Mark,

I really enjoy your blog, but this time you may be off the mark. The interview clip shown on the web site and that you quoted is out of context. Where is the rest of the interview? From the one comment from Manders, it looks like he is baiting her. It was he that suggested that the time to exercise that right is now, not Angle. In fact she said that we “aren’t at second amendment remedies yet.” She is not advocating violence in the clip quoted by the article linked.

She is right that the right to bear arms was precisely to prevent the government from becoming tyrannical. It isn’t for police (local and state government), military (federal gov’t), or National Guard (state government). It is for the people so that in the event that the government does not yield power to the people and implements non-democratic measures in wielding power the people have the ability to depose such leaders. No one wants things to get to that point, but someday they may.

No, losing an election does not warrant taking the government back by force. That again would be non-democratic and such an action should justly be met with the deposing of such a leader, by force if necessary.

Now, I choose not to own weapons (living in Germany would make that rather complicated anyway), but someday I’ll be returning to the US. If you see me going to the sporting good store and exercising my 2nd Amendment rights, we are already in trouble!

When I read your comment I thought you were the insane one.  That was quite a leap of logic from what she said and what you inferred.  She never once advocated going out and shooting people if you didn’t like the election results, and you should be ashamed for saying it.  That’s the kind of trash we’re used to hearing from the liberal left.  You may not like guns, but please don’t trash people who do.  John’s post above was right on the mark and I’m sorry you missed the point of what she was saying.  Normally you do much better…

From Lifesite News:
Angle picked up endorsements from National Right to Life and the Susan B. Anthony List pro-life groups after she won the Republican primary and Nevada Right to Life backed her as well.

“The State of Nevada is fortunate to have a champion of the unborn running for United States Senate against Harry Reid,” Jeremy McNeil, director of the Veada Right to Life PAC, told LifeNews.com. “While a state legislator, Sharron Angle consistently voted according to her pro-life convictions and sponsored significant pro-life legislation.”

“Sharron Angle and Harry Reid stand in stark contrast on the issue of abortion. While Harry Reid asserts he is pro-life, his actions belie his words,” McNeil said.

She said, “Reid has helped spearhead the Obama Administration’s radically pro-abortion agenda, including blocking an amendment to prevent the federal government from subsidizing health plans that cover abortion on demand and voting to fund the U.N. Population Fund, which has significant ties to government-coerced abortions in China.”

Mark, why would you take a comment out of context to smear a woman who holds much closer to Catholic values, and boost support for Harry Reid?

If you are against 2nd Amendment Rights, you have a right to your personal opinion, but please don’t cloak it in an exaggerated claim that she is advocating shooting people!

Regardless of her endorsements, laudable as they are and regardless of belief she is being taken out of ‘context’ she uses a phrase that gives me pause - ‘second amendment remedies’.  That is political spin for something she is hesitant to say clearly and considering the second amendment is all about owning a gun it seems pretty clear. 

As for rally support for Harry Reid, that is hardly what Mark is calling for.  Rather, I think, he is asking Ms. Angle to be align herself even more closely to Catholic thought and see that a call ‘second amendment remedies’ is overreaching and yes, a bit, insane.

I have to agree with Mark and scratch my head in amazement.  What are “second amendment remedies” other than arming yourself and then being prepared to use your choice of ‘arms’?  If there is another meaning behind her repeated use of the phrase I am ready to hear it.

I have to agree… with John.  Even taking this out of context (and proof-texting it against another out-of-context statement, as well), she didn’t say what you attribute to her.  She said that the 2nd Amendment is there to protect against tyranny, and she’s absolutely right.  She did NOT say that losing an election means that the government is tyrannical (and therefore to “start shooting people”). That’s calumny, Mark, and it’s unbecoming of a Catholic commentator/journalist.

Mark, I usually defend you, but not today.  You took her comment way out of context. 
    I’m 100% pro-life (anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-euthanasia, anti-war except if it can pass a rigorous standard for “just war”, etc.).  But the founders put the 2nd amendment into the Constitution for a reason: to make sure the government doesn’t try to tyrranize the people. 
    From your purposeful misconstruance of what Mrs. Angle said, I would assume that you think that people should never be allowed to defend themselves, their loved ones, or any other innocent people.  (That wouldn’t be any more of a leap of logic than you used in your interpretation of what Sharon Angle said….)

Mark, you’ve rally missed the mark on this one.  Sounds like your political bias is seeping into your argument.  That’s fine, but don’t try to mask it by your ad hominem attack on Sharon Angle and your absurd comparison of the Tea Partiers to 60’s anarchists and today’s Islamofacists.  Angle was merely reiterating what the Founders knew first hand—that a well-armed citizenry is a strong antidote to tyranny.  Or is even that too much for your “peaceful” sentiments?

I’ll bite.  What is the correct “context” for saying “I’m hoping that we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.”

I’m all ears.  Help me out here.  Cuz it sure *sounds* like she’s saying that if the election does not solve the “Harry Reid problems” by electing her and not Reid, then it may be necessary to “remedy” the results of the election by using guns.  Now, she *could* mean that she hopes people will shoot guns in the air in protest over the election results, but given all the rest of what she says about “fighting tyranny” it doesn’t appear—in context—that this is what she’s getting at.  The normal way tyrants are opposed with guns is by shooting the tyrant or his agents such as police and soldiers.  So a “second amendment remedy” for the “Harry Reid problems” does look uncommonly like a suggestion that, should she lose, we may be arriving at the time for an armed insurrection of some sort.

If somebody wants to “contextualize” that in some other way, feel free.

PS.  Please don’t insult me by suggesting that my incredulity over Angle’s weird remarks constitutes some sort of endorsement for the hapless and absurd Reid.  Stick to the subject.  If Angle is not suggesting what she looks for all the world like she is suggesting, then what *does* she mean?  One need not support Reid in the slightest to find her creep remarks repellent.

I agree wholeheartedly with Mark.  At best, she lacks wisdom, just as Reid to lead people.  She seems ignorant of her influence on others with her lack of a thoughtful response when talking about 2nd amendment rights.

It wouldn’t be the first time in this nation that folks exercised their right to overthrow their government. Revolt against an illegitimate government is kinda a big part of the social contract between the governed and their rulers.

But yeah, I agree with the other commenters that that’s not what she’s saying at all. She’s saying that keeping Reid in would be worse for Second Amendment rights than electing Senator Angle, which I doubt anyone would argue with.

I interpret Sharon Angle’s remarks to mean she fears how people will respond to the continuation of the Obama-Reid-Peolosi regime.  In no way did she imply that the use of force would be a welcome response.  In fact, she says it’s “disconcerting” that people appear to be stocking up on ammunition.  I agree with her.  I never thought things would be this way in America.  But we have to face the fact that our current political leaders want to impose more control over our lives and the result could be a reaction that might not be peaceful.  You don’t have to be crazy to think that.

Let’s find out what else was said in the interview, and that will shed light on what she meant…
From FactCheck:
“It is true that she talked about “Second Amendment remedies” during an interview with Lars Larson,( who gives free Second Amendment hats with annual web memberships.) She appeared Jan. 14 — a few weeks after the Senate approved the health care bill and tensions were running high. She acknowledged those tensions and spoke of “a revolution,” although she did add: “I hope that’s not where we are going.” In an audio clip posted by the Washington Post, Larson asked, “Where do you stand on gun rights?” She responded:
  Angle, Jan. 14: Well, I qualified for my CCW [permit to carry a concealed weapon], so maybe that tells you a little bit. But, you know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. In fact, Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every twenty years. I hope that’s not where we’re going, but you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies. They’re saying, ‘My goodness what can we do to turn this country around’ and I’ll tell ya, the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.”
The Post’s audio cuts off just when she says “take Harry Reid out,” but she appeared to be referring to an election not a coup. The National Review wrote that she went on to say: “And it’s not just Nevadans that need to get in this game, we need to all over the nation begin to support those candidates that we believe in, like I said, that have walked the walk, that know what’s really at stake here.”

I agree with the other posters in that I don’t think that her intent is to threaten or promote violence.  At the very most, I think it would be fair to say that she supports gun rights and should have been clearer in her ad hoc comments to avoid any misunderstanding.

On the other hand, she opposes the extreme violence against innocent life that Harry Reid strongly promotes.  That war against the unborn takes another American victim’s life every 25 seconds or so.  There is no ambiguity about that.

***Please don’t insult me by suggesting that my incredulity over Angle’s weird remarks constitutes some sort of endorsement for the hapless and absurd Reid.  Stick to the subject.  If Angle is not suggesting what she looks for all the world like she is suggesting, then what *does* she mean?  One need not support Reid in the slightest to find her creep remarks repellent.***

When you have 2 candidates in a dead heat over a senate seat, and you publish this article painting her as a violent extremist, you have to realize the cause and effect.

When you have 2 candidates in a dead heat over a senate seat, and you publish this article painting her as a violent extremist, you have to realize the cause and effect.

No.  *Angle* has to realize the effect of her remarks, which is rather my point.

She was being interviewed on a pro 2nd amendment radio program (check out LarsLarson.com) and talking to a right to carry audience, and the question was “where do you stand on right to carry?”
I take her to mean that a well-armed citizenry protects against tyranny.
Perhaps it *sounds* like Thomas Jefferson was an extremist in some people’s eyes also?

I forget.  Where did Jefferson suggest that if he lost to somebody in a free and fair election, that would constitute tyranny and justify “remedying” the results of that election with exercise of the Second Amendment?  Because that is the clear and obvious implication of Angle’s remark.  She’s not talking about some theoretical police state takeover in the remote future.  She’s saying, “I’m hoping that we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.”  Her implication is that if the vote does not cure the Harry Reid problems, then the Second Amendment (i.e. shooting people) would be a legitimate “remedy”.  That’s pretty far afield from “Do you support the right to carry?”  One can answer “yes” to that question without ever dragging the conversation over to the bizarre statement that if the vote does not cure our Harry Reid problems, then perhaps the gun will be the remedy.  One has to wonder what compelled her (on more than one occasion) to make that leap.

I doubt I will be reading you anymore. You are not a peacemaker yourself. Your mode of operation is to write an essay bound to make people mad so you can get into a blog-fight. You then use that opportunity to show your written swordsmanship, all-round knowledge and world-view.
Tired of it. Don’t bother to respond.

Mark, I think you’re the one making the leap here.  Step back and take a deep breath.  We’ll still be here when you get back.

No, what Thomas Jefferson ACTUALLY said was “it’s good for a country to have a revolution every twenty years” 

And no, what Sharron Angle ACTUALLY said was “if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies. They’re saying, ‘My goodness what can we do to turn this country around’ and I’ll tell ya, the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.” (By election, not coup.) “And it’s not just Nevadans that need to get in this game, we need to all over the nation begin to support those candidates that we believe in, ...”

I read that as, Harry Reid and the radical left want to take your guns away, vote them out of office. 

You (and the liberal left media,) read that as “If I don’t win the election, start shooting!”

Just because you impute it to her, she is not responsible for your sloppy translation.

But yeah, I agree with the other commenters that that’s not what she’s saying at all. She’s saying that keeping Reid in would be worse for Second Amendment rights than electing Senator Angle

How is she saying that?  How is anybody else here *saying* she’s saying that?  Every other poster here seems to me to be saying not “If Reid is elected he will take away Second Amendment rights” but (with Angle), “What are they arming for if it isn’t that they are so distrustful of their government? They’re afraid they’ll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment kinds of ways.”  She suggesting that we have to start firing guns to “remedy” the results of a wrong vote for Reid.  And now Jefferson is being invoked as though he would celebrate “Second Amendment Remedies” to a free and fair election that does not go the way a loser likes.

Again, I hold no brief for the ridiculous Reid, a functionary so inept that even his own son doesn’t want to be known as his relative.  But, come on… “second amendment *remedies*” if she loses to him?  Really?  This is *patriotism*?  To suggest opening fire if a free and fair election goes sour for some candidate?

No Kathy.  What she actually said was, “I’m hoping that we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.”

The perfectly reasonable rejoinder to this is, “A ‘cure’ is a ‘remedy’.  You appear, for all the world, to be saying that if the vote does not cure the Harry Reid problems, then the gun should be considered as the alternative cure, Ms. Angle.  If that’s not what you mean, what *do* you mean?  And if you didn’t mean to say that, why do you repeatedly use such language?”

No Mark.  You can interpret her remarks any way you want.  When you write a piece on it, and present your interpretation as FACT, you’ve gone too far.

When she actually says “If I loose the election, open fire!” then you can write a piece and say she said that.

YOU’VE GONE TOO FAR!

Question Sharron Angle’s strange and disturbing rhetoric and I’ve gone too far.  Got it.

Mark, why do you keep repeating the phrase “free and fair election”?  Are you afraid the Tea Party voters will somehow try to rig the results in their favor, like the Black Panther Party attempted to do in Philadelphia in 2008?  Relax.  In that unlikely event let me assure you the Obama DOJ will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law to redress the wrongs of the evil Tea Party.  There will be no dismissal as in the Black Panther case.  Liberals are the ones you should fear—they live for power and they won’t let go without a fight.  Maybe you should join Sharon Angle and buy a gun to protect yourself.  Just in case…

Mark, why do you keep repeating the phrase “free and fair election”?

Because that’s what I assume elections in America to be.  Which is why I don’t understand how somebody could talk about “second amendment remedies” if the vote doesn’t solve the “Harry Reid problem”.

I think a lot of confusion stems from a missing word in some Greek translations of Matthew 5:9.

We often see it as “???????? ?? ???????????”. But in the Smithus Textus Wessun Receptus version, the word “???????” is inserted between “??” and “???????????” clearly indicating that Jesus was calling the Colt Peacemakers blessed.

Mark,  I do not think it it possible to change the perceptions of those who disagree with your correct interpretation of Angle’s statement and her obvious implication of a violent response to an undesirable political outcome.
When feeling powerless and helpless result in anger or rage the choice is to seek peaceful or violent resolutions.  What comes from our mouths reveals what is in our hearts.  I see you, Mark, as bringing attention to what is in the heart of Angle that is potentially dangerous to her and others.  To deny this or dismiss Mark’s perception as wrong is a mistake based on one’s emotional attachment to a “pro-life” candidate.
How can one be a pro-life candidate who is unaware of the violence that is expressed through the spoken word?

When the government becomes tyrannical, the citizens may have to resort to “second amendment remedies.”  So let’s all get together and vote for candidates who won’t promote the “Harry Reid problem.”  Or am I just crazy?

Mark,
I cannot see how you come up with the conclusion that “She just said that if she loses a validly conducted democratic election to Harry Reid, it might well be time to start shooting people!? ”  Talk about putting words in someone’s mouth.  Have you been taking lessons from Alan Grayson?  Assuming your quotes are correct, she said two things:
a. “I’m hoping that we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies.”  and
b. “I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.”

Guess I’m insane and loony also because I agree with both statements.  She did not say to start shooting the day after the election.  The date to start using the 2nd Amendment remedies was future only with no specified date.  You supplied the date.  With the power this government has amassed and the people they surround themselves with, to say the day will never come is naive.  I’m not saying it will but I agree with her.  If we stay on the program with people like Harry Reid resulting in massive fiscal and unemployment problems, I truly believe it will come.  And the difference between the “Islamic lunatics” committing violence and the “Tea Party darlings” is the former would be acting in aggression and the latter would be in defense of our liberties which our elected officials have sworn to uphold.  Freedom of religion is one that quickly comes to mind.

We have every right to defend our *GOD*-given freedom, whether the threat comes from within our borders or without.  When government tries to take it away, we are compelled to fight for it.  The 2nd amendment is in place to ensure we are able to retain our liberty.  It would be nice if we could live in a world where all rights and freedoms were respected.  In case we’ve forgotten, armed insurrection is the exact same way this great country was founded.  (Which, by the way, gives us the license to write on these blogs without fear of loss of liberty.)  Blessed are the peace makers.  What about the tyrants?  How far do we let them go before we stop them? Or do we just roll over and say, “Here you go.  I’m not using my freedom.  You take it.”

A real “Second Amendment remedy” would be to call out a well-regulated militia to confront an armed insurrection.  The Second Amendment was intended to preserve such militia security service.  Those who think they see the words “personal self-defense,” “hunting,” or “right to insurrection” anywhere in the wording of the Second Amendment, either pro or con, have swallowed an “Emperor’s New Clothes” fairy tale.

Leif:

Indeed.  The history of Shay’s Rebellion (no relation) gives a picture of what militias were actually intended for by the Founders.  And though Jefferson (safe and comfy in France) had no big problems with watering the tree of liberty with somebody else’s blood, Washington was quite supportive of suppressing revolt against the State (such as it was under the Articles of Confederation) and Madison was quite direct: “Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power.”  The governor of Massachusetts evidently agreed, because he mustered a militia to go put down the Rebellion and seems to have cherished no notion that he was an enemy of freedom thereby.  The actual wording of the second Amendment is 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.

All well and good, but I seriously doubt Washington and Madison (and I know Lincoln) did not read that to mean that an inchoate mass of individual gun owners could therefore feel themselves justified in shooting people they decided were tyrants, merely because an election was lost.  This approach was tried in 1861 with unpleasant results.

So, are we talking national Guard here?  Is that the founders’ idea of a ‘well regulated militia’?

The Founders were men, not inspired biblical prophets.  The Constitution they created is a brilliant human document, but not suffused with prophetic insight for the ages.  So to ask if their mention of a well-regulated militia had in view any of our modern military arrangements is probably a waste of time.  To be sure, the National Guard is probably closer to anything else they may have had in mind.  But in fact, they had a deep distrust of any standing armies.  That mistrust remained an American habit until WWII made us a superpower and thrust upon us the temptation of Empire.  (Before WWII, our army was smaller than Romania’s.)  For the Founders, the notion of a militia was more or less a temporary mustering of citizen soldiers to deal with some danger to civil peace, whether foreign or domestic.  Now our defense budget is larger than the combined defense budgets of every nation on earth.  The Founders would have regarded that with horror.  One of the ironies of our present political situation is that the Left sees things in the Constitution (like the imaginary “right” to abortion), but the Right does so too (such the mandate to go abroad seeking monsters to slay (as Adams warned against).  Broadly speaking, the Left sees the Constitution as a “living document” commanding them to build the Great Society at home (at *vast* taxpayer expense) while the Right sees the Constitution as a “living document” commanding them to build the Great Society abroad at the point of the sword (again at vast taxpayer expense).  I can see no warrant for either project in the Constitution.

Mark,
“The history of Shay’s Rebellion (no relation) gives a picture of what militias were actually intended for by the Founders. “
I think the American Revolution would be a better example for a picture. 
And we’re not talking about an inchoate mass of individual gun owners feeling themselves justified in shooting people they decided were tyrants, merely because an election was lost.  We’re talking Hitler or Stalin levels of abuse of power to initiate it.

We’re talking Hitler or Stalin levels of abuse of power to initiate it.

You may be talking about that.  But either Angle or the people she is talking to seem to think that all that is needed to (perhaps) justify “second amendment remedies” is “Harry Reid problems”.  So again I ask, what is she talking about?  Does anybody (I tremble to ask) seriously believe that America 2010 experiencing Hitler or Stalin levels of abuse of power?  Does anybody seriously suggest that we are just about to experience that here?  If not, why talk about “second amendment remedies”?  If you went to a doctor for a sore throat and he mentioned, out of the blue, that it might be necessary at some point in the future to remove your lung and both your legs as a “remedy” in case the throat lozenges didn’t work, wouldn’t your want some clarity on whether you are really that sick or you doctor is that insane?

Mark,
“Does anybody (I tremble to ask) seriously believe that America 2010 experiencing Hitler or Stalin levels of abuse of power?  Does anybody seriously suggest that we are just about to experience that here?”
At the risk of being ridiculed by you.  With what I have witnessed with the people running this country and their background and associations and their own words, I honestly have to say that I feel it could get to those levels. Angle probably does too.  It’s because you don’t have the same level of mistrust of our government that her statement seems so strange and extreme to you.  I suspect the Germans and Russians never thought it would get to the point it did either.

I’m not trying to ridicule you.  I’m just trying to understand what conceivable basis you or Angle could have for seeing our country on the verge of a) outlawing of all political parties but the Democrats, b) Obama (or, even more incredibly, Harry Reid) seizing absolute control of the whole government and economy and jailing or executing any one who criticizes him, c) mass rallies and pogroms and book burning, d) the erection of a death camp systems or a gulag, e) engineered famines deliberately ordered toward the murder of milions of American citizens, f) mass experimentation on helpless undesirables, g) the establishment of a Gestapo and an SS tasked with the job of crushing opposition to the regime and ruthlessly torturing and murdering any citizens who offer resistance?

That’s just a smidge of what Hitler and Stalin levels of tyranny are actually like.  The notion that we are living or just about to be living under such a system due to *Harry Reid* or Obama seems to me to be a pure piece of sheer baseless panic.  I’m happy to oppose their policies as much as the next guy, but that notion that I have to believe the absurd terror that they are anything remotely close to Hitler or Stalin seems to me to be completely untethered from reality.  Pius described Hitler as “diabolical” and wrote a whole encyclical against Atheistic Communism.  Do we see Benedict, or indeed any bishop in the world, suggesting that the time is soon approaching when we must take up arms against Harry Reid or the inept Obama?  I think conservatives need to take deep cleansing breaths.

Spot on Mark, that is creepy.

When people believe their fears to be true it becomes a part of their identity and they suffer tremendously with the insecurity of living in this world attempting to protect themselves from anyone that is in disagreement with them or different from them.
The right and the left, as Mark clearly stated above, both experience distortions of what it is to be human resulting in horrible consequences.

No, Mark, we haven’t yet reached the levels of absolute government control that you describe, but that doesn’t mean we have nothing to worry about.  It goes back to the old how-to-boil-a-frog story.  You ever so slowly turn up the heat until pretty soon the frog is cooked before he even realizes it.  The size and scope of government have increased over the years until we’re just about at the point where it’s too late to go back.  We need to elect leaders who will turn down the heat on the pot that’s boiling us. Between the Harry Reids and the Sharron Angles, I know whose hands I’d rather have on the knob.

I never said we have nothing to worry about, David.

Between the Harry Reids and the Sharron Angles, I know whose hands I’d rather have on the knob.

Ginger: Listen. We’ll either die free chickens or we die trying.
Babs: Are those the only choices?
- Chicken Run

Happily, I don’t live in Nevada and don’t have to choose either of these people.

Seriously though, I wonder how many other people are so filled with panic that they seriously think Harry Reid—Harry Reid!—is just about to inaugurate a psychotic police state like Hitler’s or Stalin’s.  Frankly I find that sort of disengagement from reality as worrisome Reid’s and Obama’s ineptitude.  Prudence is one thing, but this terrified panic is the mother of a thousand rash decisions.

The more I look at this conversation, the more I can’t shake the sense that this is yet again Boomer narcissism at work.  We discovered sex!  We invented the conscience with our opposition to the Vietnam War.  Nobody ever heard of justice before we invented it in the Civil Rights movement!  And now, in Obama and Reid and our current dip in the economy, we Boomers stand bravely against foes great than HITLER and STALIN, WORLD WAR II AND THE GREAT DEPRESSION COMBINED!!!

No.  We don’t.  Get a grip, people.  Our generation isn’t really all that heroic, despite our constant habit of hype.  Sure, we face challenges and have to deal with them.  But this is not the Third Reich or Stalin’s USSR.  It’s just not.  It’s not just about to be.  Deep cleansing breaths.

No, she said we are at the time in history where we may need to. That has nothing to do with her election race. What do you think the 2nd Amendment was for? Deer hunting?
Yeah violence is so bad. What a modern notion. Do you call the popes of the Crusades lunatics? Americans during WWII? Hey buddy let me give you a hint, what you modern day milquetoasts call violence is what gave this country freedom in the first place, ended the holocaust, drove the Moors out of Spain. I can see this type of thought in Spain, “don’t talk about violence, turn the other cheek” (coming from one-verse Charlie’s)speaking to the Moors, “they’ll leave.” Lol. With this kind of thought Spain would be a Muslim country and it is this kind of thought that could lead modern nations down the same road. The examples of righteous anger and just wars are plentiful. As Dr. Warren Carroll correctly states when referring to Christ’s righteous anger driving the money changers out of the temple “it serves as an example that physical force is not intrinsically evil.
Of course we have here again name calling without really debating the issue. If you are going to call people lunatics then address the issue. Straw man straw man straw man. Typical tactics. Speak of leftist radicals of the 60’s to mask your truel leftist views. Can’t be put in the category of these “anti-intellectual” people from the “crazy right, got to make fun of them to make yourself feel better.

Mark,
I’m not a history major but I think I know what Hitler and Stalin levels of tyranny are actually like.  Your horrible litany of atrocities was nothing I was not aware of, and yes that is the level of abuses of power I implied.  I didn’t say it would start tomorrow. It may not even be Obama who would be the one to try to do it.  It could come from the right as a a backlash from the horrible misgovernment of the left.  But I don’t think it is disputable that Obama and the Democrats have set up a massive increase in the power through the federal government bureaucracy , most of it done in the name of compassion,  for someone to use to control our lives, just like Hitler did.  When you add to that his history of consistent communist/socialist/Marxist parents, mentors and friends, and similar such like minded appointments to his government, and I think people have a legitimate cause for major angst.  Are you so sure it can’t happen here?  I suspect the Germans before Hitler cemented his power kept saying “It won’t get any worse than this.”

How did it start in Germany?  Hitler did not just walk in doing the things you listed.  He used a terrible financial crisis created by the war and reparations and the people (primarily Christians), “gave him the keys to the car” to make the problems go away.  Today we have an unprecedented debt crisis hanging over our heads as well as most of the rest of the world.  The people running this country have shown themselves inept at best at solving the financial problems if not downright hopeful it turns worse so they can “not let a good crisis go to waste” and use it to hasten their beloved socialist utopia, the likes of which for some strange reason, typically always includes the annoying death of millions (no exaggeration necessary) of those who stand in the way.  Add to that the Muslim fanatics who hate us and want to kill us giving the government another avenue to use their new Republican and Democrat expanded counterterrorism power against us, and you recommend “deep cleansing breaths”. 

You really don’t get it.  We don’t want to be part of the generation that tells our kids, we didn’t do anything because we didn’t think it could happen, and by the time we could prove what was going on, it was too late.  Angle doesn’t want to be part of that either.

“Does anybody (I tremble to ask) seriously believe that America 2010 experiencing Hitler or Stalin levels of abuse of power?”

Did anybody in 1930-33 Germany seriously believe that Germany would experience Hitler’s abuse of powers and horrors? Yeah I guess a few did, the “lunatics.” Most were praising the regime, nominating him for a Noble Peace Prize, making him Time Man of the Year,if I’m not mistanken and holding the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. A mere 3 years before the outbreak of the most devastating war in human history and the horrors of the holocaust. And just for giggles, what pray tell is it that all tyrants including Hitler, Stalin,etc. have in common? One of their first acts is always the supression of gun rights. They always want to get the guns out of the hands of the populace. Wonder why that is? They start out by demeaning their opposition (calling them crazy) which in time terms to full on persecution.

p.s. By the way I’m not a “boomer,” I’m a college student in my 20’s.
And thanks Mia.

CP3o I am a history major and you are exactly right.

By the way I’m not a “boomer,” I’m a college student in my 20’s.

I can completely believe that.  I stand corrected.  Not just Boomers are afflicted with panic and narcissism that utterly detaches them from reality and leads to rash judgement.

Nobody here is talking about “suppression of gun rights”.  I’m simply talking about the amazing hyperventilation which suggests that “second amendment remedies” (i.e. shooting people or armed insurrection) is the solution should the vote not deal with “Harry Reid problems”.  And the hysteria in evidence here does not nothing to allay my fears about the craziness of some of Angle’s supporters—and her encouragement of them.

Did anybody in 1930-33 Germany seriously believe that Germany would experience Hitler’s abuse of powers and horrors? Yeah I guess a few did, the “lunatics.” Most were praising the regime, nominating him for a Noble Peace Prize, making him Time Man of the Year,if I’m not mistanken and holding the 1936 Olympics in Berlin.

Just to get a word in edgewise on a good hysterical rantm let me point out that there were, in fact, quite a number of critics of Hitler, both from the center and from the Communist Left.  I daresay quite a number of the latter were, in fact, lunatics.  That’s because merely opposing some bad politician does not make you a good politician.  Nobody ever nominated Hitler for a Nobel Peace Prize, so this is panic-stricken projection unhinged from reality. (Not that I think Obama deserved that ridiculous award).  As to the Man of the Year thing, only a fool or a deeply dishonest person could suppose for one second that this image of a Catherine wheel decorated with corpses and this story which denounced Hitler as a monster was some sort of journalistic celebration.

Let me be plain, during the Bush years there were any number of people on the Left doing what people like you are doing, young Mr. Abbot.  Remember “Bushitler”?  I’m old enough to.  It was ridiculous then and it is ridiculous now when allegedly serious Catholics do it.  By the time Hitler had been in power as long as Obama he didn’t have to worry about losing seats in the Reichstag midterm elections because *he had outlawed all other parties* and created a concentration camp system for all his political enemies.  To paraphrase the inimitable Kathy Shaidle’s rejoinder to Leftist panic-mongers, “If Obama is Hitler, why aren’t you a lampshade?”

Oh Markie…Where to begin?
Angle: I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry.-TRUE This not for someone who’s in the military.-TRUE This not for law enforcement.-TRUE This is for us.-TRUE And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. -TRUE This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical… -TRUE

Manders: If we needed it at any time in history, it might be right now.(By the way not Angle saying this)

Angle: Well it’s to defend ourselves.-TRUE And you know, I’M HOPING (IN NO WAY IS SHE PROMOTING VIOLENCE HERE, AND KNOW THIS IS NOT A VEILED THREAT ON HER PART) THAT WE’RE NOT GETTING to Second Amendment remedies. I HOPE THE VOTE WILL BE THE CURE FOR THE HARRY REID PROBLEMS(NOTE THAT SHE IS RESPONDING TO MANDERS IMPLICATION THAT SECOND AMENDMENT REMEDIES ARE ON THE HORIZON]

“How to put this delicately?  Is she insane? [NO]  She just said that if she loses a validly conducted democratic election to Harry Reid, it might well be time to start shooting people!? [NO,SHE DIDN’T], [WHAT KIND OF MENTAL GYMNASTICS DID YOU USE TO GET THIS?]  You might think this loony remark was a slip of the tongue.”[NO, I HOPE YOUR LOONY REMARK WAS A SLIP OF THE TONGUE]

And you can actually say to me that “Not just Boomers are afflicted with panic and narcissism that utterly detaches them from reality and leads to rash judgement.” I BELIEVE YOUR STATEMENTS IN RESPONSE TO ANGLES REMARKS MAKES IT CLEAR WHO THE ONE IS THAT IS AFFLICTED WITH RASH JUDGEMENT AND DETACHMENT FROM REALITY? YOU ARE INSERTING WORDS INTO HER MOUTH BASED ON YOUR PRE-CONCEIVED NOTIONS OF HER AND “HERS” IDEOLOGY WHICH PROVES YOUR RASH JUDGEMENT. AN IDEOLOGY THAT IS SO BENEATH YOU RIGHT? JUST CALL THEM RIGHT WING LUNATICS. WHO IS THE ONE AFFLICTED WITH “NARCISSISM” AND “AMAZING HYPERVENTILATION” HERE?

Nobody here is talking about “suppression of gun rights”. [BY “NOBODY HERE” I ASSUME YOU MEAN YOU AND NOT THE OTHER POSTS, BECAUSE THIS IS EXACTLY WHERE THE DISCUSSION IS]

“And the hysteria in evidence here does not nothing to allay my FEARS about the craziness of some of Angle’s supporters”[LETS JUST THROW IN “PANIC” TO BOOT, KINDA LIKE THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK. SAYING HER SUPPORTERS ARE FILLED WITH RASH JUDGEMENT, NARCISSISM, AND PANIC]

God bless you, David.  Here’s hoping you have a good weekend.

“As Jonathan Karl reported earlier this month, she told the Reno Gazette-Journal that people are quietly stocking up on ammunition in case they need to resort to insurrection or, as she put it, a “fight for liberty.”

“What is a little bit disconcerting and concerning is the inability for sporting goods stores to keep ammunition in stock,” she told the newspaper. “That tells me the nation is arming. What are they arming for if it isn’t that they are so distrustful of their government? They’re afraid they’ll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment kinds of ways?” she said.

EVERYTHING SHE SAID HERE IS TRUE. PEOPLE ARE STOCKING UP ON AMMUNITION. AND WHAT’S MORE THE STATEMENT YOU USED TO CONVICT HER ACTUALLY CLEARS HER. SHE SAID THESE FACTS ARE “DISCONCERTING AND CONCERNING.” AND YOU SAY THAT SHE IS CALLING FOR AN ARMED INSURRECTION. PEOPLE REALLY DO SEE WHAT THEY WANT TO I GUESS.TALK ABOUT PROJECTION.

“So… let me get this straight.  If some Islamic lunatic exhorts the faithful to commit violence, that’s a threat to national security.  But if a Tea Party darling threatens “Vote for me or somebody could get shot”, that’s patriotism?” [Seriously?]  Have people lost their minds? [GOOD QUESTION]

AND IN RESPONSE TO ME YOU SAY: “Just to get a word in edgewise on a good hysterical rantm [AGAIN INSINUATE THAT THE OPPOSITION IS UNHINGED, RIGHT OUT OF A LEFTISTS’ HANDBOOK] let me point out that there were, in fact, quite a number of critics of Hitler, both from the center and from the Communist Left. [THE STATEMENT ABOUT LUNATICS WAS RHETORICAL, MARK, BUT TO SPEAK TO THIS WHAT WERE THEY CRITICIZING HITLER FOR?]

I daresay quite a number of the latter were, in fact, lunatics. [I AGREE, AGAIN TONGUE IN CHEEK]  That’s because merely opposing some bad politician does not make you a good politician. [TRUE, AND OPPOSING A POLITICIAN SHOWS WHERE ONES TRUE SYMPATHIES LIE, NO MATTER HOW BAD YOU THINK ANGLE MAY BE, HOW COULD YOU SLAM HER WHEN HER OPPONENT IS HARRY REID? ANGLE IS MUCH MORE IN LINE WITH CATHOLIC DOCTRINE THAN HE. WE ARE ALWAYS ADVISED TO CHOOSE THE LESSER OF THE TWO EVILS]

“Nobody ever nominated Hitler for a Nobel Peace Prize,” [ACTUALLY THEY DID. IN 1939 AND WHETHER THE MAN DID IT AS A JOKE IS IMMATERIAL CONSIDERING THAT MANY PEOPLE BELIEVED IT WHICH ONLY FURTHER PROVES MY POINT THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULACE WAS BLIND TO THE DANGERS HITLER POSED] so this is panic-stricken projection unhinged from reality. [IM NOT PANIC-STRICKEN MARK YOU SEEM TO BE THE ONE IN A PANIC ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF AN INSURRECTION. “PROJECTION” GO AHEAD THROW THE GREAT UPHOLDER OF CATHOLIC TRUTH, FRAUD OOPS I MEAN FREUD, AT ME]
Let me be plain, during the Bush years there were any number of people on the Left doing what people like you are doing, young Mr. Abbot.  Remember “Bushitler”? (PEOPLE LIKE ME)  FRANKLY IT REALLY DOESN’T BOTHER ME, MY GOD IS JESUS CHRIST FIRST AND FOREMOST AND NOT MY COUNTRY. I PUT EVERYTHING IN HIS HANDS. BUT AT THE SAME TIME I AM CONSERVATIVE AND TRADITIONAL (BUT I DO NOT FALL FOR THE FALSE LEFT/RIGHT PARADIGM) AND DO NOT WANT TO SEE WELL MEANING PEOPLE MALIGNED LIKE YOU HAVE DONE THE TEA PARTY. A TEA PARTY BY THE WAY THAT AGREES WITH THE MAJORITY OF CATHOLIC MORAL DOCTRINE. AND NO THEY ARE NOT NEOCONS WHO WANT TO ESTABLISH WORLD EMPIRE, SEEMS TO ME YOU WOULD LIKE THIS KIND OF CONSERVATIVE. CORRECT ME IF I’M WRONG BUT MY FIRST IMPRESSIONS OF YOU WAS OF ONE THAT CONSIDERS HIMSELF CATHOLIC FIRST AND FOREMOST AND ONE THAT DOES NOT FALL FOR THE LEFT/RIGHT PARADIGM. BUT LATELY SOME OF YOUR POSTS ARE MAKING ME RECONSIDER THIS ASSESSMENT. GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR.

P.S. AS FAR AS OBAMA BEING HITLER I’M ONLY POINTING OUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT THERE COULD BE GREAT TYRANNY COMING OUR WAY IF WE CONTINUE DOWN THIS PATH THAT WE ARE ON, THIS COMES FROM THE MANY LESSONS OF HISTORY. I’M NOT GOING TO SIMPLY DISMISS IT OUTRIGHT BECAUSE IT SOUNDS TO CRAZY TO BELIEVE. ALSO YOU SAY*he had outlawed all other parties* AND I ASK HOW WAS HE ABLE TO DO THIS? AND FINALLY YOU SAY “To paraphrase the inimitable Kathy Shaidle’s rejoinder to Leftist panic-mongers, [LEFTIST PANIC-MONGERS?] “If Obama is Hitler, why aren’t you a lampshade?” [YEAH, BECAUSE THESE SORT OF THINGS HAPPEN OVERNIGHT…][REALLY?]

You too Mark. Just fun and games right nothing personal

Mark Shea is the only one making sense on this thread. The rhetoric of the Right today is just as crazy as that of the Left just a few years ago. The Right has no remedies for the Left’s pathologies because they are both sick with the same disease.

I think there is also a slight problem with how people are interpreting the second amendment.  In the amendment it says that 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.  It seems to me that people like Sharron Angle and a lot of people posting here are ignoring the first part.  Yes the founders believed that an armed populace was necessary for keeping the Government from becoming tyrannical, but they also thought preventing this tyranny should fall to regulated militias, not just every man on the block. It seems to me that people like Sharron Angle are making the situation in this country worse, talking in ways that seem to me to promote violence.  The government has been steadily increasing in size for a long time now (Both Bush and Obama are guilty of this), but you didn’t see these people complaining until the person elected was from the other party.  Now, I do not like the Democratic Party, and I do not approve of what they are doing, but it is ridiculous the way politics work in this country “It is OK when we do it, but when you do it we need to revolt!”  I really agree with Mark, people just need to calm down.

Adding to my previous post, how can this candidate claim to be pro-life when she seems to be advocating violent revolution?

***Adding to my previous post, how can this candidate claim to be pro-life when she seems to be advocating violent revolution? ***

I believe your sentance should read : “How can this woman who is staunchly against abortion claim to be pro-life when other people twist her words around to “if I don’t win, start shootin’ boys!”

Absurd!

Boy this article really set off a firestorm. While
I agree with Mark sometimes I can’t
find myself agreeing with him here. I’m goin
to have to side with David Abott and the
others on this one. Wow, somebody got taken to the
woodshed. Lol

Agree with your assessment 100% Jay.

Yeah, I mean I agree with Mark a lot of the time
but he really seems to be out in
“left” field here. Pardon the pun.

Mark ridicules those of us who think Reid and his ilk are threatening the Republic, saying we are disengaged from reality if we think the hapless Harry Reid—Harry Reid!—could inaugurate a police state here. Yet he seems to think Sharron Angle—Sharron Angle!—is poised to lead armed insurrection if the voters fail to solve the “Harry Reid problems.”  And Mark calls us panic stricken…

This is a perfect example of what makes people sick. Politicians and the followers who worship them seek to use other peoples words to their political advantage, at least in their own heads, because they can’t discuss their records. But, it wont work. Because people feel the pain of the decisions of these irresponsible “public servants”. Higher taxes, no jobs, escalation of the social nightmares like abortion, forcing people to pay for their expensive and evil social policies, exalting those who are corrupt and pursuing evil policies.. People have had enough. And will vote as such later this fall. Many encumbents will lose ther jobs in early November.. and rightfully so. Representatives should work for the people, not for themselves. They don’t nor will they ever understand this, even when they travel home from Washington in mid January. They will be thinking only of their greatest client, themselves.

Would love to see a similar column written about Jerry Brown and his recent escapades. Somehow I don’t think that will happen..

I totally agree with Mark.  Your fear is blinding you.  Laws will not stop abortion.  We have about 60 million Catholics in this country who can stop abortion without changing laws, but, through loving sacrificial action can change hearts.
One example, have a national campaign to have 5 million catholics give one thousands dollars each to build major facilities in major cities to provide health care and social support for mothers and their unborn children.  This could not be ignored and it would show how much we really care about helping them instead of protesting against them.
It is love instead of conflict.  That is 50 billion dollars to save lives and protect pregnant women in a unified action.
Why couldn’t this be done?

No, laws will reduce abortion. Not to zero but they will go down.  How it is beneficial for people now to be forced to pay for the abortions with their tax dollars?

Why cant it be done? Probably because too few Catholics care about abortion. We seem to care more about our possessions. Hearts need to change. True people of God need to support pro-life candidates by voting for them, and reminding them they will be held accountable on this issue when they run for another term. If we don’t vote for pro-life candidates because we foolishly believe that laws don’t impact abortion, we are instead standing silently by and giving our support to it. Even the pro-abortion people know this. We are blindly excusing our representatives on issues that matter to God - who gives life. To that, God will hold us all accountable.

@ Ron King
We have about 60 million Catholics in this country who can stop abortion without changing laws
60% of Catholics in this country voted for the most radical pro-abortion administration in the United States history.  Why?  Because they are poorly catechized.

That is why I find it so disturbing that Mark Shea wrote this type of article in the National Catholic Register.  It’s more of what I would expect in the National Catholic REPORTER!

Score another point for the pro-aborts!

Both of you are wrong with your pessimism.  This approach has not been attempted and you dismiss it without an attempt.  You rely on government laws when you need to rely on the strategies that come from faith.  Is there no creative thinking in our faith that is able to bring all of the different ministries together for a common purpose of helping mothers and their children, instead of being fragmented in the work of their individual ministries?

Both of you are wrong with your pessimism
No, Ron, I have not dismissed anything.  I am very active in my local chapter of Right to Life, and I am a volunteer at my local Chris Pregnancy Center.  There are Chris Pregnancy Centers all over the United States (praise God,) so I am not dismissing your thought.  It is an intrigal part of correcting the problem.  But for Catholics to continue to vote in RADICAL pro-aborts just shows that they are uneducated when it comes to understanding the grave evil of abortion.

We need BOTH sides of the coin to overturn Roe V. Wade!

That is why I find it so disturbing that Mark Shea wrote this type of article in the National Catholic Register.  It’s more of what I would expect in the National Catholic REPORTER!

Score another point for the pro-aborts!

I have never written and will never write a word in favor of abortion.  It is pure calumny to suggest I have.  What I have done is say that merely calling oneself pro-life is not a license for saying any crazy thing you like.  Suggesting “second amendment remedies” might be on the table should the vote not deal with our Harry Reid problems is crazy and irresponsible.

As Posted by The Barrister on Oct. 8th

She did NOT say that losing an election means that the government is tyrannical (and therefore to “start shooting people”). That’s calumny, Mark, and it’s unbecoming of a Catholic commentator/journalist.

Seems to me the pot is calling the kettle black.

“Suggesting “second amendment remedies” might be on the table should the vote not deal with our Harry Reid problems is crazy and irresponsible. ”

Mark, I believe enough people have given logical arguments as to why what she said might be taken in a different light and not be so “crazy and irresponsible”.  For you to just keep repeating your claim and derogatory name calling with no acknowledgment that there may be another way of considering it leads me to the conclusion that you have too strong a bias against the Tea Party in general and Sharon Angle in particular and are not capable of having an open mind on this issue. You are now in my mind just slandering her with words she did not say and reading intent that was not there.  I now just consider it unprofessional and un-Christian journalism.

I probably should have heeded alcie’s posting on Friday, Oct 8, 2010 11:18 AM (EST): “I doubt I will be reading you anymore. You are not a peacemaker yourself. Your mode of operation is to write an essay bound to make people mad so you can get into a blog-fight. You then use that opportunity to show your written swordsmanship, all-round knowledge and world-view. Tired of it.”

I hope Harry Reid appreciates your invaluable support.  They usually have to pay big time to get someone to smear their opponents like this, and you do it for free and from a position they could never hope to come from, the National Catholic Register.  Since we’re into name calling, I consider helping Harry Reid in this election “crazy and irresponsible” for a good Catholic.  Is it any wonder Catholics are so impotent in politics. 

God bless Sharon Angle and all the other Tea Partiers for having the guts to get out there and try to change the"crazy and irresponsible” course the government is taking us on and for having to put up with the mean spirited garbage like your article.

Kathy, I know about crisis pregnancy centers.  I am talking about developing healthcare centers with day care and counseling and educational assistance and housing all in one place for pregnant women in every major city in the U.S. to begin with.
The scope of this would be so huge it would attract positive attention from all sides because it would exhibit a level of care that would be outside the government and run by the members of the church.
From an old movie, “Build and they will come.”
I don’t think you see what I see as possible.  I am using a different coin than you.

Ronald,

You seem to be missing my point.  Your idea is great, go ahead and implement it!  I’m behind you!

However, if Catholics are going to continue to vote in radical pro-aborts that further use MY tax dollars to fund abortion, there is a *bit* of a disconnect.  Agree?

CP3o, very well stated!

And I appreciate everything David Abbot said as well.

Kathy,
Catholics do not vote pro-abort.  They vote to improve social conditions which they hope will then decrease or prevent abortions.  Now, I am not saying this is a correct strategy, but improvement in social support and healthcare coincide with decreased abortions.
What I am saying is the leaders of our faith must unify under the strategy I stated above or if they come up with something better then implement it.  It is the leadership that directs the faith and if they are dependent on political process to implement change then they lead us in the wrong direction.
It is faith that changes the social structures and with all catholics united in building these facilities with our own resources imagine the light it would shine on the culture.  As it is now we are fragmented into thousands of caring ministries without the unification we need to exhibit the true love of our faith for everyone.  Instead each individual is attempting to build their own ministry and their energies and resources are concentrated in that particular area and thousands of fires are being fought at the same time and weakening the expression of our faith.
If I am the enemy my strategy would be to cause chaos in every social situation so as to spread out the forces of my opponent and weaken them with distractions.
I cannot understand why our leaders in our faith cannot see this.

Ronald, I’ll let Fr. John Corapi explain it to you:
Any candidate for political office, Catholic or otherwise, who is in favor of intrinsically evil things (abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, etc), votes for them, or otherwise funds or furthers their cause, cannot be supported in any way by a Catholic who wishes to
remain Catholic in fact, not just in name. Catholic office holders, whether presidents,senators, congress men or women, or judges at any level must adhere to Catholic teaching or run the risk of separating themselves from the Body of Christ. In such egregious and chronic cases of gross moral evil such as instituting and perpetuating abortion and the
structures of sin that surround it, it is quite probable that such Catholic officials are excommunicated in virtue of the acts themselves. A latae sententiae (automatic)excommunication is likely triggered when they vote for laws, funding, and structures that enable and perpetuate such obvious and egregious evil (Cf. Code of Canon Law, Canons 1364,1398; Canon 1329, par. #2). They are in turn forbidden from approaching the sacraments as the result (Cf. Catechism of Catholic Church #1463).

A few friends & acquaintances ‘confronted me’ with that very quote from Sharon Angle, since I guess I’m the novelty Tea Party supporter in the largely progressive-Christian social circles I run in. (In reality, I had to google to find out who the heck she was since I don’t track candidates I can’t personally vote for/against).

My reply to all of them is basically, “Whether or not that is a very *Christian* interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, I can’t find any conclusive arguments that it is anything other than a very *American* interpretation, and most likely that of the Founding Fathers themselves. For better or worse.” Our nation was founded by violent means and it’s pointless to pretend otherwise. If people feel the need to argue against that, then go all the way and argue against the 2nd Amendment in toto, but don’t get anachronistic on the Bill of Rights and pretend it says anything other than “Once a Revolutionary nation, always a Revolutionary nation.”

Kathy,  I know what Fr. Corapi said.  He still does not offer an alternative which unites all Catholics under one goal. 
An example of what I mean about creating a structure that people are attracted to is when I was diagnosed with esophageal cancer in March of this year.  My doctor told me to go to the University of Washington Medical Center about 250 miles away to get the treatment because of their excellent reputation in treatment of this type of cancer.  I saw the best surgeon there and he referred me to the oncologist he trusted most at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.  I met people from different states and different countries coming there for treatment because it is one of the best in the world. 
We as Catholics have an opportunity to build facilities like that which will provide complete care and support for mothers and their children and create a reputation that will draw others to join us in something so great.  St. Padre Pio built such a facility in Italy as an example and it was totally privately funded.
If this was a goal of the Catholic leadership all Catholics would unite under this because they would see the positive impact it would have on the entire country.
Instead of condemning others we could ask them to join us in this cause to create something new that would be a true light of expression of our faith.
I’ll bet if Father Corapi would propose this idea he would win over Catholics he disagrees with.
Think outside the box.

Ronald King—are you suggesting that Catholics consider building hospitals?  I think they (we) have done so for some time.

Corapi doesn’t rule out this idea, but he says it’s evil to vote/support abortion, regardless of what other “good” those people/policies achieve.

Ronald, first I hope that your treatments are going well, and you make a full recovery.  Cancer is the scare we are all afraid to face.  I pray for your courage, comfort, and strength during treatments, and for your full recovery, to be cancer free.

The point I am making with the quote from Fr. Corapi is that a true Catholic CANNOT vote for a pro-abort politician.  If they do, they are Catholic in name ONLY!  (He also said in a lecture that if you do vote for a pro-abort, then the blood from the children killed will be on your hands also.  Very scary thought to be held accountable for that choice.)

Lastly, I think you idea is a great one.  Do what you can to get it implemented.  You can contact Fr. Corapi through his website.  You will be happy to know that there really are many, many grass roots support systems in place for unplanned pregnancies.  One more “mega center” to help would be wonderful.  I really don’t think Fr. Corapi would be the person to implement it.  His health is very poor, and he is very busy with his evangelization.  But…it couldn’t hurt to try.  If he cannot help you, keep trying until you find someone who can.

Hank, I am not suggesting building hospitals but facilities specifically for women and their unborn children to meet all their needs in one place.

Kathy, Thank you for your comments and prayers.  That is a good idea with Father Corapi.  This movement would need someone dynamic like him.  I am cancer free after 6 weeks of radiation and chemo and then an esophagectomy in July.  Now I am attempting to gain an appetite and gain the weight that I lost.
This idea came to me in the midst of treatment and how we must sacrifice everything for Him and the life He brings to us.  I do not see voting and politics and politicians as a means to stop the killing from conception to our natural end.
Thanks again Kathy.  God Bless You.

Ronald King—You “do not see voting and politics and politicians as a means to stop the killing from conception to our natural end.”  Do you think that laws (which are determined by politics and politicians) have no effect on behavior?  Do you think that the number of abortions would be the same regardless of its legality or illegality?.  What about other activities?  Rape, murder, theft—the laws against these things have no relationship to their frequency?  Someone said that the law is the great teacher, meaning that it instructs the population about acceptable behavior.  I believe this to be true in many ways.  That is why “life” issues are my highest priority when I go to the voting booth.

I vote for life also and “...meet the new boss same as the old boss” results.  Who is the completion of the law?  The law was a gift of love from God for guidance towards us loving one another and Him.  Look what happened with the law.  Christianity is the Christ on the Cross and our faith grew outside human law.
Look at all the prisons we have built and look at all the evil crimes that continue to be committed, especially against women.  Law hasn’t stopped the violence in the world that influences women to be afraid to bring children into the world.
We men must be active healers and create institutions of safety and become peacemakers.  Laws change because hearts change.
Get 5,000,000 catholics to give $1,000 each and the world will begin to understand what kind of peacemakers we are and what we are capable of outside of politics.  Our faith is not dependent on politics it is dependent on Christ.

This is just latest article I’ve read from Shea that makes me wonder how and why a once respected Catholic commentator has strayed so far into the kook left realm.  His article Comfort the Afflicted at Inside Catholic was one of the most offensive, insulting and dishonestly biased pieces I’ve read in some time and this one isn’t far behind.  Of course he wouldn’t be able to maintain the charade of faithful Catholic by coming right out and supporting pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage Democrats but nothing to prevent him from working the other end and maligning their Republican opponents, right?

Even if one accepts his misrepresentation of the context, let’s play a little game shall we; I don’t know Mark is she insane?  Were Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton insane when they remarked about the tree of liberty being refreshed with the blood of tyrants?

As I type this the state of New York and others left leaning election boards are actively blocking the sending of absentee ballots to overseas military voters while “community organizers” have already been caught trying to dump fake ballots in areas where close races are expected. IGs are investigating allegations that the current administration is enforcing civil rights laws based on race not the merits of the case as the basis and the IRS disclosure of private financial data to the White House for use in smear campaigns of opponents and our Barack Obama is on record saying that the judges he appoints will use “empathy” race, background and social standing to decide cases not the law.

“validly conducted democratic election” you say Mark, huh? 

So in your estimable opinion Mark when IS the appropriate time to start considering the Catholic teaching of the validity of civil war; after they close down opposition talk radio, Fox News, shutdown all the internet sites with opposing views and intimidate everyone into silence?

Or am I obligated to wait until his adviser and frequent visitor to the White House William Ayers sends his “Civilian Corps” to collect me as one of the 25 million people that he estimates poses a threat to their Marxist revolution that needs to be exterminated?

Maybe I should just wait for those Al Qaeda “Good Samaritans” you spoke of and seem to think so highly of to come along and help me instead?

Why are you so afraid?

This is just latest article I’ve read from Shea that makes me wonder how and why a once respected Catholic commentator has strayed so far into the kook left realm.  His article Comfort the Afflicted at Inside Catholic was one of the most offensive, insulting and dishonestly biased pieces I’ve read in some time and this one isn’t far behind.  Of course he wouldn’t be able to maintain the charade of faithful Catholic by coming right out and supporting pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage Democrats but nothing to prevent him from working the other end and maligning their Republican opponents, right?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that I would *ever* support abortion or gay marriage?  Cuz I have a paper trail a thousand miles long that makes it clear I wouldn’t.  Indeed, as I have made clear multiple times, I will *never* vote for a candidate who supports grave and intrinsic evil.  The problem is, that means I usually can’t support either party.

Even if one accepts his misrepresentation of the context, let’s play a little game shall we; I don’t know Mark is she insane?  Were Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton insane when they remarked about the tree of liberty being refreshed with the blood of tyrants?

Then you are seriously saying we are ruled by tyrants?  You’re sending a mixed message, dude.  “She didn’t say what she obviously said and besides she was right to say it.”  Make up your mind.

As I type this the state of New York and others left leaning election boards are actively blocking the sending of absentee ballots to overseas military voters while “community organizers” have already been caught trying to dump fake ballots in areas where close races are expected. IGs are investigating allegations that the current administration is enforcing civil rights laws based on race not the merits of the case as the basis and the IRS disclosure of private financial data to the White House for use in smear campaigns of opponents and our Barack Obama is on record saying that the judges he appoints will use “empathy” race, background and social standing to decide cases not the law.

“validly conducted democratic election” you say Mark, huh?

So we are not only ruled by tyrants, but there is a giant left wing conspiracy?  Didn’t Lefties talk this way in 2000?  Sorry, it’s still crazy talk.

So in your estimable opinion Mark when IS the appropriate time to start considering the Catholic teaching of the validity of civil war; after they close down opposition talk radio, Fox News, shutdown all the internet sites with opposing views and intimidate everyone into silence?

You seriously believe this is imminent?  Lucky you aren’t a kook like me.

Or am I obligated to wait until his adviser and frequent visitor to the White House William Ayers sends his “Civilian Corps” to collect me as one of the 25 million people that he estimates poses a threat to their Marxist revolution that needs to be exterminated?

Yes.  Keep bringing that voice of sanity to counteract nutjobs like me.  We are on the verge of mass extermination and only a true patriot and Catholic like you can stop it.  That’s the sober voice of clear-headed judgment this country needs.  Not a hysteric like me complaining about some Senator-wannabe irresponsible remarks that might inflame somebody like, oh, a crazy person who thinks Bill Ayers is just about to massacre 25 million people.  How could the suggestion of “second amendment remedies” to such psyches possibly be called reckless?

Maybe I should just wait for those Al Qaeda “Good Samaritans” you spoke of and seem to think so highly of to come along and help me instead?

Your keen eye has seen through me.  I am *all about* celebration of abortion, gay marriage, and, of course, mass murdering terrorists.  St. Jean Vianney, move over.  We have another saint with the charism of soul reading in our midst.

Sheesh!

By the way, Paul: since the whole *purpose* of that paraphrase of the Parable of the Good Samaritan in “Comfort the Afflicted” was to show how scandalous and offensive it was to its original audience (not to celebrate butchers), I guess I can take comfort in the fact that you at least grasped the offense even though you completely missed the point.  Here’s hoping you learn to read real soon.

“By the way, Paul: since the whole *purpose* of that paraphrase”

The problem Mark is that some of us with more than a few decades under our belts know that commentators such as as yourself can have a stated purpose to their work which can serve to mask the hidden purpose.

You could have written that parable piece casting any number of groups or no specific groups at all into the roles and yet you chose to cast a Republican (not a Democrat) as the one who ignores the suffering and Al Qaeda as the good Samaritan. It’s probably just a coincidence that choosing a Republican feeds into the Democrats talking points that Republicans lack compassion for the poor and suffering, right?

In this article you once again make an unfavorable comparison of a Republican implying that her comments about the understood meaning of the Second Amendment is somehow akin to Al Qaeda calls for violence against innocent non-Muslims.

Tell us Mark, what was the purpose of invoking the name of Jesus Christ and our understanding of him as peacemaker in the title of a political hit piece aimed at Sharon Angle that contained not a single theological or related argument?

No Mark you would never support a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage candidate (which is what I said) and you a have paper trail clearly demonstrating that… but your recent additions to that paper trail make it just as clear that you have an axe to grind with regards Republicans and won’t hesitate to smear them in any way you can even if it means a vastly inferior candidate like Harry Reid benefits from it.

Paul:

Seriously, instead of reading between the lines, just read the lines.  I criticized Angle not because I think her comparable to Al Quaeda (?!) but because I thought her rhetoric grossly irresponsible, a conviction you only help to bolster with your hysterical paranoia about some plot to exterminate 25 million Americans.

As to my reference to the GOP fact finding congresscritter in the parable: I know my audience.  The reader of Inside Catholic are, by and large, conservatives, not liberals.  Since the point of the parable was the Jesus scandalized the home tribe, it would hardly make sense to tell the parable in such a way that conservatives could all congratulate themselves, would it?  As I say, you’ve completely missed the point.

Regarding my mysterious agenda, it’s not really all that mysterious, I’ve made it clear how I relate my faith any my politics here.  Turns out my faith has everything to do with my political views.  So please, stop talking as though somebody made you bishop and invested you with the authority to declares who’s really a Catholic, simply because I offend a few of your tribal political pieties.  I believe the teaching of the Church.  Period.  If the pieties of either party are offended by that, so much the worse for either party.