For the last time, there is zero difference between God's mercy and His Law!!! Anybody who says different is selling timeshares in Hell. Anybody. -- Me

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

Liberty is Done. America Is Done

With over 50% of the people on the dole and with no checks and balances left to limit the power of the government left, America as we knew it is done.

The only check on tyranny left is revolution. That can be peaceful or not peaceful, but the government as it stands must perish.

I am now convinced more than ever this will eventually lead to secession.

I fear that liberty lost is only found again in blood-soaked places.

Some additional comment.

How long until Congress figures out that they can tax you for voting Republican or failing to vote Democrat?

It is for days like these that God invented both tar and feathers.

And a reminder, for this very reason "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Your Ad Here

56 comments:

federoff11 said...

Its a double whammy this week for those of us in Arizona.

On the bright side, I think if there IS a revolution, my state will be on the side of freedom.

SherryTex said...

Don't want to be a bad sport...but do feel like saying, "I quit." taking my marbles and going home.

Steve "scotju" Dalton said...

Careful now Patrick, you don't want Donald McClarey calling yo a neo-confederate! LOL!

Anonymous said...

No revolution will be necessary. The powers that be have also made sure that our economic system will collapse of its own weight. Just be ready for it.

Evan said...

5-4. And it wasn't Kennedy who provided the decisive vote. It was Roberts.

Fr. Frank said...

Pat, as of 45 minutes ago we are living in a new nation. Seriously, be careful from now on putting anything in print about revolution or secession. If they can do what they just did, they can do damn near anything they want. Just sayin'.

Kim F. said...

Could someone please explain to me exactly what SCOTUS ruled and what this means? I'm not sure how the mandate can be unconstitutional yet allowed to remain! I am a sleep deprived mother of 5 with a newborn and I can't wrap my brain around this. If you can't explain, please direct me to a site that can. Thanks.

Sand Mama said...

Kim, read the text of the decision. Essentially they struck down the mandate as a violation of the commerce clause but upheld the governments right to tax you if you dont purchase the product (insurance). As for the rest of the bill, we have to enact it to see what's in it.
I do not think a red/blue state split of this country is such a bad idea at this point...

Anonymous said...

Oh cry me a fucking river, you worthless moron.

Mack Hall, HSG said...

There is a check on centalized power, the vote, but most people don't vote. They complain, but they don't vote.

Patrick Button said...

The main problem with secession is that it is not feasible. When a government is so strong that secession is necessary, it is not possible. When a government is weak enough that secession is possible, it is not necessary.

Anonymous said...

Dittos Pat. Lock and load. Maybe the Knights of Columbus should take on a new more literal role.

Felix Culpa said...

Revolution? I say crusade!

Anonymous said...

I agree with Patrick Button. And this is the problem as I see it with many conservatives. While I would prefer a limited govt, I realize the only way a state can effectively hope to challenge the fed is if the state can out govern it. If the state can say, you know what fed, we're going to do all your stupid social policies, except were going to run 'em efficiently and effectively. Libertarianism cannot defeat statism in a political battle.

However, the big problem with this is that the states that already seceeded were forced to write new constitutions that often cripple the power of their governors. So its going to have to be via the legislature, which presents innumerable difficulties because it involves having a concerted number of people with a vision for a long enough period of time to be able to out-manuever a federal government that has more resources at its disposal.

In other words, while we need a political Robert E Lee, we are forced to conduct this fight with only his sargeants.

sd said...

You should have a cookie and a glass of milk and maybe sit down on the couch for a few minutes to watch cartoons and calm down. You're coming across neither as rational, reasonable, or adult.

This is an unfortunate decision. But as much as I might not like the decision it's consistent with precedent. Nothing much changed in American jurisprudence. And opponents of the ACA still have the opportunity to repeal or gut the thing should they do well in the fall elections, which I hope happens and which is relatively likely - indeed a little more likely with this decision than with a invalidation of the ACA, which would have fired up liberal voters like nothing else.

And your references to armed revolution are laughable.

Joseph D'Hippolito said...

Patrick, secession is unconstitutional, so it will never happen. As far as revolution goes, we still have the November elections.

Dymphna said...

Too late. Americans don't want freedom. They want license.

Anonymous said...

Well, of course secession is unconstitutional, from the fed's perspective,thanks to the 1860s...Empires and bullies of all sorts don't like it when people want to take their money or balls and go home. Of course, secession will be prosecuted, but as Button indicates before, the only time secession is worthwhile is when it will be prosecuted.

Patrick Archbold said...

Joe D.
Haven't you heard? The Constitution is irrelevant.

Mary De Voe said...

The power to tax to commit a crime. Non-for profits cannot be taxed, Catholic hospitals, colleges and schools cannot be taxed. Individuals can be taxed, but not twice, once as a citizen and once as a member of a non-profit organization, two taxes one vote, taxation without representation. I cannot be taxed for your tax bill. Employers cannot be taxed for their employees. It sounds more like a fine for not obeying Obama, what they are doing in China for not obeying the one child policy. It is a fine not a tax, for a crime not committed. Here comes hate speech for saying so.

Mary De Voe said...

How can Obama tax some of the people for not adhereing to his HHS mandate and exempt others? This reeks of political discrimination because of religious discrimination.

Anonymous said...

Is English your second language? You really need to practice communicating more coherently.

Mary De Voe said...

12:43 I may be ignorant but at least I have a name. I will show my ignorance to the whole world: Here comes hate speech for saying so: If it were a tax there would be no exemptions. It is a penalty built into Obamacare, a penalty to punish the human being for having a conscience and an immortal soul. The devil has no immortal soul and his name is LEGION like anonymous. The ANONYMOUS LEGION IS THE DEVIL'S NAME

Elle said...

What if English were her second language? It is irrelevant. She has a right to speak. Ad hominem comments do not advance the discussion.

Mary De Voe said...

Relying on the legal precedent of the removal of the sovereign PERSON of God from the public square and removal of the sovereign person from the womb, unborn, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts bases his decision on the removal of the sovereign personhood of the human being from the public square to redeem Obamacare. When you lay down with dogs you get up with flees. Flees carry the plague, the bubonic plague. We are all going to need Obamacare now. Do you think contraception will work on the bubonic plague? How about bacon fat? Thanks Elle: They, whoever they are, have blocked me from The American Catholic. I hope it is not the American Catholic but I cannot enter through Creative Minority Report or through Google, or Internet Explorer. The cyber war is in place. Let FREEDOM ring.

Brian Kopp said...

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

-- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ...

Anonymous said...

Patrick:

It's not a good sign when Joseph D'Hippolito is the voice of reason in a conversation, and he is the voice of reason here. Please rethink this post. This is dangerous crazy talk. It is also, by the way, a golden opportunity for some smart boy in the Obama DOJ to accuse EWTN (which is, recall, engaged in the HHS lawsuit) of sponsoring "terrorists". Cool off. Take this post down. Reassess. You are inviting crazies to commit acts of vigilante violence.

Mark Shea

Mary De Voe said...

anonymous 2:01 The ANONYMOUS LEGION IS THE DEVIL'S NAME

Anonymous said...

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2012/06/28/did-roberts-just-give-obama-the-bird/

Jim said...

Will Mark Shea please keep his Ad Hominem attacks on his own blog.

Anonymous said...

Clues for the clueless, Jim. An ad hominem is "Your argument is wrong because you are ugly or a thief or a bad dresser". It is not ad hominem to point out that advocating bloody revolution is both crazy and impractical, as well as reckless and foolish. It is common sense. What is being advocated here is, and can only be, vigilante violence and murder of elected officials over a law that was, like it or not, duly passed by duly elected officials using constitutional processes. Calling for blood soaked violent revolution is insane. It is also, a) not going to happen but b) could very well draw the attention of the Obama Administration and Homeland Security and wind up putting hotheads behind bars in our paranoid security state. That is a stupid way to proceed if you want to change the law. Listen to Joe. He's right. Secession and violence chatter are short cuts to nowhere.

(I can't believe I'm siding with Joe D'Hippolito in an argument. The apocalypse is at hand. :) )

Mark Shea

Joseph D'Hippolito said...

Mark, I really appreciate your support. I mean that.

I suggest everybody calm down and reassess after a few days. I'm not suggesting that people agree with the Supreme Court's decision or support ObamaCare. But too many people have placed too much hope in the future of the Repubic on this decision.

If we can survive the Civil War and the Depression, we can survive this.

If we can survive Pres. Lincoln suspending habeas corpus for the duration of the Civil War, we can survive this.

Patrick Archbold said...

Mark,

Are you serious? Really?

I did not advocate vigilante violence or terrorism and for you to suggest so is ridiculous.

Do I think that this type of out of control governance will eventually lead to secession. I do think so. I didn't advocate it.

I said that I fear that liberty lost is only found again in blood-soaked places. I do fear that.

Your comments are beyond reason and robustly silly.

Jim said...

I was referring to the ad hominem attack on Mr. D'Hippolito, even if he doesn't recognise it.

Ranting Catholic Mom said...

So, let me get this straight, Mr. Shea:

You say that because the government might use strong-arm tactics and coercive measures to shut down decent if it is expressed in strong, physical terms, including using arms allowed by the 2nd amendment to defend ourselves from government over reach... The Archbolds shouldn't suggest that we may need to defend ourselves? Really, I've read the healthcare bill. It clearly advocates euthanizing the elderly and forcing us to pay for killing the unborn. What do you consider important enough to defend with force?
-Suzanne Carl

Anonymous said...

Patrick: Most readers of English, including most of your readers, seem to be understanding you as I did. When you say, "The only check on tyranny left is revolution. That can be peaceful or not peaceful, but the government as it stands must perish." That does sound uncommonly like you are putting violent revolution on the table for discussion." So does, "I am now convinced more than ever this will eventually lead to secession." Secession is not commonly a peaceful process as Great War of Secession demonstrated.

"I fear that liberty lost is only found again in blood-soaked places" does, it is true, have the clause "I fear" in it. But it doesn't read like you are discouraging the thought, merely saying why you believe the thought necessary to consider as a live option.

Also, "It is for days like these that God invented both tar and feathers" does sound uncommonly like a call for vigilante violence, as does the suggestion that this legal act by elected state representatives is somehow an ocassion for quoting this: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That does sound very the suggestion, not the regret, that somebody take up arms and start shooting somebody in reaction to this ruling.

I say with respect: You should take this post down, Pat.

Mark Shea

Anonymous said...

Suzanne:

Who do you propose needs to be killed? Who do you propose does the killing? That is, in plain English, what you are saying. So: you want that well armed militia to open fire? Who's the target? And who's shooting? And on whose authority?

God help me, but I'm saying it again: Listen to Joe D'Hippolito here and cool down. Joe, if things continue at this rate I'm going to have to buy you a beer. This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

Mark Shea

Patrick Archbold said...

Mark,

I know you want so much to be right and will twist anything I say to mean other than what it means in the context in which it was delivered. Truth not being the desired end, I will not engage in that back and forth which you so relish.

Your comments remain profoundly silly.

Anonymous said...

Twist? I'm quoting you for Pete's sake. And truth is emphatically my desired end. Would that you saw that.

Oh well, I tried. Hopefully you'll cool off and rethink this.

Mark Shea

Ranting Catholic Mom said...

Mark, you may think you read something different than what I said.

Me: ...including using arms allowed by the 2nd amendment to defend ourselves from government over reach...

You: Who do you propose needs to be killed? Who do you propose does the killing?

I believe that I'm taking about defending our homes and families from being sucked into this quagmire of euthanasia and forced payment for abortion services. Violence should be a last resort. But you say: "Calling for blood soaked violent revolution is insane. It is also, a) not going to happen but b) could very well draw the attention of the Obama Administration and Homeland Security and wind up putting hotheads behind bars in our paranoid security state" You see, you admit that the fault of any bloodshed would be with the paranoid security state, or Obama administration. Are you really thinking clearly?

Suzanne Carl

Patrick Archbold said...

Remember the rule.

Anonymous + Nasty = Deleted

Ranting Catholic Mom said...

We are talking about DEFENDING ourselves, not going on a hunt. God willing it won't come to that, but the current president has shown a real proclivity for using violence against his opposition. Really, I think we're talking apples and coal here.

Suzanne Carl

Anonymous said...

you admit that the fault of any bloodshed would be with the paranoid security state

What? No. I say that when you start talking about violent revolution in a post-9/11 state you invite scrutiny from a paranoid government. Not smart.

Pat:

That's why I'm putting my name at the bottom. The stupid tech doesn't let me sign in.

Mark Technoidiot Shea

Ranting Catholic Mom said...

Dear Mark,

I see what you mean, but I till hold that I am talking about defensive action, not offensive action. I will defend myself and those I love from tyranny. With force if necessary. I plan on voting the bums out, and will pray that is enough. I will rally and hold signs on street corners about refusing to comply. I've done so already. I will again. So,I guess I'm already on someone's paranoid government list. Saying that I'm armed may make them think twice. Of course, their only beebee guns to use on vermin in the garden, but I am armed!

Anonymous said...

I'm all for voting the bums out. My concern here was with the suggestion of violent overthrow of the state because the court held up a law that our elected officials, for better or ill, passed.

Mark Shea

Ranting Catholic Mom said...

Defense, Mark, Defense.

Ranting Catholic Mom said...

They're only beebee guns. I shouldn't try to comment while preparing dinner. AAARGH!

Steve "scotju" Dalton said...

Ranting Catholic Mom, and others, forget about trying to tell the Sultan of Seattle anything. His mind (such as it is)is made up, so don't confuse him with the facts.

Anonymous said...

This country is finished. People look only at the symptoms not the cause. The following addresses the real cause of our demise:


An anthropologist by the name of J.D. Unwin initiated a study with the premise that marriage was not necessary and possibly even detrimental to the development of great societies. At the end of this study he completely reversed his hypothesis.

"Perhaps the definitive work on the rise and fall of civilizations," writes Fitzpatrick, "was published in 1934 by Oxford anthropologist J.D. Unwin":

In "Sex and Culture," Unwin studied 86 human civilizations ranging from tiny South Sea island principalities to mighty Rome. He found that a society's destiny is linked inseparably to the limits it imposes on sexual expression and that those sexual constraints correlate directly to its theological sophistication and religious commitment.

Unwin noted that the most primitive societies had only rudimentary spiritual beliefs and virtually no restrictions on sexual expression, whereas societies with more sophisticated theologies placed greater restrictions on sexual expression, and achieved greater social development.

In particular, cultures that adopt what Unwin dubbed "absolute monogamy" proved to be the most vigorous, economically productive, artistically creative, scientifically innovative and geographically expansive societies on earth.

The following are grave words for the USA that come from noted Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin who found no culture surviving once it ceased to support marriage and monogamy. None.

Now we can do a basic analysis of marriage in the USA. Current illegitimacy rates are as follows:

Black 73%

Hispanic 53%

White 29%

for an overall rate of 42%. The future of the USA has been written. Currently the rate of illegitimacy for women of all races under 30 is 53%.

“Once a society departs from a social norm of absolute marital monogamy, social chaos ensues within three generations.” — Anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin

Paul Zummo said...

God help me, but I'm saying it again: Listen to Joe D'Hippolito here

Maybe you should trust your instinct and assume that agreeing with Joe D'Hippolito is a sign that you're the one out to lunch.

Yes, some people need to dial back their rage, and some of the comments here are excessively silly. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with what Pat said, and to twist his words into meaning that he somehow is advocating the violent overthrow of the US is an absurdity.

On a side note, all you have to do to put your name at the top of the comment is click the drop down box and choose the name/url function.

Doug Stein said...

At this point, the best offense is on our knees and on our feet - with our hands and our mouths.

Knees = pray that those tempted to abort (or partake of other immoral acts facilitated by this law) will have their eyes opened and turn away. That's the grace and power of God in action. It doesn't matter if PP's buildings are funded if no one visits (kind of like mainline protestant churches).

Feet = remain in the battle and walk/protest/work/go; fight especially hard against the diabolic evangelism in the public square from media and "leaders" who push filthy and depraved lifestyles. Call it what it is - even if the misuse of hate-speech/thoughtcrime laws make life uncomfortable for us. Speak the way Wisdom is portrayed in Proverbs. See "knees" above if you don't feel up to this.

Hands = work to help your neighbor and respond to God's call when He asks *you* to be the means of escape for someone else who is tempted.

Mouths = speak the words of Jesus (or when necessary John the Baptist). Confound the doctors of the law with the wisdom of God. We may get our head handed to us on a platter, but that comes with the territory.

I'm certain that in an age where the government is determined to follow in the footsteps of Ahab and Jezebel, that the Lord will raise up many with the clarity of Elijah. We're not alone, just as he was not alone. Also, if the nation fails to turn back to the Lord, there are always the descendents of Babylon and Assyria to be our chastisement. Pray it not come to that (see "Knees" above).

Joseph D'Hippolito said...

Maybe you should trust your instinct and assume that agreeing with Joe D'Hippolito is a sign that you're the one out to lunch.

Really, Paul? Why don't you re-read what I actually wrote, which includes the following?

1. Secession is unconstitutional and won't work.

2. The American people have the opportunity -- and, the responsibility -- to vote Obama and the Democrats out of office in November.

What exactly is "out to lunch" about those statements?

Paul Zummo said...

Really, Paul? Why don't you re-read what I actually wrote

Joe, I'm actually quite literate, so I don't need to re-read things to catch their meaning, thank you very much.

You're out to lunch for accusing Patrick in engaging in hyperbolic rhetoric, when all he did was express his frustration with the decision. He doesn't actually advocate these things.

Anonymous said...

I thought you hated Ron Paul.

Anonymous nonDevil said...

Voting is a fools game. If nothing else, this past primary seaon has shown the blatant fraud, cheating and violence that the Estyablishment will use to assure the "right" candidate wins. And drat it all, I find I must differentiate my anonymous self from Anonymous Legion (commie) Devil .

Joseph D'Hippolito said...

Paul, if I'm "out to lunch," then why isn't Fr. Frank "out to lunch"? He warned Patrick more directly than I did. Or does he get a pass because he's a priest?