A Deo et Rege

Tom Hunt tells of his conversion to the Catholic Church. I always enjoy conversion stories because they give insight into the diverse reasons why people choose Catholicism. I especially liked Tom’s story because it’s very similar to mine: evangelical background, seeking in an academic context, discovery of the Church Fathers, admiration for JPII, defending Catholicism, and more.

Honestly, it made me a bit sentimental.

The story of convicted and incarcerated border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean reminds why I support limited government and taking power away from bureaucrats. You can read their story here. I’ve not said anything about their story yet because frankly there are some issues. Did Ramos and Compean do everything right in their encounter with Mexican criminals? No, they didn’t. However, I don’t think that justifies the excessive prosecution and sentence. They had been in a struggle with a criminal, shots had been fired, and they were in pursuit of criminals. In that situation, following every procedure could be difficult. I’m not arguing they shouldn’t have received a reprimand or something, but 11 and 12 years in prison?

I am most bothered by two points in this case: granting immunity to a Mexican drug trafficker for testimony against Ramos and Compean and misapplying a federal law. First, the government put up a Mexican drug trafficker in a local hospital and gave him immunity to testify against the two border agents. Why is our government going after our own citizens who risk their lives and giving immunity to a guy bringing drugs to our streets? It boggles the mind. Second, the federal law in question, which accounts for most of the sentence of Ramos and Compean, shouldn’t even apply to their case. Recently liberal California senator Diane Feinstein argued as much, even asking President Bush to commute the sentences of the border agents. Other Congressmen agree with Feinstein and also have appealed to President Bush for commutation or a pardon.

And yet, Bush says he is not going to use his authority to free these guys. California Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican, said this about Bush’s refusal to commute the sentences of Ramos and Compean: “I think it has a lot to do with an attitude in this administration that refuses to admit any mistakes and protects its own clique but nobody else.” Well said Congressman.

So, I hope, along with a bipartisan group of Congressmen, that Ramos and Compean are freed immediately. Should they face some internal disciplinary action? Perhaps. But the response shouldn’t be a prison sentence based on giving immunity to a drug dealer and misapplying a federal law. The ball is in Bush’s court, but I’m not hopeful.

Never feel unsafe again…create your own gun free zone!

This to me sums up most of the so-called “top-tier” presidential candidates from both parties: they are pro-war, pro-abortion and/or stem cell research, and favor the interests of multi-national corporations over the national interests of the American people. These values would be most pronounced in a Clinton vs. Giuliani contest in 2008. As much as I value voting, what kind of choice would that be?

I’m amazed especially by how many candidates and politicians in general espouse an interventionist foreign policy. The American people keep saying “no, no, no” and the presidential (and other) candidates are saying “yes, yes, yes.” Don’t be fooled by the Democrats who oppose the Iraq war. If you listen to most of them, they just have a problem with the Iraq War or its execution. They would gladly station American soldiers in dangerous parts of the world that fit their pet agendas. When the American people clearly desire a change and a Democratic Congress and a Republican President both act like they could care less, I seriously question the value of the two party system.

The article, titled Vatican Agrees to Reforestation Project, emphasizes the efforts the Holy See has made to be environmentally friendly. Pope Benedict noted that Christians should unite to take “care of creation without squandering its resources and (share) them in a convivial manner.” The article also notes that the Vatican is considering installing solar panels in some buildings. Good for the Pope and the Vatican! With the big media’s hammering of the Pope for supposed backwardness and lack of inclusivity, a person would expect them to talk about the Pope’s role in one of their pet issues: the environment. I’m not holding my breath.
What is my take on all of this? Good for the Pope and the Vatican. Conservatives and traditional Catholics need to develop an environmentalism (I dislike this word, however) that is sensible, emphasizes human freedom and the common good, and doesn’t necessarily involve the government at every turn. Caring for the earth and using its resources wisely should be a universal concern for all people of all faiths. Radicals cannot hijack such an important movement. The Vatican provides a good, sensible example of how we can move forward: Catholics making a big difference on the local level. The Vatican is going green; how perfect for ordinary time.

I’ll have more to say about a conservative and Catholic approach to conservation and caring for the earth at a later date. It’s an issue that needs to be explored.

Thanks to Dave Hartline at the Catholic Report for the article.

On the show America’s Got Talent, they have moved “Boy Shakira” to the top 20. Huh? An overweight guy who dresses up in a blond wig and shakes it like a Latin woman. This is what happens when you let two English people judge an American talent contest.

The Pope has released the much anticipated (by many traditionalists) and feared (by some liberals) motu proprio, which allows for greater use of the Latin Tridentine mass. I am pleased, even though I am not personally invested in the controversy. Let me explain. I have no desire to attend a Tridentine mass regularly or even frequently. Perhaps I’ll visit once just to see what the fuss is about. Maybe I’ll like it and return. Then again, maybe not. However, I do want to see the Novus Ordo celebrated with dignity and reverence according to the rubrics of the missal. I think that by allowing greater use of the old mass, the celebration of the Novus Ordo will greatly improve. It’s like capitalism. People will no longer have to endure Marty Haugen, liturgical dance, hippy priests, and other craziness without options; they will have a choice and many will choose to attend the more dignified Tridentine rite at the parish down the road. This could cause pastors to introduce more dignified masses into their schedule. Or, this could backfire if pastors decide that with the old mass available and the traditionalists gone, they can introduce more craziness into the Novus Ordo mass. Let’s hope the latter isn’t the case. Either way, with the motu proprio, the overall quality of Catholic masses around the world will improve greatly. Thanks be to God.

I want to comment on one more thing: the progressive anger about the motu proprio. This is nothing but hypocrisy. Liberal Catholics love to talk about inclusivity and the big tent of Catholicism except when it includes conservative theology, dignified language, Latin, or anything else not on their agenda. Then again, perhaps elitist priests and liturgists who advocate every flaky novelty should be very afraid: the plebs now have a choice.

Yesterday, a group of us went to the Golden Lamb Inn and Restaurant in Lebanon, Ohio. It was a bit of a road trip, but well worth it. The hotel began in 1803 (the year Ohio became a state) and the current building dates to 1815. Numerous famous people have visited the Golden Lamb throughout its history. The list of notables includes twelve presidents (from J.Q. Adams to G.W. Bush), numerous government officials (Henry Clay, Cordell Hull, Daniel Webster), and literary giants (Charles Dickens, Mark Twain, Harriet Beecher Stowe).

When we walked in the building, it was like entering the past. Everything seemed very cramped, but cozy. It all also seemed very old, from the furniture, to the wallpaper, to the wall hangings. The waitresses were even grandmotherly types. The food was very old fashioned. We ordered a family style meal of turkey and dressing with mashed potatoes. All of the food tasted great. I commented several times how I was tasting the food, not the salt. The appetizer was a warm cole slaw served with an apple cider vinegar based dressing. It was unlike any thing I’ve ever tasted (in a good way). We ended with their special “shaker” sugar pie. Once again, it was incredible.
Overall, it was a great experience. As a student of history, it was more of an experience than a meal. Sure the food was great, but it was being in that place that made it truly special. I was dining where some of the great men and women of American history had dined. I was sitting where nearly two hundred years ago others just like me, but long gone, sat. If you are ever in the Cincinnati area and want a unique dining experience, I highly recommend eating at the Golden Lamb.
Photos (Golden Lamb building, Henry Clay Dining Room, Warren G. Harding hotel room) below by Carmel Bennett

English Prime Minister Gordon Brown has decided that he will no longer use the word “Muslim” in reference to terrorism. This is ridiculous. While I agree that some of the rhetoric used by Bush and Blair has been reckless, this decision by Brown makes no sense. If certain terrorists are Muslim, it seems nothing but political correctness and censorship to pretend otherwise. While it is certainly wrong to equate Islam as a whole with terrorism, it is also equally silly and dangerous to pretend that extremist Islam poses no threat to the West.

Today is the perfect day to celebrate America and its values. Fireworks are nice, but the best way to celebrate our founding is to read, learn about, and follow the Constitution of the USA. Reading and learning about it are the easiest parts; following it is something else. After all, a right unexercised is one that is in danger of being taken away. Here are a few suggestions to enjoy the fourth based on the Bill of Rights:

1) Write a blog entry or a letter to the editor; participate in a rally; worship at the place of your choice; write or call your legislator

2) Go to the range and target shoot; read about the connection between firearms and freedom; legally buy a firearm; apply for a concealed carry license/permit; if you have a license/permit, go out and carry legally (if someone wants to take away these rights, exercise your first amendment rights and let them know you won’t stand for it)

3) Walk around your house enjoying the lack of soldiers

4) Sit in your favorite chair and watch TV securely, knowing that thugs from the government can’t just rush your house without a reason

5) Smile knowing that you never have to tell the government everything you’ve done

6) Consider actually serving on a jury rather than trying to get out of it

7) Know that if you ever get in trouble you have a right to at least be judged by your peers and not a bureaucrat

8) Look at your body and know it will never be subject to government torture (our government doesn’t quite get this today; exercise your first amendment rights and let them know you won’t stand for it)

9) Go out and exercise a right not specifically listed in the Bill of Rights

10) Go out and hike at a state park

Happy 4th of July and God bless!

I came across an op-ed piece from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette entitled Disarm America? Here’s How. Here are a few of the excerpts:

Now, how would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty.

Hunters would be able to deposit their hunting weapons in a centrally located arsenal, heavily guarded, from which they would be able to withdraw them each hunting season upon presentation of a valid hunting license. The weapons would be required to be redeposited at the end of the season on pain of arrest. When hunters submitted their request for their weapons, federal, state and local checks would be made to establish that they had not been convicted of a violent crime since the last time they withdrew their weapons…

And

All antique or interesting nonhunting weapons would be required to be delivered to a local or regional museum, also to be under strict 24-hour-a-day guard. There they would be on display, if the owner desired, as part of an interesting exhibit of antique American weapons, as family heirlooms from proud wars past or as part of collections.

And the most chilling:

The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling and empty building. Thoroughness would be at the level of the sort of search that is carried out in Crime Scene Investigations. All firearms would be seized…

Clearly, since such sweeps could not take place all across a city, county, state or the country at the same time, guns would move. But fairly quickly there would begin to be gun-swept, gun-free areas where there should be no firearms. If there were, those carrying them would be subject to quick confiscation and prosecution. On the streets it would be a question of stopping and searching anyone, even Grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for “carrying.”

This author openly states what many proponents of gun control really want: a total ban on weapons, prosecution of law abiding citizens, and a police state to achieve their tactics. Not only does this guy ignore the second amendment in his argument completely, but seems willing to ignore other parts of the constitution to achieve his goals. And, there’s one thing I can promise, even if such a measure were passed: criminals would still commit crimes with and without guns.