Formerly the Thinking Catholic Strategic Center
Site best viewed on a computer screen - not optimized for cell phones
50 most recent articles updated on this Web-Site: BLOG (Web-Log) Page
Vic Biorseth, Saturday,
December 6, 2014
I love to argue. Few things are more invigorating and thought provoking than a good argument with a reasonable man, or two, or more. (Or women). The keyword here is reasonable.
The "Good" argument is one in which substantial points are made, and counter-points, from which logical conclusions may be drawn, or deeper points, the ultimate object of it all being the arrival at the truth of the matter.
The "Bad" argument is one in which someone's points are seriously unsubstantiated, unverifiable or even false. When someone argues from a blatantly false position (the worst case) there is little point in participating. Being at insurmountable loggerheads, whether due to religious, ideological, political or philosophical differences, means that objective reason has left the scene, and "Good" argument has departed with it.
The "Pointless" argument is one in which someone has no real point, and cannot or will not understand the counter position. This may be due to obstinacy or stupidity, which may as well be the same thing. The argument will go nowhere. It is never profitable to argue with a fool.
What inspired these thoughts was the ongoing, rapidly accelerating treacherous and yet "legal" destruction of Constitutional America, from the inside, from the top down, and from the bottom up.
And all the arguments involved.
Here, we will address the vital linkage between reason and argument. Then we will address the lack of reason and the lack of substantiality supporting the current anti-American Constitution arguments that are winning in America today. They are obviously, glaringly wrong, and yet they are winning, and they are quickly transforming America out of Constitutional existence.
Right before our eyes.
The Redistribution Lie.
At the core of the alien argument that is currently winning so much
ground against Judeo-Christian religion and against America is the core
of the Marxist argument itself. It is the "recruitment lie" of
Redistributionism. Redistributionism is, of course, merely a secret
recruitment ploy; the real hidden goal of Marxism is the achievement of
Marxism opposes and seeks to destroy the right to private property, which opposes the natural law.
Forced or state redistribution of private property opposes the right to private property established in Judeo-Christian religion: Thou shalt not steal; Thou shalt not covet.
Redistribution of private property opposes the "self evident" right declared to be at the foundation of America, i.e., pursuit of happiness, which is the right to acquire, possess and accumulate private property, which is wealth.
Redistribution of private property opposes the multiple guarantees of the citizen right to private property established in the American Constitution.
Reason and Argument. Reason is indispensable to good argument. So what is it? How do we determine what is reasonable and what is unreasonable?
Two or more arguers may carry on a reasonable argument only if all hold certain positions in common. Otherwise, reasoned argument cannot ensue.
They must agree that truth itself exists.
They must agree that there is such a thing as good and evil.
They must each hold to the same or very similar ethos, or cultural behavioral norms. (It would not be reasonable for a vegan and a cannibal to try to argue about what (or who) was to be on the dinner menu.)
Truth Exists. If the honest, objective, open-minded object of the argument is the eventual arrival at the truth of the matter, then good reason begins with embracing the simple fact that truth exists, and is knowable. If truth does not exist, or is not knowable, then there is no point in arguing, for there can be no argument. So the ultimate question becomes, what is truth?
Western, Judeo-Christian argument places God at the center of all Truth, and even identifies God as The Truth, from which all other truths derive. The Pagan Greek philosophers arrived at the conclusion of the truth of the singularity of God through logic alone, with no revelation and no outside evangelization. Using arguments similar to Aquinas' later arguments proving God (see the Faith v Atheism page) they established as true that:
Good and Evil must be an established, fixed, recognized truth, for all participants, before a reasoned argument may commence. If there be universal truth that is truth for everyone everywhere, then it follows that there must be a fixed, unchanging morality for everyone everywhere. Even the simple rules of civil discourse and manners flow from a common sense of right and wrong, vice and virtue, decent and indecent, etc., all of which flow from a common recognition of good and evil. In the absence of this common civility proper argumentation is quite impossible.
In point of fact, a lack of recognition of good and evil renders a participant completely untrustworthy, for he may indeed be evil, and nothing in any of his arguments may be trusted as true. He may be, and probably is, a liar.
This common morality is the most important part of what is called Ethos. It is what makes of us A Distinct People, unique among other Peoples. Among ourselves, freewheeling argumentation commences unabated. But, between us and others from outside our ethos, argumentation becomes more reserved, limited and restricted. Not unabashedly driving at ultimate truth, in the greater interest of peace, for everyone in the argument does not necessarily recognize ultimate truth for what it is.
If someone does not even recognize the existence of Truth, if they do not believe in good and evil, if they recognize no fixed moral code, or they recognize and live by a radically different one - with such a person, unless and until they change, argument is only possible regarding unimportant, frivolous matters. Serious argument is futile, and perhaps even dangerous.
Honest argumentation is similarly corrupted or restricted when a participant is from within the common ethos, but is an "outlier" who opposes the common ethos, or some part of it. The robber; the criminal; the profligate sinner. Here's how, historically, Western Civilization treats that matter:
Let us now consider some contemporary problems being argued in America, as Obamunism and general Marxism accelerate the process of the general destruction of the nation. These example contemporary arguments illustrate the Good, the Bad and the Pointless arguments.
Law and Order. The reason for the ancient Roman roads, warships and spaced-out garrisons was to enable and protect free world travel and free commerce, from highwaymen and pirates. The reason for the feudal Castle was to protect the inhabitants from marauders outside the walls. The reason for the development of the sovereign nation was to protect the citizens from the barbarians outside the sovereign nation. The whole reason for the existence of the term Law Enforcement is that there are always citizens who, short of force, will violate the law. Law Enforcement exists to protect the citizen from the criminal. To promote an orderly society and free commerce.
The reason for these historic divisions - castle walls, protected borders, protected ports and sea-lanes, etc. - is that evil does indeed exist. The object of the divisions is to thwart evil, and to keep evil out, and to weed out internal evil, as much as that can be done.
That principle - law and order - is currently under vicious attack in America, from the government itself, and from government-recruited and incited agent provocateurs, by use of blatantly false "argument". The government's official argument is that, in Ferguson Missouri, Michael Brown was surrendering with his hands up when police officer Darren Wilson shot him in the back, committing murder. A flagrant, malicious lie. Eye witness and corroborating forensic evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Michale Brown was not surrendering, but attacking, that his hands were not in the air, and that he was not shot in the back.
Nevertheless, the lie is being promoted, by the Obamunist regime, by its Justice Department, by the entire Marxocrat Party and by their propaganda wing, the SLIMC1 , which had abandoned the American ethos in favor of Marxism even earlier than the Marxist "rebirth" of the Marxocrat Party itself. The aim of Obamunsism, the Marxocrat Party and their News Media and Entertainment Industry is not justice, as they pretend. It is Marxist Revolution, and the overthrow of the existing order, and what's left of the Constitution.
But nobody sees that.
The lie is promoted on the floor of Congress by multiple Congressmen, who contribute to popularizing the 'raised-hands don't-shoot' body posture "salute" to Michael Brown, the purported hero, and a condemnation of Darren Wilson, the purported racist murderer. A flagrant, categorical lie, with full knowledge and malice aforethought, told, repeated and hammered on the floor of Congress by dully elected "Representatives" of the people.
The real goal - seen by just about no one - is to stir up nationwide Marxist revolution against America. The fact that it will fail, again, is irrelevant to the fact that it is being attempted so openly and brazenly. These officials cannot possibly be ignorant of the facts of the case, unless they are too blindly stupid to have ever been elected to office. They are in on it. They are part of it. They know full well what it is all about.
In other words, they are evil.
The Layers of the Lies. The flagrant lies surrounding and burying the Michael Brown case come in multiple broad layers of falsehood. There is the lie that Michael Brown was an innocent kid doing nothing wrong. There is the lie that officer Darren Wilson was a racist murderer looking for a black victim. There is the lie that anti-black racism is a serious problem in all police forces all across America. There is the lie that white cops kill innocent black kids all the time, and it's an ongoing problem.
There is the deeper lie that says that only whites are racists, and that all (or most) of them are racists, and nobody else is or can be a racist, as we described in The New Racism page.
There is the deeper lie that says that America is, and has been from birth, a racist nation with a racist Constitution. Part and parcel to this lie is the lie that American history is an evil story of conquest, domination, plunder and pillage.
There is the deeper lie that says that all of Western Civilization history is an evil history of racist domination and colonization of less powerful lands, and that no nation or people was ever uplifted or improved in any way by that evil racist history.
And there is the deeper lie that says that Christianity is a white man's religion.
All of those lies, and more, are being officially taught in American public schools and in American colleges and universities.
The Marxist Lies, always treated positively in public schools and universities, represent the deepest layers of lies involved in the Ferguson Missouri argument.
There is the Marxist lie of the possibility of an eventual worker's paradise, or Utopia - a perfect, man-made, worldly heaven - taught to recruit new fellow travelers, useful idiot supporters and agent provocateurs to help bring this end about, in any way they can. Including lying about it. The ends justify the means.
There is the deeper Marxist lie, deceiving even the fellow travelers, useful idiots and agent provocateurs recruited to the Marxist cause. This "truth", covered by lies, is the fact that the ultimate goal is achieve absolute dictatorship via Machiavellian politics. Any way it can be done, for, in the Marxist view, the ends justify the means.
(Psst: There ain't no utopia.)
This goes deeper than most people want to believe.
Marxism - that is to say, anti-Americanism - owns education in America. It owns entertainment. It owns the news industry (see the Mainstream Media pages). It owns the Marxocrat Party. The sitting, twice elected President is a Marxist.
How do you reasonably argue with a liar? You don't. Marxism is one big lie. It is an onion of lies, with layer upon layer upon layer of lies. Divide and Conquer is the name of the Marxist game, played with deeper and deeper layers of lies. There are all sorts of active participants, from all levels of American society, as we showed in the Treacherous Cronyism page. Even Catholic Bishops.
When a liar is a participant in an argument, reason has left the scene. Lying is opposition to truth. The object of the argument cannot be the arrival at truth if any participant is a liar. It is a "bad" argument.
But, what about the lower level fellow travelers, or useful idiots, or agent provocateurs, who are not "in" on the real objective of Marxism? Well, they, too, lie, for the sake of the false utopian dream, which they believe. All Marxists are liars, regardless of type. You show me a Marxist, and I'll show you a MEJTML14 . No exceptions. Marxists have to lie. Marxism lives by the lie.
Rhetorical question: Have you ever heard Comrade Obama (peace be upon him) make any political or official statement that turned out to be true? That's funny, neither have I. There is no truth in him.
What about our teachers? You don't have to look too far to find teachers, and doctors, and lawyers, and scientists, and professors, who:
How do you participate with such people in any argument aimed at ultimate arrival at truth? We talked about such people, and their truly silly arguments, in the Reason versus Materialism treatment. If they do not believe in God, or in Truth, then they cannot believe in the existence of evil, universally understood. The only "evil" they would see would be that which they personally deemed to be unpleasant.
Any argument with such silly people would be a bad argument - an unreasonable argument - for they are incapable of exercising good reason.
What about black America? Persuading ninety something percent of black American voters of the truth of American goodness is near hopeless. It is never profitable to argue with a fool. Ninety something percent of black America votes Marxocrat, no matter what, every time, predicable as sunrise and sunset. It just doesn't get any dumber than that.
In most of society, the criminal or the profligate sinner is the "outlier" who distinguishes himself by being different, and is condemned by the larger society. In black America, it is nearly the opposite; it is the outstanding success story of good citizenry that distinguishes itself by being different, and - get this - they are ostracized and condemned, for their success, by the larger black society.
Distinguished, decent successful black American citizens and leaders such as Colonol Allen West, Justice Clarence Thomas and Doctor Benjamin Carson are demonized by black American society for Acting White, and being Sell Outs, Uncle Toms, Oreo Cookies, etc. What can I say?
By all appearances, ninety something percent of black America is flat our racist, and their racism absolutely prohibits them from ever fully embracing and fully assimilating into the larger American culture, which they despise. As far as I'm concerned, so be it. They cannot or will not ever disregard what color they are or what color I am. I have no patience with that, and no time to wast on it.
Jews in Nazi Germany were herded, against their will into Ghettos. Ninety something percent of American blacks live in ghettos of their own making. By preference. Every identifiably black ghetto area, mostly but not exclusively inner cities, are run by Marxocrat Party politicians who own the black vote.
Now, get this. The Marxocrat Party was born of the original Democrat Party, which was formed by the Planters and other slave owners for the purpose of keeping, promoting and expanding black slavery. Over the political issue of slavery, it became the Party of Secession from the United States. It was the Party of Jefferson Davis, on the slavery side of the Civil War. After losing the Civil War, it was the Party of Racial Segregation, the KKK, Jim Crow and racial eugenics. It was the Party opposed to Martin Luther King Jr., the Party of Bull Conner and George Wallace, and the Party of the clubs, fire hoses and police dogs set upon King's peaceful demonstrators.
Then it was dominated by Marxist ideology and became the Marxocrat Party, full of new lies. First among these new lies was that the Republicrat Party - the original Republican Party of Lincoln and King - was the Party of White Racism. And that the Marxocrat Party championed black rights, against the horrible Republicrats. In truth, what the Marxocrat Party had morphed into was the Party of Total Dependencey. Through Marxist Redistributionism, if blacks would vote Marxocrat, and keep voting Marxocrat, they would receive more and more government benefits and hand outs, even to the point where they might not have to work for a living.
A new form of slavery. Economic slavery. Total dependency on the state. So long as the ruling regime remains Marxocrat.
how is "black progress" working out in all the black ghetto areas run
by Marxocrat politicians? It just keeps getting worse, and they just
keep reelecting Marxocrats, and it just keeps getting worse, and they
just keep reelecting Marxocrats, and it just keeps getting worse, and
they just keep reelecting Marxocrats. Only the Marxocrat politicians
and bureaucrats keep getting richer.
percent of American blacks behave exactly like trained seals in a circus
act. Their Marxocrat masters throw them a rhetorical ball and then
watch them do the same predictable tricks, over and over again, for the
amusement and profit of their trainers and masters. And for the growing
audience of useful idiots. And the audience always claps.
For that ninety something percent of American blacks, the situation is hopeless. Look how they treat each other. Look how they treat their own neighborhoods. They appear to lack even self respect. They cannot be depended upon to respect anyone else or anyone else's private property. They cannot be won over; they will not assimilate; they must be defeated, hopefully in the polls.
Are the Republicrats any better? No. I believe an even deeper Marxist anti-American treachery is afoot within the Republicrat Party. In the Political Parties page we described the fatal flaws inherent in political Parties themselves, just by their existence. America's only hope may rest in the success of the Tea Party, which is not a political Party.
The current Republicrat Party's current behavior only makes sense if they are secretly cooperating with the Obamunist - Marxocrat agenda for America. A secret deal has been made. If you see another reasonable explanation, let us hear it.
Impeachment has been taken off the table, and so has budgetary restraint. What that means is that the Republicrats, who won the mid term election big time, are going to allow the Marxocrats, who lost the mid term election big time, to do everything they want to do, without restraint. Which means, the losers really won. Secretly. Under the table.
Republicrats have signaled over and over again how they intend to cooperate with Marxism to grant blanket "comprehensive" amnesty to all criminal aliens, across the board. Not only to those who came due to direct Marxocrat Party invitation, through Spanish language foreign advertisesments on how to illegally come here and then apply for food stamps and other government benefits, but for all those who are not even here yet.
Now, having won the mid terms big time, after years and years of kicking the "Continuing Resolution" can down the road, the Republicrats, suddenly, intend to actually pass a one year Marxocrat budget, quick, before the new Tea party members are sworn in and have anything to say about it. So that Obamunism and Marxocratism may continue the march toward the destruction of Constitutional America. Maybe they can get it done in one year, with their budget agreed to by the Republicrats.
This is a deeper form of treason and treachery than that of the Obamunists and Marxocrats, because the Republcrats publicly pretend to politically oppose all that.
Their allegiance, like that of the Marxocrats, is to their Party, not to their nation, and not to the Constitution they falsely swore to uphold in their false oaths of office.
The main reason I believe they have a secret pact is that it simply defies all credulity that they could be so stupid as to not see what Obamunism and Marxocratism is doing to the Constitution. Not even John Boehner could be that stupid.
I would not be surprised to one day learn of a secret pact between Comrade Obama, peace be upon him, and Comrade Putin, a la the secret pact between Hitler and Stalin.
Marxism is coming at us from a million different directions. Every "social experiment" visible in religion, in education, in politics, in government, in entertainment, in news reporting, even in sports, is turning America into one big social experiment. Which is nonsense. (See Theory Dominating Substance.) Our economy is being systematically destroyed, on purpose, even as our sovereign borders are taken out of existence. Our money is being printed into worthlessness.
Republicrat sponsored comprehensive amnesty for all criminal aliens is such a glaringly obvious Cloward-Piven Marxist strategy for overloading and collapsing multiple social systems that it defies comprehension how everyone doesn't immediately see it for what it is.
Our only hope may be in a No Party America. Pray that the Tea Party may bring it about, before the total collapse of America, or something even worse.
Pray for America.
Sarcastic Acronym Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devices that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" it over a link without clicking just to see the simple acronym interpretation. Click any footnote link to see the acronym and a detailed explanation; hover over it just to see the simple interpretation.)SLIMC1 Secularist Liberal Intellectual Media Complex
[All Web Pages listed in Site Map by date-of-publication;
oldest at the top, newest at the bottom of the list.]
The Brilliantly Conceived Organization of the USA; Vic Biorseth
Return to the BLOG page
Return to the HOME PAGE
Subscribe to our Free E-Zine News Letter
Respond to This Article Below The Last Comment
Date: Sat Dec 06 11:40:08 2014
I thank you for having this website and writing what I've been screaming about the past 7 years! I did not like Obama and tried to get our bishop to write about the evils of the democratic platform. Of course, I did not hear from him. I was even more upset that Benedict finished Caritas et Veritas just in time to give Obama on his visit to the Vatican. I felt the pope was giving him economic marching orders. When I told a few friends they said he probably wouldn't even read it. I now see they are working together towards a Marxist globalized world. Peter Turkson at the G8 summit called for a one world bank and the WSJ called him out for it. My own little Catholic newspaper quoted the Vatican economist as saying, "Capitalism is the opposite of gospel values."
Of course, Obama's first day in office he repealed the Mexico City Policy so we all had to pay for abortions around the world and then he was honored at Notre Dame let me know things were not well in the Catholic world. Subsequently see the USCCB promoting universal healthcare and amnesty in all it's various forms was upsetting but the most upsetting thing for me was happened last year with the marriage amendment in IN. I haven't been able to go to church since. Here's a letter I just wrote to all the bishops and copied some friends regarding their shirking their responsibility and hoping they may not take the path of least resistance again:
To the Bishops:
Patrick Henry said, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." Today, more than ever, your country needs your moral vigilance. I hope you saw the front page of Monday's Indianapolis Star. The large picture of two homosexual men embracing with an article stating the historical society is going to record the story of the homosexual community in Indiana. Will Dignity USA be part of that recorded history?
The American republic was set up with checks and balances. The Church and its ministers were to be a strong check against immorality. John Adams said, "The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure, than they have it now, they may change their rules and the form of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty." This is where we find ourselves today. Our government and our way of life is being changed before our eyes and we are losing our freedoms!
In 1776, it was the black robed ministers who fueled the revolution for independence. Today, it seems our black robed ministers at the USCCB are busy letting their lobbyists lobby for legislation that makes us more dependent on government while moral legislation like repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell and last year’s marriage amendment, HJR3, had little support.
When HJR3 was being debated, two priests, from the Lafayette diocese, commented that they wanted sacramental marriage to be separated from civil unions. One priest even mentioned it in his homily. This upset me because it let me know you had already decided what you were going to do regarding HJR3. This was evident when you did not write any editorials like you did for immigration reform. Your presence was not at the state house and your lobbyist never sent out an alert to contact any representatives like he had done numerous times for other issues. Maybe you already knew the marriage amendment wasn't going to be allowed to go to the floor. After all, it was strange how David Long didn't recognize Mike Delph during the judiciary committee so he couldn't bring HJR3 to the Senate floor for a vote.
I understand why some businesses and politicians did not want this divisive fight and I understand why it would be divisive for the Church. But it is the bishops, pastors and priests who are to lead in defending God's teachings in the public square. One reason you don't get married is so you can always speak the Truth and not worry about a wife or children. You also don't get married as witnesses to your hope in the marriage supper of the lamb in heaven. Marriage between a man and a woman is integral to the foundation of society and integral to Christianity and even more so in the Catholic faith. To have programs teaching about traditional marriage but then retreat in defending marriage in the public square seems alien to what the Catholic faith should be about.
It says in the old and in the New Testament over and over again to stand firm in your faith or you won't stand at all. Well, we now have homosexual 'marriage' in Indiana and I ask you again to stand for marriage and don't allow the separation of civil and sacramental marriage. Below are two articles discussing this issue. Jacob Wood from University of Stubenville argues that changing discipline changes doctrine. From an evangelical perspective, John Stonestreet's article, Separating Civil and Christian Marriage, believes Christian leaders should stand as a witness until forced out of the marriage arena. Here is an excerpt from Stonestreet's article:
"First of all, there’s nothing on a state marriage license that requires clergy to say that marriage is something that it is not. But by refusing to sign any marriage licenses, we’re missing an opportunity to proclaim to the state and to the public what marriage truly is.
Second, by backing out of the civil marriage business, we risk perpetuating that illusion that marriage is something the government defines instead of something it recognizes, and we perpetuate the myth that the Christian view of marriage is only for us Christians. In fact, marriage existed before the church and before the state. It’s the job of both institutions to recognize it.
And here’s a question that bothers me. If clergy should not participate in civil marriage, why should laity? If it’s wrong for pastors, isn’t it wrong for parishioners?
Now, there may come a time when the state asks Christian ministers as agents of the state to participate in same-sex ceremonies. When that time comes, then yes, absolutely, no question, they should refuse.
And at that time, we may be forced out of the civil marriage business. If that happens, so be it. But let’s be forced. Let’s be forced out of the public square—not leave willingly. Instead of graciously bowing out, I ask ministers to graciously stay in to proclaim the truth of marriage, as well as their allegiance to an authority higher than that of the state."
I thank you for your marriage programs and chastity programs for the youth but I hope this letter and these articles inspire you to decide to stand strong for God's Truth and be counter cultural in your actions in the public square.
God bless you Vic! Keep up the good work.
Date: Sat Dec 06 2014
From: Vic Biorseth
The only part I question is whether Benedict XVI and Obama collaborated on the advance of Marxism in the world. I know it's hard to believe that such brilliant men raised to such lofty levels in the Church could be "fooled" by the lies born of Marxist ideology, but it happens. It is not impossible for Benedict, or for Francis, to have been fooled by a lie so pernicious, so widespread as to have infected formal education all over the world. It is a lie that grows itself.
The part that fools charitable men is the lie that Capitalism is a designed or controlled system of man; something engineered, rather than something natural. All it is is the free market. That's it. But formal education says otherwise, and highly educated men, infected with this lie, are everywhere.
Go back to Church, Lori. It's still a valid Eucharist, and you need Him, regularly. Go to confession, and go back to Mass. Nothing will strengthen you for battle more than actual Communion with Divinity Himself, on a regular basis. Seek out an Adoration Chapel and spend a Holy Hour before the Lord. In the quiet, He will let you know that we are not abandoned. He is there. He is with us.
Never give up. Never give up on the Church. Never give up on America.
Our prayers are with you.
Date: Sat Dec 06 12:08:51 2014
Here is my question which originates from a Fox News interview coupled with your blog above...
Please help me to understand what Senator McConnell is saying for it sounds to me as though he IS taking the technique used by House Majority Leader Boehner and the Republicans (Tea Party et al). He states that [from the Fox Website] “the Senate intends to pass each of the 12 bills that fund the government separately.” Was this or was this not the technique used by the House to fund the areas of government they agreed to fund in the House [last year when it was referred to as a government shutdown but wasn’t really a government shutdown and certainly wasn’t shutdown by Republicans but rather the President and the uncooperative Senate], sending the bill [or whatever it is called] to the Senate where it died and would not be voted upon so as to not go to the President’s desk?
Thanks for your assistance!
God bless you and your wife!
Date: Sat Dec 06 2014
From: Vic Biorseth
Neither Mitch McConnell nor John Boehner, nor the rest of the "Establishement" or "inside the beltway" Republicrats have anything to to with the Tea Party other than to oppose it and seek to destroy it. They are in allegiance with the Marxocrats and the Obamunists against the Tea Party. They are "Party" politicians before they are anything else, and the Republicrat Party is opposed to the Tea Party equally as much as the Marxocrat Party is.
Republicrat politicians and conservative commentators alike display (for the public, at least) an unwarranted fear of a "government shutdown" which is nothing but another Marxocrat straw villain to get everyone excited about, with the aid of the Marxocrat Media.
Bottom line is that the Republicrats are going to find a way to give the Marxocrats free reign, whatever it takes, while publicly pretending to resist them.
Listen to Rush Limbaugh and you will soon learn of the hollow threat of the government shut down. (There never has been one; there is no such thing.) The Republicrats in both Houses are going to do everything in their power to limit, constrict, restrict and control the new Tea Party members before they even get sworn in. They hate us as much as the Marxocrats do. They do not represent us; they represent the Republicrat Party.
Date: Sun Dec 07 12:24:51 2014
Location: Wyoming, PA
I know that you love a reasoned argument and I believe I have one. I have a problem with Romans 13: 1-8, particularly "(f)or there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God..." and "(p)ay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due."
History seems to be full of obvious examples that some came to power without having obtained it from authority from God. I may be mistaken. Perhaps God allowed it and didn't authorize it, but I cannot pretend to understand why Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were ever granted power.
More problematic though, is that often times it has not been so obvious. We have the advantage of the historical hindsight of 1776, but consider that in the time of the Apostles can we say that the government of Caesar was derived from God's authority? Jesus' remark that we are to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" is brilliantly clever, but how can it be true when the government of Caesar was not nearly the same as the original Constitutional Democratic Republic of the United States? If Jesus' statement is true, how could political change ever be justified?
Consider that currently in the US there exists an ever-growing group of politicians who are convinced that the power they wield has been granted by just authority. Some of these politicians, as well as many of their constituents, believe that political power is used for religious reasons because it wielded (however imperfectly) for the betterment of society. This society is a society that is has been authorized practice "freedom and equality", including freedom and equality of religion. Ann Coulter refers to this as the "Church of Liberalism".
Consider, too, that the current method of these politicians wielding that power closely resembles the methods of Caesar. If we were to give to Caesar what is Caesar's back then, why not now? It was Aquinas I think who remarked that an unjust law is no law at all. If that is true, and we are to "(p)ay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due" the question becomes, who determines ultimately when and where taxes, revenue, respect, and honor is due, and when and where these things are to be withheld?
I was wondering what your thoughts are. I am am not clear on this at all.
Date: Sun Dec 07 2014
From: Vic Biorseth
There you go again, making me think.
First, of course, many rulers came to power in opposition to God or His people. That was for His purposes, whatever they may have been. In my fallible human opinion, rulers like Hitler, Stalin and Mao may have been, partially, some kind of purifying scourge, partially some kind of test, partially some kind of warning. We cannot know all, only part. History should always be a warning, for it repeats. As far as purely worldly reasons, they came to power because they were allowed to come to power.
Evil exists, and is always looking for new paths to ruler-ship.
Re the ruler-ship of Caesar in the days of Jesus, that was the ruler-ship of the day, in which the Hebrews found themselves. Caesar was the king of the domain, and the period was in the Pax Romana (the Peace of Rome), from about 27 B.C. until 180 A.D. This was a period of minimal to no military expansion by Rome, or anyone else, and increasingly safe travel and commerce everywhere, due to the presence of Roman garrisons every so many miles all over the Roman world.
Consider also that there was, at that time, and however tenuous, a tacitly agreed separation of Church and state. Civil government and ecclesial government were separate things. Religious rulers had to go to the the civil rulers, for instance, to have Jesus condemned, because only civil government could legally issue a death warrant. When Pontius Pilate asked Jesus if He were a King, Jesus told him that His kingdom was not of this world.
Now, the condition in contemporary America is quite different. The "Law" in America does not reside in the rulers, or the government, but in the written Constitution. The rulers and the government are, quite legitimately and legally, subject to that law the same as you and me.
The "freedom and equality of religion" you refer to, as intended by the Founders and the Framers, was a freedom and equality between denominations and understandings of Biblical - i.e., Judeo-Christian - religions. The common sense of right and wrong that formed the basis for American Civil Law came out of Judeo-Cristian religions, which formed the American Ethos. Obamunism and the Marxocrat Party despises that religion and that ethos and seeks its destruction. If they cannot destroy it utterly, they intend to make it "equal" to all other religions and all other senses of right versus wrong, including, especially, forms of Godless Marxism.
Re your last paragraph: Aquinas was right, in that an unjust law is no law. And in this land, if we go by the Constitution, we the people are the sovereigns. The sovereign citizens are supposed to be protected by the government they institute to legislate, execute and adjudicate law in strict accordance with the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. We set it up, and we can take it down.
Obamunism and the Marxocrat Party are out to change that, with the aid of the Republicrat Party that publicly pretends to oppose them.
What we should be worrying most about are all of the SWAT equipped, trained and prepped federal police forces that are now in existence and growing in virtually every federal agency and bureaucracy in existence. What do HUD, HHS, EPA, etc., each, need with their own SWAT equipped, trained and prepped police forces? Is the person who might somehow harm some endangered owl or fish or bug really all that dangerous?
Consider, especially, the fact that just about none of these federal agencies and giant, growing bureaucracies are even legitimate Constitutional entities that have any legal right to existence in the first place.
In the "Render unto Caesar" analogy, our government ought to be rendering honor unto us, the sovereign citizens. But the shoe is now on the other foot.
America has been asleep too long. It may now be too late to wake up.
I always love your thought provoking submissions.
Never be lukewarm.
Life itself demands passion.
He who is indifferent to God has already forfeited his soul.
He who is indifferent to politics has already forfeited his liberty.
In America, religion is not mere window dressing and citizenship is not a spectator sport.
Do not allow our common destiny as a whole people to just happen without your input.
Seek the Truth; find the Way; live the Life; please God, and live forever.
All Published Articles
By Publication Date
Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and
broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in
thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life:
and few there are that find it! Beware of false prophets, who come to you in
the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Jesus Christ; Matt 7:13-15
Arguments Pro and Con Pages
We love a good argument. Here are some of our favorites.
Argument: The Good, The Bad and The Pointless. On the Reasoned Argument. (In the absence of reason, there is no valid argument.)
The Arguments pro and con under girding the Catholic American Thinker. Foundational arguments pro and con under girding Western culture and the Judeo-Christian ethos.
Artificial Contraception: Tool of Materialism with which to destroy Monotheism.
Acceptance of Artificial Contraception marked the single most destructive turning point in the history of Western Culture, marking the end of moral norms, foretelling tolerance of anything at all.
Refuting the Origin Of Species pseudo-scientific theory of Charles Darwin.
If Darwin’s Origin Of Species is a true Scientific Theory then there must be a preponderance of evidences supporting it. Show us any of it.
Refuting the Repressed Memory Syndrome scientistic theory of Freudianism.
If Freudianism’s Repressed Memory Syndrome is a true Scientific Theory then there must be a preponderance of evidences supporting it. Show us any of it.
Refuting Marxism and sub-theories of Socialism and Communism, as Scientism.
If Marxism represents any sort of true Scientific Theory then there must be a preponderance of evidences supporting it. Show us any of it.
Refuting Separation of Church and State as a Constitutional Principle.
If Seperation of Church and State cannot be found in our Constitution, what makes it a Constituional Principle? Nothing. It is NOT a Constitutional Principle.
Argument opposing Sharia law as brutal, oppressive and murderous.
Opposing Sharia Law means opposing brutal domination, wife beating, child abuse and even bloody murder.
Our argument supporting the Rule of Subsidiarity, practicality and common sense.
The moral and organizational Rule of Subsidiarity is crucial to the rights of man and essential for freedom.
The Sexual Revolution: Sexual Freedom, or enslavement and degradation?
The Sexual Revolution was supposed to free us, rather than enslave us, and uplift us, rather than degrade us. It was a lie from the beginning; it degraded whole cultures and attacked human dignity.
Our argument against Earmarks: the infamous Line Items of Pork Barrel Politics.
Legislative Earmarks feed corruption through skimming, lobbyist paybacks, hidden political agendas and more, by providing a huge political Pork Barrel feeding frenzy.
You cannot legislate morality is the false claim of the immoral.
We MUST legislate morality, as long as the legislature is representative of the people. Otherwise, what is legislated reflects the whim of the dictator(s) of the moment.
The religion as a private matter argument that cannot stand the light of day.
Claiming one’s religion as a private matter is a neutral thing, unless the one with the claim is in authority over us, as an official or a “representative” politician.
Our arguments against un-Constitutional Gun Control laws, rules and regulations.
The British feared that, absent "gun control", the militias in the colonies could become as "regulated" and fearsome as the British "Regulars" themselves.
Renouncing the great Communist Lie in its older, current and newer forms.
The whole “Communist Dream” is a lie; the history of “Communist Revolution” is a lie; virtually everything about Communism is just one big elaborate flagrant categorical lie.
Our argument supporting the Fair Tax as a sensible and practical Tax Revolution.
Fair Tax presents the possibility of a real, popular, voter-supported, tax payer supported, grass-roots supported Revolution in America, and a radical change for the better.
Argument against Public Education, which is, in fact, Government Indoctrination.
Public Education equals State Indoctrination, pure and simple. Education is beyond the scope of government and not what our government is constituted to do.
Argument against National Health Care, which is, in fact, Socialized Medicine.
National Heath Care equals Socialized Medicine, pure and simple. Medical Practice is beyond the scope of government and not what our government is constituted to do.
Values Versus Ethos: If we are not a Christian people then what the hell are we?
Obama set up the values versus ethos argument. He declared that we are not a Christian nation, but a nation of citizens with “values”. What are these values and where did they come from?
Being pro choice or pro woman's right to choose equals being pro abortion.
Saying you are pro choice, or pro right to choose, is saying you are pro abortion. Period. Pro choice equals pro abortion.
Warning all bourgeoisie: Obama will destroy the middle class.
Take fair warning all bourgeoisie, i.e., members of our vast middle class: the Marxists despise you and intend to conquer you once and for all.
The English national language of the United States of America.
There is no good argument against an English national language for America. What other language should we all speak here?
We argue against income minimums and caps, and for a free and private market.
Income minimums and caps are Marxism’s “moral” bait to gain popular support for Socialism on the path to typical Marxist absolute dictatorship.
Our argument against unions and for a more open and free marketplace.
Arguing against unions and other free market interventions is seeking greater excellence in market goods, services, employees and employers, through free and open competition.
The Thinking Catholic responses to questions re perpetual virginity of Mary.
From the "brothers of the Lord" to "The Davinci Code" to the word "until" in Matt. 1:24-25, the ancient Hebrew cultural notion of Professed Perpetual Virginity is doomed to be repeatedly challenged.
The contentious issue of Infallibility of Papal and Church teaching.
On matters of faith and morals, and matters relating to Divine Revelation, our central Catholic trust is in the Infallibility of the Holy Ghost, Peter, and The Church, acting together.
Our argument against fads, fashions, popular trends and herd instinct.
If speaking against fads makes me square, un-cool or un-hip, then so be it. All fads are, in microcosm, expressions of rebellion against tradition.
What does normalized, mainstreamed, open homosexuality say about us as a people?
Our argument against open homosexuality is an argument for the continuance of Western Civilization, and the Western Culture Ethos and the normative family.
The Marxism of Obama: Marching America into another Socialist dictatorship.
Vic Biorseth describes the self-documented Marxism of Obama which is still not widely recognized among the American citizenry. Obama “change” is Socialism, pure and simple.
Catholic Marriage Annulment: Is it merely the Catholic version of Easy Divorce?
Ecclesial law regarding the Catholic marriage annulment process has not changed, yet the numbers of annulments granted in America have rocketed. Why?
Opposeing affirmative action / equal opportunity programs as racist. Affirmative action (racial preference) requires racial exclusion, which is, definitively, racism.
Against diversity for the sake of diversity. Why do Marxists always seek more?
Our argument against diversity for the sake of diversity, which weakens and ultimately replaces ideology and ethos.
Against political moderation: America was not founded by indecisive moral wimps.
Political Moderation provides neither leadership nor opposition, but merely a moral drag that historically prolongs moral debates and ends up hurting morality.
The Death Penalty: Is our justice system too corrupt to be trusted with it?
The death penalty is too strong a sentence when serious questions exist re the truthfulness of police, prosecutors, defense attorneys and even forensic scientists.
Constitutional America: The argument for a return to basic rule of law. The arguments for a return to the Constitutional America intended by the Fathers and expected by the People through their Representative Government.
The Population Problem: A Real Problem, or a typical Scientistic Myth?
If England has a higher population density than China, and Hong Kong's is higher than Bangladesh, then maybe the real problems are not related to any over - population problem.
Definition of Marxism: Total control of means of production, including workers.
The definition of Marxism describes the social, economic and governmental philosophy of Karl Marx, co-author of the Communist Manifesto.
Anti-American Politics, pure and simple, describe Democrat Party strategy.
Anti-American Politics are practiced by all Leftists. Marxism, at any level, is antithetical to the very idea of America. To be Marxist is to be an anti-American.
The Godless Left leads the young and naive to their utopian Hell.
For an honest comparison of the effects on youth, we need to look to the history of the Godless Left versus the Religious Right.
My anti anti-American arguments are attacks on falsehoods, in support of truth.
American Communists hide their true identity and disguise themselves as anti anti-Communists. Using their playbook, I hereby identify myself as an anti anti-American.
Deliverance From Evil goes to the heart of the hot political debate in America.
Americans increasingly pray and work for deliverance from evil, as they slowly wake up to a threat that is not merely political in nature.
Background history of the recent Catholic reformation (revolution?) in liturgy.
Reform of the Liturgy began with good intentions toward minor changes, yet almost permanently trashed Latin, and Chant, and, etc., etc., etc.
Our definition of pro American goes considerably deeper than the dictionary. Anyone, anywhere, may be a patriot. Definition of pro American: one who loves and adheres to the American Constitution.
Our definition of anti American goes considerably deeper than the dictionary.
Anyone, anywhere, may oppose nationalism or national pride. Definition of anti American: one who ignores or opposes the American Constitution.
Islam is the enemy; the non-Islamic world just dosen't know it yet.
I keep saying that Islam is the enemy here, and you keep not wanting to hear it. But it's true.
A submission of the “The Church is rotten to the core” argument and its basis.
If indeed the church is rotten to the core then all is lost; unless, of course, the statement is untrue.
Our argument opposing Libertarianism as an amoral conservative vote-splitter.
Opposing Libertarianism may seem counter-intuitive until you realize that it’s just another form of moral relativism.
Why is this American Christian nation not called a Christian nation?
This American Christian nation is oddly referred to as something other than a Christian nation. Why?
Argument Against the Anti-American UN: Why do we support such an antagonist?
The staunchly anti-American UN has a major goal involving world governance, and America is in the way of that effort.
Either limit the scope of government or limit citizen liberty.
Scope of government has broadened so much that there is now little of the living of life that is not subject to regulation.
A fatal false premise is a deadly logical trap for the mal-educated person.
A Fatal false premise with broad general consensus will always trump reason, evidence and critical thinking.
Faith versus Atheism: Is atheism really just a silly superstition?
The Faith versus Atheism argument is at the root of every other important argument.
“Are you saved” might be the conversation starter with a devout Protestant.
First, are you saved; then, are you saved by having been “born again” (but not by Baptism) are the two popular questions of Protestantism.
Is the Bible the sole authority for teaching Christianity?
If Holy Scripture is the sole authority for Christian teaching, then, where does it say that in Holy Scripture?
Marxism Socialism Communism – what’s the difference between them all?
Marxism Socialism Communism are all mistakenly held to be different things, but they are one and the same.
Can we outlaw Marxism in the USA and still be a free thinking society?
I say we can and should outlaw any ideology that seeks the elimination of Constitutional America.
Can we outlaw Islam in the USA and still be a free thinking society?
I say we can and should outlaw any ideology that seeks the elimination of Constitutional America.
Is faith alone the sole requirement of salvation?
Luther’s dictum says that man is justified by faith alone. Is it true?
Argument for Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
The Federal Reserve Act did not prevent the Great Depression, so why does it still exist?
Argument to Repeal Amendment XVI, the Income Tax Amendment.
Repeal Amendment XVI and the very idea of progressively taxing income.
Argument to Repeal Amendment XVII and the Politicizing of the Senate.
We need to repeal Amendment XVII and restore our Senate to its original status.
Toward a return to argumentation; the lost art of reasoned verbal combat. A return to argumentation requires a return to critical thinking. Is it too late for Western man?
Secularism is clearly "the enemy" in the culture war; so, what, exactly, is it? Secularism is an aggressive and very pro-active form of atheism, in that it not only disbelieves, but it actively attacks belief itself, on all fronts.
"We belong to the Church militant; and She is militant because on earth the powers of darkness are ever restless to encompass Her destruction. Not only in the far-off centuries of the early Church, but down through the ages and in this our day, the enemies of God and Christian civilization make bold to attack the Creator’s supreme dominion and sacrosanct human rights.”--Pope Pius XII
"It is not lawful to take the things of others to give to the poor. It is a sin worthy of punishment, not an act deserving a reward, to give away what belongs to others."--St. Francis of Assisi
Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.—Winston Churchill
The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.—Ayn Rand
If you can't find the page you're looking for, try the