trials and tribulations of that group and how much you toe the line for whatever talking points they demand of their groups that take money from them makes them, in my book, less trustworthy than independent companies that raise their money the old fashioned way, through selling commercial time to private organizations and companies. The independent companies are, in my book, more trustworthy by a long shot, than any organization supported and funded by the federal government, regardless of whatever administration is in charge of them.

This is how Lori (get to love her folks…she’s our Socialist in the left corner in this particular boxing match) responded to my reasonable assertion:

Ian,You said “When an organization is dependent on a cash cow…”

Wouldn’t you agree that the cash cow you are referring to is really capitalism at its best? I mean isn’t that what capitalism is about? It’s all about the money. Whoever has more gets to put their message out there. FOX news operates the way it does and has that rightish slant because Rupert Murdoch owns the organization. He won at the capitalist game and now he gets his own channel to broadcast whatever he wants.

NPR is not owned by the federal government. It’s just called National because it’s well national and it operates on airwaves that are public. NPR is donor supported and that’s how they operate.

 Ultimately I believe all organizations are dependent on cash cows- the American consumer.

Lori

Bakersfield, CA

I had to respond to this dripping with socialism-love nonsense:

I personally believe that you are missing a fundamental aspect to what Capitalism is all about. It’s not about money, but money is partly the motivator (or gasoline if you want to think of it in another fashion). Capitalism, and more specifically the Free Market System, is based on personal choice. It is based on you setting your own personal priorities as to what you want to earn money to buy, what you want to spend, what you feel is important to you and your family, if you have one. In a free market system, you or I could decide that we can do something better than someone else out there and start a business to make it better than them. We could also decide that we want to start a business to become our own boss and do something new, or better, than the rest of the world. The Free market is an extension to the freedoms inherited in all of us by the Natural Laws we were born with and endowed by God with. This is just the economic system version of that.

A market that is controlled by a government, or a planning commission or whatever terminology or group you want to assign there, is a Socialist system and it has the opposite priorities and affects on its citizens than a Free Market system does. When a person believe they can do something better than someone else in the market, or cheaper, or faster, or whatever that betterment may be, a Socialist and top-down controlled system locks that individual out because they are not and their new system is not “Part of the Plan.” Socialism stifles creativity, inventiveness, and the entrepreneurial spirit in much of humanity. There is no incentive to do better because to do so would throw off “the Plan” from the central planning committee, which top-down governments never allow. They never allow these things because in then moves the control from those at the top make the choice to those at the bottom, you and me, in making decisions on what is best for ourselves and the economy. Tyranny’s never allow control to move down, because if they do then they lose control and they will never allow that.

This was not meant as a taking to task. I just want everyone who reads this to understand the fundamental differences in those 2 economic and social philosophies. And NPR is partially subsidized by the Federal Government through federal grants. This can be found on pg. 9 of their 2009 Fiscal budget (http://www.npr.org/about/statements/fy2009/2009_LA_NPR_Cons.pdf). Their operational revenue amount is found on pg. 5.

When you divide that amount the government gives them by their operating revenue, this money accounts for approximately 13% of their overall operating capital. Obviously, this does not make them a Federal mouth piece per se, but when 13% of your operating budget comes from 1 source, you are pretty beholden to them to make sure that money keeps flowing in. Any business that has 1/8th of its operating budget come from one location would jump through hoops to make that customer happy. It just becomes very bad for freedom of speech and differences of opinion when that 1/8th is coming from the government. That’s all I’m saying.

Here is how she countered back:

Hi Ian

I would have to disagree with you. Capitalism in theory may be about freedom but it really is about money (CAPITOL=money). In my opinion there are lots of companies who exemplify this, all you have to do is look at the corporate scandals of the last few years. I take offense to your use of using God as a defense for capitalism also. God has nothing to do with all the money hungry hoarders in this world who only care about themselves.

I don’t think Socialism is perfect but I do think there are advantages to that type of system. People in these types of systems tend to do things that actually make them happy rather than what will get them the most money. I for one would love to have lived in a country where we didn’t have to pay out of the nose for an education. Education is something, in my opinion, that can make and break a country.

NPR may be partially subsidized but Chrysler and AIG were both bailed out by the government because if not the country would have gone into a tail spin. I don’t agree with that and I’m sure as a capitalist enthusiast you probably don’t either. I’m curious to know, what would your solution have been?

I really enjoy your perspective Ian. Please don’t misunderstand my posts to you as anything other than an educated discussion.

Lori
Bakersfield, CA

Notice how she didn’t argue my facts, but went to the tried-and-true tactic of attacking the messenger initially and then say that it was an emergency and we “Had to do it!” I couldn’t let this sit, so here is how I replied:

There are no advantages to a Socialist system, unless you are looking for someone to take all the chances and possibilities of wild success OR failure out of life. The problem with that though is that in order to make sure that everyone is taken care of equally, you must make everyone equal. In order to make everyone equal, you must, by definition, hold people back from achieving too much or being too successful in work, in life, in thought, in ideas, in happiness, in health, in family status or position, in ethics taught by parents to children, in religion, and the list goes on and on and on. All of this “Equality” must be dictated by the state and not by our own personal hopes and dreams. We would no longer be in charge of the dreams and goals we believed we could achieve, by the state would.

Your child could tell you one day that “Mommy…I want to be a doctor someday and help sick boys and girls.” and you would have to follow that childhood dream up with this, “That’s nice sweetie…but the state says we already have enough doctors, so it’s been decided that you will be an auto mechanic because the state says we have a shortage of those.” What kind of parent would that make you? More importantly, is that the world you want to raise your child in?

And Lori, I believed you missed what I was saying about God. I was not saying that God was about money. I was saying that Capitalism is an extension, in an economic sense, of the Natural Laws that were endowed to us by our creator. This is a fundamental concept of what our country is founded on. Without God being at the top, or whatever you believe of as God since it is a personal choice and relationship, then those rights we enjoy are not inherit inside us but given by the state. God must be at the top because if not then those rights are no longer rights but freedoms we were given by a government, and what a government gives, then can take away. Power is supposed to go from God, to you and I, to the government…not the other way around. The former is freedom, while the later is tyranny..

Don’t you see, in order to make all equal, then we must all equally suffer and be restrained from the individual greatness each of us has inside ourselves. This is counter to what we know is the human yearning to achieve greatness and do great things. Socialism holds you back. Capitalism unchains you and says “Go!” And capitalism is not about money, it’s about getting the hell out of someone’s way and saying “You choose your own path to what your dreams are, if you do this right, the world will be your oyster, and we will all be better for your success.” Money is nothing more than the fuel to that fire.

Whether it’s a dollar bill or a pucca shell on an island, we all want to be fairly compensated for the hard work we do. That right now comes in the form of a Dollar. Don’t be angry at the dollar because it is nothing more than a representation of the fair reward for work done. Capitalism equals freedom to dream and strive to make yours and your family’s lives better. Socialism equals accepting your lot in life determined by someone else that doesn’t know, or frankly care, what you dreamed for yourself, and determines what “Freedoms” they LET you have. That’s not freedom at all…that’s slavery, and I thought we fought and died as a people to throw those shackles off. Don’t chain your dreams to the ground in the mud…but give them wings and tell them “fly”

__________________

I’m still waiting for her counter-argument to this.

I may be waiting a while.

Email Ian Hayes, Join the discussion or Share This...

A judge has ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional based on the 10th Amendment:

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prevents the federal government from giving pension and other benefits to same sex couples, is unconstitutional, reports the Associated Press.

Tauro wrote that the 1996 law ran afoul of the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment. “The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment,” Tauro wrote.

Just one problem here – the DOMA does not prevent states from recognizing homosexual “marriage”. The DOMA states that the federal government does not recognize homosexual “marriage”, and that states are not required to recognize homosexual “marriages” performed in states which do recognize them.

Apparently Judge Tauro doesn’t understand the 10th Amendment, but that really wouldn’t be that much of a surprise, considering that neither the President of the United States, nor half of the Justices on the Supreme Court, nor the majority of the Democratic Party understand the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, or the 14th Amendment.

The 10th Amendment simply states that any power not specifically granted to the federal government by the US Constitution is granted to the states. Thus, as anyone with the slightest modicum of intelligence can see, the DOMA does not violate the 10th Amendment. If a state wishes to recognize homosexual “marriage”, that state is free to do so.

In reality, the exact opposite of what this “judge” ruled is the truth. The DOMA protects the 10th Amendment, that is, it allows states to make their own laws regarding the recognition of homosexual unions. In declaring the DOMA unconstitutional, this “judge” is arguing that if one state votes in favor of recognizing homosexual “marriages” as valid, ALL states are required to do the same.

But, this is how liberals have been “progressing” our nation for at least the past 50 years. If they can’t get their way at the ballot box, why, they’ll just have some judge arbitrarily change the meaning of the Constitution! Hurray for “progress”!

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

I recently had the pleasure of viewing this film at the Ambler Theater during an event hosted by candidate for Montgomery County Commissioner, Jill Govberg. If you happen to be in town on July 2, the Philadelphia Underground Film Festival (”PUFF”) is hosting a free outdoor screening at 8 pm. The film will be released on DVD in July.

Whether you are an art lover, a Philadelphian, or just someone who believe in the basic right of private property, if you have an opportunity to see the documentary, The Art of the Steal, don’t miss it.

You don’t have to be a connoisseur of impressionist paintings to appreciate The Art of the Steal. The film a fascinating look at the single greatest assembly of impressionist works created by a private collector and how that collection was eventually appropriated by the very parties that Dr. Barnes specifically wanted to deny. Led by carnival barker Ed Rendell, who never met a Pennsylvania resource he couldn’t find a way to exploit to generate new “revenue sources” for his bloated government, and aided by a host of Philadelphia establishment charities, the Barnes collection is now due to be moved to an annex of the Philadelphia Art Museum on the Ben Franklin Parkway, against the express wishes of it’s owner, Dr. Albert Barnes.

The harshest criticism I heave read against the film is that it is too “biased,” in that it only presents the point of view of Barnes and his disciples. To that, I can only say, of course it is, and it is meant to be: The title of the film gives the filmakers’ point of view away. Since one of the key foundations in the story of the “stealing” of the Barnes is the Annenberg Foundation, and since the Annenbergs famously owned the Philadelphia Inquirer for years, I’d say that the other side of this story has already been well represented.

Though the film has been critically acclaimed, there are some detractors. Typical of the criticism of the film is the Washington Post’s review:

The success of the small documentary, which is circulating among an engaged, literate audience that might be considered the Pew’s ideal demographic (people interested in the arts, history and larger social issues), points to a missing platform in public life: a place where the slash-and-burn documentary can be answered, fact-checked and subjected to dispassionate evaluation. Newspapers, which are in decline and strapped to cover even blockbuster films, aren’t up to the job.

Awww. Poor newspapers. No resources to answer the “slash and burn” documentary.

It is not only a misrepresentation to categorize this film in the same category as a Michael Moore “slash and burn” product, it’s insulting. Moore is famous for creating situations in which his subjects are manipulated into responding a certain way; he then creatively edits those snippets of footage to back up his point of view, manipulating his audience. I don’t recall anyone on the left lamenting the lack of “fact checking” Fahrenheit 911 despite the almost two hours of complete misinformation. The Art of the Steal, by contrast, has none of this kind of gimmicky manipulative stuntwork; instead, the filmakers use interviews, newspaper accounts and news footage to build their case. Many people on the “other side” of this debate, including Governor Rendell, were willingly interviewed for this film because they see absolutely nothing wrong with breaking the Barnes Foundations Indenture of Trust for what, in their view, is the greater good.

Additionally, WaPo reviewer Phillip Kennicott glosses over the fact that the battle for the Barnes is not some recent phenomemon. This is a fight that has been going on for decades; indeed since Barnes first hosted a showing of his collection at the Philadelphia Institute of Art back in the early 1900’s and his collection was soundly ridiculed by Philadelphia’s Art establishment, including Phildelphia Inquirer owner Walter Annenberg. It was not until a few years after this first showing that the value of French Impressionism was truly appreciated. And that is when the onslaught to appropriate Barnes’ collection for the “public” began in earnest.

Those who would move the Barnes state their case by claiming that the Barnes Foundation is inaccessible and should not be “kept under wraps,” that it’s collection should be viewed by as many people as possible, that Barnes’ arrangement of the pieces is “unprofessional” and “distracting.” (Yet Henri Matisse, whose work is displayed at the Barnes Foundation, called the Barnes the only sane place to view art in the world.) They say that the Foundation has been drained of money and cannot sustain itself, and while this is true, the film argues, convincingly in my opionion, that no real significant effort has been made to raise funds to keep the Barnes intact in Merion.

Montgomery County filed suit to keep the Barnes in Merion; Judge Stanley Ott ruled against them. Rather than appeal the ruling, which would have been expected, the Montgomery County Commissioners voter 2 to 1 to NOT appeal. It will come as no surprise to regular readers of this space that Commissioner Bruce Castor was the lone voice in support of the Barnes remaining in Merion.

Given the politically powerful and monied interests that have conspired to move the Barnes Foundation to Philadelphia, the courage of the filmakers, the interviewees, and the Friends of the Barnes to present their side of this American tragedy cannot be understated.

To read more about the Barnes Foundation, please see Lance Esplund’s excellent article in the May 31, 2010 Weekly Standard, “No Museum Left Behind.” And prepare to be outraged.

Email LisaMossie, Start the discussion or Share This...

I guess Upper Montgomery County counts too.

The historic Antes House in the township was recently the setting for the Travel Channel’s “Bizarre Foods” program with host Andrew Zimmern.

Zimmern arrived at the national historic site on Colonial Road in a horse-drawn wagon, signifying his visit back in time to savor a sampling of traditional Pennsylvania German fare — stuffed pig’s stomach, fried eel, “zitterli” or souse, and “yudda kasha” or ground cherry pie.

Traveling around the globe to taste the culinary specialties of each culture, Zimmern has visited more than 68 countries, eating everything from sautéed fruit bats to dung beetles to roasted sheep brains.

“One man’s weird is another man’s wonderful,” Zimmern said when asked about his travels and food experiences. “This food may not seem that strange to you and people in this area, but to a Samoan that eats fruit bats, this is some bizarre food.”

Email AlexC, Start the discussion or Share This...

As a wave of pro-life conservative women could soon be elected to major positions in the federal and state governments, Gloria Steinem seems to be upset.

It’s amusing to hear the bubbleheaded Katie Couric refer to 60’s radical feminazism as “traditional feminism”.

No, traditional feminism, which is the feminism handed down by the original American feminists Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, is not a feminism which puts men and women at war with each other. It is a feminism of real equality, and a feminism which recognizes the right of innocent unborn children to live. That is the same as the feminism of Sarah Palin.

Email John Lewandowski, Join the other 3 commenters or Share This...

Last year I participated in a local Life Chain, in which I and other pro-lifers across the country stood on the sides of busy streets and held up signs with pro-life messages on them for one hour. Near the end of the hour, a young man walked behind us on the sidewalk. As he walked past each one of us, whether we were male or female, he called us “misogynist” or “woman hater”. In the minds of people like him, a pro-lifer, even a pro-life woman, is somehow a hater of women.

So it’s not surprising to me that when discussing the recent primary election wins by conservative Republican women, Tina Brown said the same thing on Good Morning America:

But, actually, the only trouble with this one is, it almost feels as if all these women winning are kind of a blow to feminism. Because, each one of them, really, most of them, are, you know, very much, uh, uh, you know, against so many of things that women have fought for such a long time.

“Very much, uh, uh, you know, against so many of thing that women have fought for such a long time”? Why don’t you come right out and say it, Tina? You’re against them because they are pro-life.

It doesn’t particularly bother me that there are people like Tina Brown who think that pro-life women are anti-woman. What bothers me is that such an insane and evil point of view is accepted as being at least marginally mainstream. I mean, if someone went on Good Morning America and said that black people are inferior to white people, the person would be roundly condemned, and rightfully so. If someone went on Good Morning America and said that Nikki Haley should go back to her own country, that person would also be condemned for their racism and stupidity. But if someone goes on Good Morning America and says that pro-life women hate women, that’s fine. How can that be so, unless such belief is common among liberals?

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

Memorial Day 2010

“The legacy of heroes is the memory of a great name and the inheritance of a great example.”

Benjamin Disraeli

Email TaniaGail, Start the discussion or Share This...

A column by Nicholas D. Kristof appears in today’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and the subject is that of a Catholic nun who incurred the canonical penalty of excommunication latae sententiae for taking part in a direct abortion. As expected, the anti-Catholic bigots are out in full force complaining about how evil the Catholic Church is and how great this nun is for saving her patient’s life. Naturally, Kristof takes the opportunity to throw in a few jabs at the church over the sexual abuse scandal.

But what I find really interesting is this article in Forbes about the same situation in which the author, Jenna Goudreau, cited Kristof as a source. It requires line-by-line refutation:

Sister Margaret McBride of Phoenix, Ariz., was excommunicated from the Catholic Church

That is inaccurate; she was not excommunicated from the Catholic Church. She incurred the canonical penalty of excommunication latae sententiae for taking part in a direct abortion. The Catholic Code of Canon Law states that anyone who procures a direct abortion, or who participates in said abortion, automatically excommunicates him or herself. Meaning, it was not the bishop who excommunicated her, but rather she who excommunicated herself by her actions.

after approving an abortion that saved a woman’s life.

Life saving or not, direct abortion is never morally licit. In this case, the hospital should have attempted to treat her condition, pulmonary hypertension, rather than abort her child.

The controversial move has raised eyebrows, causing many to take a second look at the institution’s antiquated ideology.

“Antiquated ideology”? The bigotry already begins to shine through.

The nun was on the Ethics Committee of St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix, which oversaw the decision to terminate the pregnancy of a 27-year-old woman who would have otherwise died. The mother of four had a medical condition called pulmonary hypertension, and doctors agreed that continuing her 11-week pregnancy probably would have killed her.

So in one sentence we go from certain death without abortion to probable death without abortion. Where is the part about how they tried to treat her pulmonary hypertension and failed? For some reason, I can’t find any mention of that in all of these articles.

Catholic leaders teach that an abortion is always sinful

Direct abortion is always sinful, and that is because it is the intentional taking of an innocent human life.

and that the baby’s health should be prioritized over the mother’s.

100% wrong, radical feminist bullcrap. Catholic teaching is not that a baby’s health or life is more important than that of the mother. Catholic teaching demands that a doctor do everything possible to save every life, and that a doctor not intentionally take a life through direct abortion or any other means.

Phoenix Bishop Thomas Olmsted automatically excommunicated this nun

How can a bishop automatically excommunicate someone else? The only person you can automatically excommunicate is yourself.

–described by hospital staff as kind, humble and saintly–

If she is kind, humble, and saintly, then she will have no problem doing what is necessary to obtain absolution and thus return to full communion with the Catholic Church. What the anti-Catholic bigots who write these columns often fail to realize is that excommunication is not forever, and that those who wish to be absolved of it can receive absolution.

because the medical decision to abort countered that ideology.

Treat the condition. “Pregnancy” wasn’t her condition. Her condition was pulmonary hypertension.

Nicholas Kristof, in his New York Times column published today, rightly points out that the priests who abused young children were not excommunicated; they were suspended and sometimes defrocked, but were still able to take sacrament. Why would a saintly nun who opted to save a woman’s life receive a worse punishment than pedophile priests?

Because killing an innocent person is worse than sexually abusing someone. Most societies recognize that killing an innocent person is just about the worst thing you can possibly do. That’s why the church teaches that anyone who procures a direct abortion – the intentional taking of a completely innocent human life – excommunicates him or herself and must seek absolution to return to communion with the Church.

Moreover, Kristof fervently asserts: “When a hierarchy of mostly aging men pounce on and excommunicate a revered nun

She excommunicated herself.

who was merely trying to save a mother’s life,

Through direct abortion, an action which can never be allowed.

the church seems to me almost as out of touch as it was in the cruel and debauched days of the Borgias in the Renaissance.”

I’m not sure how it follows that the Catholic Church’s unwavering support for innocent human life is as wretched as political corruption among the Church’s hierarchy.

Not only do I agree, I would take it a step further. Religious ideology should not interfere with patient care,

Was not the unborn child also a patient?

and the Catholic Church should step into the present.

Bigotry, anyone?

A nun who devoted herself to a spiritual life made a difficult decision that ultimately saved the life and family of this woman.

A difficult decision that involved the choice of a direct abortion as a medical treatment.

Meanwhile, priests have committed horrible crimes against living children

LIVING CHILDREN? All you need to know about this woman is right there. The unborn are not “living children”, therefore it is perfectly acceptable to abort them.

and get a comparative slap on the wrist. The hypocrisy makes my stomach turn.

Not surprising, considering that you don’t believe that unborn children are actually alive. If you did, you would be aghast at the “horrible crime” of abortion.

Also, why is someone who hates the Church so much so upset about excommunication? You should be happy when someone is excommunicated from such a wretched institution, no? I also wonder if you would be so upset if you understood that this excommunication, which she enacted against her own self, could be and probably will be removed by her bishop for whom you have nothing but contempt?

Email John Lewandowski, Join the other 2 commenters or Share This...

Once again, the runner up in the Miss USA pageant gave a conservative answer to a question. Miss Oklahoma Morgan Woolard expressed support for Arizona’s new immigration law and for states’ rights:

The winner of the pageant, Miss Michigan Rima Fakih, is the first Muslim to win the Miss USA competition. Like all Miss USA competitors, she is extremely beautiful, but that seems to be the only attribute on which she was judged. During the contest, she almost tripped over her evening gown, which should have cost her points. She gave a ridiculous answer to a question, referring to birth control as a “controlled substance”, which should have cost her points. But, she did say that the insurance companies should pay for birth control, which would gain her points with liberal judges… though ideally candidates should be judged on the intelligence of their answers, not their political bent. She also recently participated in an amateur stripping contest, which probably should have disqualified her from the pageant altogether.

Why is any of this important? Because if you remember, last year, Carrie Prejean came in second in Miss USA after giving a non-PC answer to a question. She was attacked by the media and the left dug up photos of her in an attempt to discredit her, all because liberals could not allow a beautiful woman to be a face of opposition to homosexual marriage. Just like Sarah Palin, she had to be destroyed.

Ironically, this year, the Miss USA pageant took photos of all of the contestants in lingerie – official pageant photos which were just as racy as the photos used against Prejean last year.

Not only does this Miss USA competition become more about flesh and sex and nothing else every year, but apparently it becomes more and more political every year. A Muslim won the contest, despite the facts that she nearly fell over in her evening gown and gave a terrible answer to a question. Seems to me that the judges had already made up their minds that this Muslim woman was going to win before anything else took place.

I’m not really interested in who wins this competition, but I do find it ridiculous that anything and everything has come to be motivated by politics in this day and age.

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

CNN has a story about stem cells being used in an experiment in an attempt to develop a treatment for Lou Gehrig’s Disease.

There are some important facts learned when you read this story. They are:

-The stem cells used in this experiment came from an aborted unborn child.

-The stem cells were from the spinal cord of an 8 week gestation fetus (how does a blob of tissue have a spinal cord?)

-The experiment is being done at Emory University in Georgia. Emory is a private university.

-The experiment is being funded by Neuralstem, a private company.

Some other important facts about stem cell research:

-Contrary to popular belief, no form of stem cell research has ever been banned in the United States.

-No politician that I know of has ever advocated the ban of any kind of stem cell research. I find this unfortunate, since I advocate the ban of scientific experimentation on unborn children.

-Prior to Obama’s election, the federal government was not allowed to spend our federal tax dollars on any research which destroyed unborn children. Any other form of stem cell research was acceptable to be funded by federal tax dollars.

-It has always been legal for private universities and businesses to take part in ANY form of stem cell research. Neuralstem could have done this experiment at Emory prior to Obama’s election.

Keep all of that in mind as I quote from the enlightened liberal commentors from CNN’s website as they voice their “thoughts” on stem cell research:

This one thought stem cell research was banned under Bush:

I applaud Obama for overturning the ban on stem cell research

Another one who thought stem cell research was prohibited:

Wow, are they finally allowed to do something with stem cells?

This one, who obviously didn’t read the article, chided a pro-lifer who objected to the use of an aborted fetus for this experiment:

You do know stem cell research comes from in virto fertilization right?

Another one who didn’t read the article:

I’m shocked at the low level of education on this page! Some of these stem cells come from the umbilical cord fluid after a child is born. Nobody is killing anybody! This fluid is going to be thrown away… I say if its going to help someone, then by all means use it.

This one owns a 150+ year old Biology textbook which claims that sperm are tiny humans:

But once they get the cell line growing they can grow cells forever from it. The original cells was from an embryo. But how much eggs and sperms go to waste every day and did the one that started this line go to waste? Religious nuts really need to go away.

Numerous ignorant anti-religious bigots who don’t know the difference between their rectum and a hole in the ground chimed in with their stupid comments:

My step-dad is a Christian, yet he is all for stem cell research. This, in my opinion, shows that religion isn’t bad, but that religious extremists are. Unfortunately for us, there are so many of these extremists that they selfishly affect the country’s infrastructure for the benefit of their simple beliefs.

This one says Christians are FASCISTS! We should all get T-Shirts with “FASCIST!” written on them!

This example clearly demonstrates how Christianity is a fascist organization intent on infringing upon my rights to better health care options based on their half baked religious notions. It also shows once again that religion is not the least bit interested in easing suffering.

This one is hopelessly lost:

Very true, the church tried to stop Galileo and today we are talking about deep space exploration.

And this one is my favorite. A pro-lifer said, “Take care everyone. Remember to “Choose Life – Your Mother Did”. Peace be with you.” To which someone replied:

And if you Mother “Didn’t Choose Life” how would you ever know???

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

Liberal philosophy rears its ugly head in the case of a Philadelphia teen who may have been pressured by the government to abort her child. Read the comments left by liberal trolls at HotAir and you’ll see it.

The conservative point of view on the matter of life is that all innocent people’s lives should be respected and protected. This is a simple and consistent life ethic.

The Catholic point of view on the matter of life is that all human life should be protected, from conception to natural death, and that no one has the right to intentionally take the life of another. This is also a simple and consistent life ethic.

The liberal point of view on life, however, is based on age, success, and wellness. It breaks down kind of like this, starting with the people liberals consider to be the most valuable and ending with those they consider to be the least valuable. Keep in mind that it’s not just that liberals consider the worth of people in this way, but their very right to exist. Those who are close to the bottom of this list have no right to live in a world run by the left:

1 – Twenty-something recent college graduate professional
2 – Thirty-something college graduate professional
3 – Teenage recent high school graduate
4 – Forty-something college graduate professional
5 – Fifty-to-seventy college graduate professional
6 – Retired college graduate professional
7 – Twenty-something who did not attend college, with a blue collar or low wage job
8 – Thirty-something who who did not attend college, with a blue collar or low wage job
9 – Child or teen who has not completed high school
10 – Forty-something who who did not attend college, with a blue collar or low wage job
11 – Fifty-to-seventy year old who who did not attend college, with a blue collar or low wage job
12 – Retired person who who did not attend college, and who had a blue collar or low wage job
13 – Unemployed poor person
14 – Handicapped teen or twenty-something
15 – Handicapped child or adult
16 – Severely brain damaged child, teen or twenty-something
17 – Severely brain damaged adult
18 – Elderly person who is physically disabled
19 – Elderly person who is mentally ill
20 – Unborn child

In the liberal point of view, every new human life represents another burden on the planet, another mouth to feed, another drain on the government’s resources. Therefore, the more “burdensome” that life, the less value it has.

Email John Lewandowski, Join the other 7 commenters or Share This...

As an Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama voted to allow hospitals to kill babies who survive abortions by simply leaving them to die. It turns out that the same thing is being done in the Europe, except it’s standard procedure:

Most abortions at 22 weeks simply involve the induction of the birth which normally results in the death of a young foetus.

It is considered legal and acceptable to induce labor and then allow the weak and small child to die, not attempting to sustain his or her life, with the justification being that he or she was “not viable”, so that means he or she had no worth.

Unfortunately for the abortionists, some 22 week unborn children are more viable than others:

A baby boy abandoned by doctors to die after a botched abortion was found alive nearly a day later.

The 22-week infant died one day later in intensive care at a hospital in the mother’s home town of Rossano in southern Italy.

The mother, pregnant for the first time, had opted for an abortion after prenatal scans suggested that her baby was disabled.

However, the infant survived the procedure, carried out on Saturday in the Rossano Calabro hospital, and was left by doctors to die.

He was discovered alive the following day – some 20 hours after the operation – by Father Antonio Martello, the hospital chaplain, who had gone to pray beside his body.

He found that the baby, wrapped in a sheet with his umbilical cord still attached, was moving and breathing.

The priest raised the alarm and doctors immediately arranged for the infant to be taken to a specialist neo-natal unit at the neighbouring Cosenza hospital, where he died on Monday morning.

Interesting that the news article refers to this child as a “baby boy”. What’s the difference between a “baby boy” an a “born unviable fetus”? Nothing but semantics. They are both the same human being who is put to death for the crime of being inconvenient.

In 2005 a baby boy in Manchester was born alive at 24 weeks after surviving three attempts to abort him. He is now a five-year-old schoolboy.

How long are we going to let this continue? How long are we going to keep pretending that unborn children are not really alive? How long are we going to deny science, common sense, and basic human decency?

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

Sinead O’Connor accidentally explained the root of liberal “Catholicism” while on MSNBC:

They should all get out and let us in the 21st century choose who we think is fit to run our church because it is ours. It’s not theirs. It shouldn’t be any more of this black smoke-white smoke nonsense, you know, it’s them and us. It’s our church. We need to reclaim it and we need to have it run by people who actually believe in God.

For liberal “Catholics”, the Church is a country, or the Church is a business. It is something that exists to be “run” by people, and so they insist that they should be the ones “running” the Church, just as they insist that they should be running every country and business.

What they do not understand is that it is not “our church”, but the church of Jesus Christ, instituted nearly 2000 years ago as a spiritual hospital for humankind. The church doesn’t exist as a tool to be used by partisans to push a political agenda. The church exists in order to save the souls of men and women. That is the only reason for its existence.

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

For years, leftist “comedians” like Seth MacFarlane, Jon Stewart, and Bill Maher have made numerous hateful remarks about Christians and conservatives. I would include liberal columnists such as Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, and E. J. Dionne among the “comedians” as well, since their columns are jokes.

But today, their cowardice and hypocrisy is on full display for all to see. After the only honest comedians in America, South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker, decided to make fun of Muslim hypersensitivity, all we hear from the liberal media and all of the liberal “comedians” is that they “went too far.”

It has been said repeatedly that Stone and Parker made fun of the Islamic prophet Mohammed. That is false! If you watched their South Park episode, it was all about how they were not allowed to show Mohammed, not allowed to have someone voice a part for him, and how to have him involved in a scene at all he had to be wearing a costume to cover him completely from head to toe. They were making fun of the overreacting Muslims who murder people for merely drawing a picture of Mohammed. To put an exclamation point on this, they actually showed Buddha snorting cocaine in the same episode. Did you hear about that? Of course not, because Buddhists don’t threaten to chop people’s heads off.

If you want to see South Park making fun of someone, you can find numerous episodes lambasting the Catholic Church. One episode showed the leaders of the Catholic Church to be followers of a giant spider who told them to sexually abuse children. Another episode featured a menstruating statue of the Blessed Virgin with Catholics and others going to see this “miracle.” Yet another episode depicted Catholic League President Bill Donohue as a power-hungry lunatic who was trying to take over the church, but who in the end was sliced in half by Jesus.

Suffice to say I found these episodes offensive, but I respect the creators of South Park because they are the only comedians who actually will and actually do seek to offend everyone, not just conservatives or Christians.

But the same comedians who now say that Parker and Stone went too far in merely including Mohammed in an episode of their show have nothing to say about taxpayer money going toward “art” such as “Piss Christ“, a photograph of a crucifix in a jar of urine. They are nothing but a bunch of pathetic, intellectually dishonest, morally bankrupt cowards who slap each other on the back for how “edgy” and “brave” they are while attacking people who they know won’t fight back with anything other than a prayer campaign or a boycott.

Update

How about this hateful anti-Catholic rubbish in today’s Post Gazette?

Email John Lewandowski, Join the discussion or Share This...