I have been discussing a few things with people for the last few days because of some decision in a state of a country that i don’t live in. Makes me laugh a little. Because a couple of days ago, it wasn’t really being spoken about. But the issue still existed.
I want to illustrate two things and see where that gets me.
Number one – democracy is not Gods best.
No where in the bible do you find the blue print of democracy. The trinity isn’t a democracy. Its holy. It is perfectly relational? Do I tongue in cheek think that the three members of the trinity discuss things and disagree on certain designs? Maybe. But are they relational perfect anyway? YES. More then our peon brains understand.
Democracy is a stunted version of what God envisioned for government. A very stunted version. And although most of the conservative right of the western world has convinced themselves and the rest of humanity that capitalism is Gods best, that is also a fallacy. Capitalism works in a supply and demand language, collecting as much as one can. Gods kingdom works on a giving and receiving mentality. Balance. Not consumptive excess.
So when one argues that God wants us to uprise and call on our governments to outlaw gay marriage, it makes me laugh. Because it makes Jesus look bad. When we call on our governments to give more in international aid, it makes me die a little inside, as we facebook our friends sitting next to us, buy our retardedly expensive cars that drive on a fuel that will cease to exist in 40 years and think ‘i have no money to help’.
Christ attacked
- The spiritual elite – the hypocrites.
- The pagans that got in the way of the gentiles having access to God in the courts.
- and Peter.
- aaaaaand technically Satan by destroying the enemies power at the cross.
Why do we think we can attack sinners when Jesus called for no rocks to be thrown, no judgements to be made, and no stumbling blocks put in their way.
Where would one find a bigger stumbling block then presenting a Jesus that hates people and protests friendship even going as far as picketing funerals with signs that speak of God hating fags. Does God really hate fags?
Back to the point. Taking Australia for example, through wise choices and intelligent living we could each afford to personally send financial support to the developing world, making sure everyone can eat. Aid money accounted for. If the body of Christ took to loving and servant-hearted community, we would fully exemplify the freedom of Gods love, as opposed to carbon copying the world in our day to day lives and saving Jesus for the church service. We are a tribal people of significant influence over life and love. We need not mere nation state puppet governments, who can neither legislate morality or stop love from changing the world.
Point 2
If Jesus was invited to a gay wedding, would he go?
As he walks in he begins to teach people how to live abundantly. He dances hard, he drinks wisely, he has crazy conversations, he’s honest and real and affirms people deeply. he becomes the king of the party because he is the best partyer. and people are drawn to his freedom-from-fear-of man. He walks out of that wedding with more people following him then if he stayed at home angry that gay people get to marry.
Secondly, if God calls us to not judge people outside of the ‘church’ could it be because he wants us soft hearted so that the holy spirit can move? But if we are elitist, judgmental – we toe the line of broken-relationship or ‘sin’. Let God do what he does best – healing the broken, freeing the captive. Hes much better at it then our sinful hearts, hands and feet.
The last few days i’ve heard scripture quoted as the reason we should out law ‘the gays’ as if a law would stop people falling in love. Does the fact that divorces happen stop you from being in a committed loving marriage? Does the law that permits tobacco being sold to people mean you have to be addicted to it or smoke at all? The law means crud-all when you are a free man. The law is for the guilty. But so is human non law.
If pedophilia wasn’t against the law does that mean we let people abuse our kids? FRAG NO.
And no i am not making a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. They are two completely different things. Pedophilia just seems to be the universal moral absolute. #pointmade
Lastly, to those who are already formulating comments to do with ‘But God says homosexuality is wrong, we must stamp it out’ God’s perfection speaks of everything less then holiness is wrong. We were designed for relational perfection. Pointing fingers is the echo from the garden of eden when Adam first felt uncomfortable being naked of Gods holiness. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil means we compare, judge, become prideful and faux humble.
God wants YOU, reader, to be able to love uncomfortably, and unceasingly.
What an incredible few days it has been, on many fronts. What a weekend it was for Mr. President. A very gutsy man with balls of steel and a resolve just the same. Who knew from Adam what was going on in his head over the weekend seeing him traveling in the U.S. and yukking it up at the Correspondents dinner on Saturday night.
And who knew what Sunday would bring … I just cannot imagine.
I am sure that Mr. Obama’s stock has risen over the past few days. This kill shot was something that I think will translate into better numbers and even help him in the long run for re-election. At least I hope that is what happens. That’s all we need is for some jamokey republican asshole to win an election, God forbid.
At this point I think the White House is channeling some Ricky Ricardo when he says to Lucy “You got some ‘splainin to do!” Pakistan is not going to skate away with this gigantic intelligence flub. Someone was protecting Osama. Someone must have known he was there, I mean it’s pretty clear from all the information that has been released about this event.
*** *** *** ***
We have had a Royal Wedding, The beatification of John Paul II in Rome, the killing of Osama bin Laden and an election here in Canada. The fallout from the election is huge. The Orange wave came to Quebec and took the province by storm. There were incredible losses for the Bloq. The Bloq leader lost his seat in an upset, and in the end resigned from his position as party leader, not to mention the Bloq lost party status in the House of Parliament. You must have at least 12 seats to be afforded party status, and the Bloq lost in a bloodbath last night. So the Bloq is all but kaput. So much for that referendum.
Mr. Layton won a huge number of ridings here in Quebec. Many freshman young M.P’s are going to Ottawa, and we are so proud of the huge wins by the NDP. Not to mention with 102 seats won, for the first time in history the NDP wins the coveted title of Official Opposition Party in the commons. I mean the room went nuts when Jack Layton walked out to greet the party. My vote made a difference.
The Conservatives won a majority. As I have read on other blogs tonight, the earth did not shift on its axis, we will all survive this. And in the end we hope the government does what it said it will do. Canada needs to work to protect the people of Canada, we need more jobs, a secure financial sector and we need to solidify our place in the worlds eyes.
I questioned the ability of Mr. Ignatieff to win anything that’s why a lot of voters went with Jack. The Liberal party was decimated last night. The leader of the party as well, lost his seat and resigned from the party this morning. A leadership convention is coming. There is rumbling about Justin Trudeau, can he step up, if he is tapped as the heir apparent? Can the magic happen? Justin won’t say what he is going to do to that end just yet. At least he won his riding for the Liberal party, beating out the Bloq incumbent.
We saw history happen last night. The total collapse of the Bloq and the Liberal party. I heard it mentioned on the news coverage about Canada moving towards a two party system in Parliament. It seems the voters were over all the drama and political bullshit and we all voted for change and hope. The voters have spoken. Now the parties MUST rise to the occasion and do what they have been mandated to do.
A good chunk of Quebec went orange, with hints of red and blue here and there. Mr. Layton’s crop of young bloods have got some serious shoes to fill.
So much to look forwards to in the coming months.
*** *** *** ***
Here on the home front we are in the final weeks of classes. I have class tomorrow night and then a final and essay due on Thursday night, which I still have to write yet, then my final interview to come next week on the 9th.
It rained today. But numbers were nominal for the meeting. Lots of new faces and the conversation was nice and lively. We are pleased with what we have for today.
*** *** *** ***
So what do we know ???
The Princess got her man
Obama got Osama
The NDP won big in Canada
Life goes on and we will all survive. The world is a safer place because the face and person of evil is dead and is floating at the bottom of the Arabian Sea, Thanks be to God.
The era of Osama is over.
Well Done Mr. President. We are so very proud of you…
In his time, the late Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado was the greatest fundraiser of the modern Roman Catholic church. He was also a magnetic figure in recruiting young men to religious life in an era when vocations were plummeting. Behind that exalted façade, however, Maciel was a notorious pedophile, and a man who fathered several children by different women. His life was arguably the darkest chapter in the clergy abuse crisis that continues to plague the church.
The saga of the disgraced founder of the Legion of Christ, a secretive, cult-like religious order now under Vatican investigation, opens into a deeper story of how one man’s lies and betrayal dazzled key figures in the Roman curia and how Maciel’s money and success helped him find protection and influence. For years, the heads of Vatican congregations and the pope himself ignored persistent warnings that something was rotten in the community where Legionaries called their leader Nuestro Padre , “Our Father,” and considered him a living saint.
The charismatic Mexican, who founded the Legion of Christ in 1941, sent streams of money to Roman curia officials with a calculated end, according to many sources interviewed by NCR: Maciel was buying support for his group and defense for himself, should his astounding secret life become known.
This much is well established from previous reporting: Maciel was a morphine addict who sexually abused at least 20 Legion seminarians from the 1940s to the ’60s. Bishop John McGann of Rockville Centre, N.Y., sent a letter by a former Legion priest with detailed allegations to the Vatican in 1976, 1978 and 1989 through official channels. Nothing happened. Maciel began fathering children in the early 1980s — three of them by two Mexican women, with reports of a third family with three children in Switzerland, according to El Mundo in Madrid, Spain. Concealing his web of relations, Maciel raised a fortune from wealthy backers, and ingratiated himself with church officials in Rome.
“What I can say about Fr. Maciel is that he was a consummate con artist,” Fr. Stephen Fichter, a sociologist and former Legion official, told NCR. “He would use any means to achieve his end, even if that meant lying to the pope, or any of the cardinals in Rome.”
When Maciel died on Jan. 30, 2008, the Legion leadership announced that the 87-year-old founder had gone to heaven. While God alone knows Maciel’s fate, the Legion’s statement stands in hindsight as one final act of deception by a figure whose legacy is still wreaking havoc from the grave. In February 2009, the Legionaries revealed that Maciel had a daughter. Late last month, the Legionaries issued a vaguely worded statement of regret to unnamed victims of Maciel — four years after Pope Benedict XVI banished him from active ministry to “a life of prayer and repentance” for abusing seminarians.
Maciel left a trail of wreckage among his followers. Moreover, in a gilded irony for Benedict — who prosecuted him despite pressure from Maciel’s chief supporter, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Vatican secretary of state from 1990 to 2006 — Maciel left an ecclesiastical empire with which the church must now contend. The Italian newsweekly L’espresso estimates the Legion’s assets at 25 billion euros, with a $650 million annual budget, according to The Wall Street Journal .The order numbered 700 priests and 1,300 seminarians in 2008. On March 15 of this year, five bishops, called visitators, from as many countries, delivered their reports to the pope after a seven-month investigation. A final report is expected by the end of April.
Not in centuries has a scandal in the church had such complexity as this one. A huge financial operation is in the hands of a religious order many critics have likened to a cult, a group whose leadership is suspected of hiding its superior’s corrupt life. As the Vatican grapples with the Legion — and thorny legal questions as to whether the Holy See can intervene in the Legion’s far-flung financial operations — three of Maciel’s sons and their mother in Mexico demand compensation, claiming they were cut off by the Legion when Maciel died.
Besides the complex questions of whether to dismantle or “reform” the Legion, Benedict is under pressure from a resurgent sex abuse scandal in Ireland, and cases from years back in Germany, Wisconsin and Arizona, in which he reportedly failed to discipline abusive priests.
The Legion scandal stands out for another reason: The Maciel case and the trail of money he reportedly gave cardinals raises profound ethical questions about how money circulates in the Vatican.
In an NCR investigation that began last July, encompassing dozens of interviews in Rome, Mexico City and several U.S. cities, what emerges is the saga of a man who ingratiated himself with Vatican officials, including some of those in charge of offices that should have investigated him, as he dispensed thousands of dollars in cash and largesse.
Maciel built his base by cultivating wealthy patrons, particularly widows, starting in his native Mexico in the 1940s. Even as he was trailed by pedophilia accusations, Maciel attracted large numbers of seminarians in an era of dwindling vocations. In 1994 Pope John Paul II heralded him as “an efficacious guide to youth.” John Paul continued praising Maciel after a 1997 Hartford Courant investigation by Gerald Renner and this writer exposed Maciel’s drug habits and abuse of seminarians. In 1998, eight ex-Legionaries filed a canon law case to prosecute him in then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s tribunal. For the next six years, Maciel had the staunch support of three pivotal figures: Sodano; Cardinal Eduardo Martínez Somalo, prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life; and Msgr. Stanislaw Dziwisz, the Polish secretary of John Paul. During those years, Sodano pressured Ratzinger not to prosecute Maciel, as NCR previously reported. Ratzinger told a Mexican bishop that the Maciel case was a “delicate” matter and questioned whether it would be “prudent” to prosecute at that time.
In 2004, John Paul — ignoring the canon law charges against Maciel — honored him in a Vatican ceremony in which he entrusted the Legion with the administration of Jerusalem’s Notre Dame Center, an education and conference facility. The following week, Ratzinger took it on himself to authorize an investigation of Maciel.
John Paul’s support gave Maciel credibility as he moved with seamless ease among the ultra-wealthy. At a 2004 fundraiser in New York, a video cameraman filmed him running his fingers down the tuxedo lapel of the Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, a major Legion supporter. Besides donations, Legion schools in Mexico with high tuitions and low salaries subsidized the operations in Rome, say men familiar with the order’s finances.
As questions swirl about how Maciel misled so many people, his ability to attract the powerful and influential is beyond dispute. Legion supporters ranged from Steve McEveety, producer of Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” (Legion priests advised on the film), to Thomas Monaghan, founder of Domino’s Pizza and Ave Maria University in Florida. Others who supported the Legion include former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who spoke at Legion conferences; Spanish opera singer Placido Domingo, who performed at a fundraiser; and the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, editor of First Things, who wrote that he believed with “moral certainty” that the charges against Maciel were “false and malicious.”
Harvard Law Professor and former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican Mary Ann Glendon taught at Regina Apostolorum Athenaeum, the Legion’s university in Rome, and advised in the planning that led to the order’s first university in America, University of Sacramento, Calif. In a 2002 letter for the Legion Web site she scoffed at the allegations against him and praised Maciel’s “radiant holiness” and “the success of Regnum Christi [the order's lay wing] and the Legionaries of Christ in advancing the New Evangelization.”
Author and conservative activist George Weigel also endorsed the Legion in 2002 on its Web site: “If Fr. Maciel and his charism as a founder are to be judged by the fruits of this work, those fruits are most impressive indeed.” Weigel has since called on the Vatican to investigate the order.
CNN commentator William Bennett spoke at Legion gatherings and also said: “I am fortunate enough to know and trust the priests of the Legionaries of Christ. … The flourishing of the Legionaries is a cause for hope in a time of much darkness.” Former CNN religion correspondent Delia Gallagher spoke at a Legion fundraiser, and William Donohue, president of the New York-based Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, defended Maciel in a letter to the Hartford Courant , after a 1997 article that exposed Maciel’s history of pedophilia.
Two Legion priests are TV news celebrities: Jonathan Morris on FOX, and Tom Williams, a theology professor at the Legion university in Rome, for NBC during Katie Couric’s coverage of the 2005 conclave and again with Couric at CBS.
Consequences came late
In April 2005, Ratzinger was elected pope. In 2006, as Benedict, he banished Maciel from ministry to a “life of prayer and penitence.” Maciel left Rome in disgrace, though the Legionaries mounted a defense of his innocence.
In the last week of January 2008, Maciel’s 21-year-old daughter and her mother reportedly traveled from Spain to the Miami hospital where he lay dying. That pleased him, while jarring several Legionaries; but the women did not go on to Mexico for the funeral. His three sons and their mother in Mexico avoided the funeral too. His chosen Legion successors gathered in his remote hometown, Cotija de la Paz, for burial at a family crypt, far from his previously designated tomb at Rome’s Our Lady of Guadalupe Basilica, which he built in the 1950s.
Besides Fichter, who has a parish in New Jersey, two priests still serving the church who left the Legion several years ago drew on detailed knowledge of Maciel’s financial practices in lengthy interviews, answering questions in continuing telephone calls and e-mails. These priests — and two priests in Rome who are members of the Legion — spoke on background, fearing repercussions to their careers were they to be identified.
This story also relies on international press accounts, works by Spanish and Mexican researchers, and attorneys who are piecing together information on Maciel’s financial strategy and his families.
NCR made repeated efforts to seek comment from the three cardinals who allegedly received substantial payments under Maciel’s auspices, by speaking with Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi on the telephone and via follow-up e-mails. Besides calls to the residences of the two cardinals in Rome, the paper made an extensive effort to contact now-Cardinal Dziwisz, in Krakow, Poland. Iowana Hoffman, a Polish journalist in New York, translated a letter with questions for the cardinal, faxed it to Dziwisz’s press secretary, but was told that the cardinal “does not have time for an interview.”
Sodano, the former secretary of state and now dean of the College of Cardinals, and Martínez Somalo, former papal chamberlain, did not respond to messages left with Lombardi. A receptionist who answered Sodano’s residential number said to call the Vatican. The woman answering Martínez Somalo’s phone, when asked in Spanish if he would speak with a journalist, said emphatically, ” No entrevista! ” — “No interview.”
Had Sodano, Martínez Somalo and Dziwisz responded, the cardinals might have answered one question that hovers over this baroque financial drama: How do Vatican officials decide what to report, and to whom, if they are given large sums of money? The Vatican has no constitution or statutes that would make such transactions illegal. But those familiar with the strategy say it was Maciel’s goal to insulate himself from the Vatican’s archaic system of secret tribunals by making friends with men in power.
For most of his life, it worked.
Making friends in the right places
The Vatican office with the greatest potential to derail Maciel’s career before 2001 — the year that Ratzinger persuaded John Paul to consolidate authority of abuse investigations in his office – was the Congregation for Religious, which oversaw religious orders such as the Dominicans, Franciscans and Legionaries, among many others.
According to two former Legionaries who spent years in Rome, Maciel paid for the renovation of the residence in Rome for the Argentine cardinal who was prefect of religious from 1976 to 1983, the late Eduardo Francisco Pironio. “That’s a pretty big resource,” explains one priest, who said the Legion’s work on the residence was expensive, and widely known at upper levels of the order. “Pironio got his arm twisted to sign the Legion constitution.”
The Legion constitution included the highly controversial Private Vows, by which each Legionary swore never to speak ill of Maciel, or the superiors, and to report to them anyone who uttered criticism. The vows basically rewarded spying as an expression of faith, and cemented the Legionaries’ lockstep obedience to the founder. The vows were Maciel’s way of deflecting scrutiny as a pedophile. But cardinals on the consultors’ board at Congregation for Religious balked on granting approval.
“Therefore, Maciel went to the pope through Msgr. Dziwisz,” said the priest. “Two weeks later Pironio signed it.”
Dziwisz was John Paul’s closest confidante, a Pole who had a bedroom in the private quarters of the Apostolic Palace. Maciel spent years cultivating Dziwisz’s support. Under Maciel, the Legion steered streams of money to Dziwisz in his function as gatekeeper for the pope’s private Masses in the Apostolic Palace. Attending Mass in the small chapel was a rare privilege for the occasional head of state, like British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his family. “Mass would start at 7 a.m., and there was always someone in attendance: laypeople, or priests, or groups of bishops,” Dziwisz wrote in a 2008 memoir, A Life With Karol: My Forty-Year Friendship With the Man Who Became Pope.
“When the guests came in (there were never more than 50),” Dziwisz wrote, “they often found the pope kneeling in prayer with his eyes closed, in a state of total abandonment, almost of ecstasy, completely unaware of who was entering the chapel. … For the laypeople, it was a great spiritual experience. The Holy Father attached extreme importance to the presence of the lay faithful.”
One of the ex-Legionaries in Rome told NCR that a Mexican family in 1997 gave Dziwisz $50,000 upon attending Mass. “We arranged things like that,” he said of his role as go-between. Did John Paul know about the funds? Only Dziwisz would know. Given the pope’s ascetic lifestyle and accounts of his charitable giving, the funds could have gone to a deserving cause. Dziwisz’s book says nothing of donations and contains no mention of Maciel or the Legion. The priest who arranged for the Mexican family to attend Mass worried, in hindsight, about the frequency with which Legionaries facilitated funds to Dziwisz.
“This happened all the time with Dziwisz,” said a second ex-Legionary, who was informed of the transactions.
Fr. Alvaro Corcuera, who would succeed Maciel as director general in 2004, and one or two other Legionaries “would go up to see Dziwisz on the third floor. They were welcomed. They were known within the household.”
Struggling to give context to the donations, this cleric continued: “You’re saying these laypeople are good and fervent, it’s good for them to meet the pope. The expression is opera carita – ‘We’re making an offering for your works of charity.’ That’s the way it’s done. In fact you don’t know where the money’s going.” He paused. “It’s an elegant way of giving a bribe.”
Recalling those events, he spoke of what made him leave the Legion. “I woke up and asked: Am I giving my life to serve God, or one man who had his problems? It was not worth consecrating myself to Maciel.”
What’s a bribe?
In terms of legal reality, does “an elegant way of giving a bribe” add up to bribery? The money from Maciel was given to heads of congregations in the early 1990s and the newspaper exposure of Maciel did not occur until 1997, and the canon law case in 1998.
Further, such exchanges are not considered bribes in the view of Nicholas Cafardi, a prominent canon lawyer and the dean emeritus of Duquesne University Law School in Pittsburgh. Cafardi, who has done work as a legal consultant for many bishops, responded to a general question about large donations to priests or church officials in the Vatican.
Under church law (canon 1302), a large financial gift to an official in Rome “would qualify as a pious cause,” explains Cafardi. He spoke in broad terms, saying that such funds should be reported to the cardinal-vicar for Rome. An expensive gift, like a car, need not be reported.
“That’s how I read the law. I know of no exceptions. Cardinals do have to report gifts for pious causes. If funds are given for the official’s personal charity, that is not a pious cause and need not be reported.”
Because the cardinals did not respond to interview requests, NCR has been unable to determine whether they reported to Vatican officials the money they allegedly received from the Legion.
“Maciel wanted to buy power,” said the priest who facilitated the Mexican family’s opera carita to Dziwisz. He did not use the word bribery, but in explaining why he left the Legion, morality was at issue. “It got to a breaking point for me [over] a culture of lying [within the order]. The superiors know they’re lying and they know that you know,” he said. “They lie about money, where it comes from, where it goes, how it’s given.”
When Martínez Somalo, a Spaniard, became head of the congregation overseeing religious in 1994, Maciel dispatched this priest to Martínez Somalo’s home. The young priest carried an envelope thick with cash. “I didn’t bat an eye,” he recalled. “I went up to his apartment, handed him the envelope, said goodbye. … It was a way of making friends, insuring certain help if it were needed, oiling the cogs.”
Martínez Somalo did not respond to NCR interview requests.
Glenn Favreau, a Legionary in Rome from 1990 to 1997, and today an attorney in Washington, D.C., recalled: “Martínez Somalo was talked about a lot in the Legion, always in the context of ‘our superior’ because he was our friend. Un amigo de Legion.” Favreau, who knew nothing of the donation to Martínez Somalo, continued: “There were cardinals who weren’t amigos. They wouldn’t call them enemies, but everyone knew who they were. Pio Laghi did not like the Legion.” Cardinal Laghi, former papal nuncio to the United States, was then prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education.
Martínez Somalo’s office took a new name: Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. But the job description stayed the same. From 1994 to 2004, the Spanish cardinal’s duties included investigating any complaints about religious orders or their leaders.
In the files of that congregation, according to several former Legionaries, sat letters that dated back many years, accusing Maciel of abusing seminarians. When the wrenching accounts of nine seminary-victims of Maciel made news in the 1997 Hartford Courant, Martínez Somalo did nothing. That was the reaction throughout the Roman curia.
John Paul named Martínez Somalo to the post of carmelango, or chamberlain, the official in charge of the conclave when a pope is elected.
Today, the cardinal in charge of the congregation that oversees religious orders is Franc Rodé. He lavished praise on Maciel, the Legion and its lay wing, Regnum Christi, for years.
One cardinal who rebuffed a Legion financial gift was Joseph Ratzinger.
In 1997 he gave a lecture on theology to Legionaries. When a Legionary handed him an envelope, saying it was for his charitable use, Ratzinger refused. “He was tough as nails in a very cordial way,” a witness said.
Maciel’s modus operandi
Maciel traveled incessantly, drawing funds from Legion centers in Mexico, Rome and the United States. Certain ex-Legionaries with knowledge of the order’s finances believe that Maciel constantly drew from Legion coffers to subsidize his families.
For years Maciel had Legion priests dole out envelopes with cash and donate gifts to officials in the curia. In the days leading up to Christmas, Legion seminarians spent hours packaging the baskets with expensive bottles of wine, rare brandy, and cured Spanish hams that alone cost upward of $1,000 each. Priests involved in the gifts and larger cash exchanges say that in hindsight they view Maciel’s strategy as akin to an insurance policy, to protect himself should he be exposed and to position the Legion as an elite presence in the workings of the Vatican.
Fichter, the former Legion member, is today pastor of Sacred Heart Parish in Haworth, N.J. He has been a diocesan priest for a decade, and serves in the Newark archdiocese. He coordinated the Legion’s administrative office in Rome from February 1998 until October 2000.
“When Fr. Maciel would leave Rome it was my duty to supply him with $10,000 in cash — $5,000 in American dollars, and the other half in the currency of the country to which he was traveling,” explained Fichter. “I would be informed by one of his assistants that he was leaving and I would have to prepare the funds for him. I never questioned that he was not using it for good and noble purposes. It was a routine part of my job. He was so totally above reproach that I felt honored to have that role. He did not submit any receipts and I would have not dared to ask him for a receipt.”
Fichter was reluctant to be interviewed, expressing concern that his views be fully reflected. “As Legionaries our norms concerning the use of money were very restricted,” he began. “If I went on an outing I was given $20 and if I had a pizza I’d return the $15 to my superior with a receipt. The sad thing is that we were so naive. We were scrupulously trying to live our vow of poverty and yet never questioned [Maciel's] own fidelity to the same.
“So many of my old classmates are still in the Legion and I feel that they are going through such a hard time right now. I don’t want to have my words misconstrued. … Maciel hoodwinked everyone. In hindsight I regret that I and so many others were so gullible. Thankfully, for me that was many years ago.”
Since earning his doctorate in sociology from Rutgers University, Fichter has worked as a research associate for the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University in Washington.
“I am very happy as a pastor and in the research work I am doing for the good of the church. At this stage of my life, having collaborated with the Vatican investigation of the Legion, I pray each day for those who are still Legionaries. If I can help them in any way I will.”
Justice delayed
After the ex-Legion victims filed a canonical case in 1998 against Maciel in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Sodano as secretary of state — essentially, the Vatican prime minister — pressured Ratzinger, as the congregation’s prefect, to halt the proceeding. As NCR reported in 2001, José Barba, a college professor in Mexico City and ex-Legionary who filed the 1998 case in Ratzinger’s office, learned from the canonist handling the case, Martha Wegan in Rome, of Sodano’s role.
“Sodano came over with his entire family, 200 of them, for a big meal when he was named cardinal,” recalled Favreau. “And we fed them all. When he became secretary of state there was another celebration. He’d come over for special events, like the groundbreaking with a golden shovel for the House of Higher Studies. And a dinner after that.”
The intervention of a high Vatican official in a tribunal case illustrates the fragile nature of the system, and in the Maciel case, how a guilty man escaped punishment for years.
“Cardinal Sodano was the cheerleader for the Legion,” said one of the ex-Legionaries. “He’d come give a talk at Christmas and they’d give him $10,000.” Another priest recalled a $5,000 donation to Sodano.
But in December 2004, with John Paul’s health deteriorating by the day, Ratzinger broke with Sodano and ordered a canon lawyer on his staff, Msgr. Charles Scicluna, to investigate. Two years later, as Benedict, he approved the order that Maciel abandon ministry for a “life of penitence and prayer.” Maciel had “more than 20 but less than 100 victims,” an unnamed Vatican official told NCR‘s John Allen at the time.
The congregation cited Maciel’s age in opting against a full trial.
An influential Vatican official told NCR that Sodano insisted on softening the language of the Vatican communiqué — to praise the Legion and its 60,000-member lay wing, Regnum Christi — despite the order’s nine-year Web site campaign denouncing the seminary victims. The Legion’s damage control rolled into a new phase with its statement that compared Maciel to Christ for refusing to defend himself, and accepting his “new cross” with “tranquility of conscience.”
Maciel left Rome, the scandal seemingly over. Internally, the Legion insisted to its members and followers that Maciel was innocent.
In 2009, a year after Maciel’s death, the Legion disclosed its surprise on discovering that he had a daughter. The news jolted the order and its lay arm, Regnum Christi. Yet in an organization built on a cult of personality, the long praise from John Paul suggested a legacy of virtue in Maciel. Legion officials scrambled to suppress skepticism.
Two Legion priests told NCR in July that seminarians in Rome were still being taught about Maciel’s virtuous life. “They are being brainwashed, as if nothing happened,” said a Legionary, sitting on a bench near Rome’s Tiber River.
Thanks to Sodano’s intervention, the order clung to a shaky defense in arguing that the Vatican never specifically said that Maciel abused anyone.
How much Legion officials knew about Maciel’s other life — the daughter with her mother in Madrid and three sons with their mother in Mexico — is a pivotal issue in the Vatican inquiry underway.
How much money did Maciel use to support his families? How much did he siphon off for other purposes behind the guise of a religious charity?
Behind these questions loom others about money in the Vatican. Are envelopes with thousands of dollars in cash given to cardinals when they say Mass, give talks or have dinner in a religious house mere donations? The Legion of Christ raises money as a charity. How does it record such outlays? Does anyone in the Vatican have access to Legion financial records?
When Dziwisz became a bishop in 1998, the Legion covered the costs of his reception at its complex in Rome. “Dziwisz helped the Legion in many ways,” said a priest who facilitated payments. “He convinced the pope to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Legion.”
In a book on Maciel published in Spain, journalist Alfonso Torres Robles calls an event on Jan. 3, 1991, “one of the most powerful demonstrations of strength by the Legion … at St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, when John Paul II ordained 60 Legionaries into the priesthood, in the presence of 7,000 Regnum Christi members from different countries, 15 cardinals, 52 bishops and many millionaire benefactors.”
Maciel had the event filmed and a sequence used in a video the Legion sold until 2006. John Paul was a strategic image in Legion mass mailings and the video shown to potential donors when seminarians accompanied priests to their homes. The Legion no longer circulates the video.
The Legion has a presence in 23 countries, with dozens of elite prep schools, religious formation houses, and several universities.
Maciel’s strategy of buying influence unrolled over five decades.
Next: How the empire was built.
[NCR contributor Jason Berry is the author of Lead Us Not into Temptation and coauthor, with the late Gerald Renner, of Vows of Silence . Berry's film documentary "Vows of Silence" explores the saga of the Vatican and Maciel. A grant from the Investigative Fund from The Nation Institute supported research for this article. www.JasonBerryAuthor.com]
He is well spoken, fluent in both languages, He is focused and his acceptance speech was really well done. The crowd was wild and enthusiastic, 3000 liberals in one room was quite incredible to the new leader.
Michael Ignatieff officially became the leader of the Liberal party Saturday, five months after he took over the post from Stephane Dion.
“You’ve given me a great responsibility and will try to be worthy of your trust and I will give this job everything I got,” he told Liberals in Vancouver.
The new Liberal leader was quick to take direct aim at man whose job he’s after — Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
“For three years you have played province against province, group against group, region against region, individual against individual,” he said. “When your power was threatened last November you unleashed a national unity crisis and you saved yourself only by sending Parliament home.
“Mr. Harper, you have failed us. If you can’t unite Canadians, if you can’t appeal to the best in us, we can. We Liberals can build a federalism based on co-operation, not on confrontation.”
While certainly different in delivery, Ignatieff’s self-written speech echoed many of the themes that U.S. President Barack Obama used on the campaign trail.
Ignatieff spoke about hope and “change” for Canada, even borrowing Obama “Yes, we can” slogan at one point.
He said he believes Canadians will vote the Grits into office in the next election, and said his government’s main goal would be “to unite our people again.”
“The way out of this slump is hard, but the direction is clear,” he said, calling for a “far-sighted government.”
He also took pointed shots at the Conservative government, declaring the importance of science and research for future Canadian success.
The Harvard and Oxford-educated Ignatieff spent much of the early parts of his speech focusing on the importance of education and knowledge to the Canadian economy.
Ignatieff won 97 per cent of the votes of the 2000-odd delegates at the party’s three-day convention.
Former leadership rivals Bob Rae and Dominic LeBlanc formally nominated Ignatieff in speeches Saturday, continuing the Liberals’ “unity” theme at the convention.
“What an incredible team we are going to offer the country,” Ignatieff said, thanking his former rivals.
Despite impassioned speeches by former prime ministers Paul Martin and Jean Chretien, and a warm tribute to Dion, Ignatieff’s acclamation has left this year’s convention short on drama.
LeBlanc, who dropped out of the race to replace Dion when it appeared that Ignatieff had shored up party support, said Ignatieff’s leadership has united the Liberals.
“If we’d had a big, contested convention with a tight result and a lot of tension, then everybody would have said the Liberal party is divided, it’s going to be hard to unite the party, we’ll never be ready for an election,” LeBlanc told CTV’s Tom Clark Saturday during an interview on Newsnet.
“So you have a leader who is selected unanimously and who was — if we’re honest — the overwhelming choice of the grassroots of our party. That was clear in December.”
Before Ignatieff’s confirmation as leader, delegates passed a number of party initiatives, including a one-member, one-vote policy allowing party members to directly choose future leaders.
The new policy will allow members to cast a vote in their home province, essentially doing away with delegated leadership conventions.
“If (members) can vote directly for the leader in their riding or in regional meetings, I think it offers a much greater degree of participatory democracy,” LeBlanc said.
While Ignatieff will need to introduce a policy platform in advance of an election in order to shore up support among Canadian voters, he is already presiding over improving party fortunes.
Since Ignatieff took helm of the party last December, the Liberals have risen steadily in the polls.
A Strategic Counsel poll conducted in early April found the Liberals and Conservatives in a virtual tie for voter support, with the Grits at 34 per cent and the Conservatives at 32 per cent.
The findings marked a 10 percentage-point jump for the Liberals since Ignatieff took control of the reins.
And in Quebec, the Grits have pulled ahead of the Bloc Quebecois in the province for the first time in five years, with 37 per cent support, compared to 31 per cent for the Bloc.
The Conservatives, who were at 22 per cent support after last fall’s election, are well back at 15 per cent.
Despite the strong poll numbers, it’s too soon to tell if Ignatieff will use any forthcoming non-confidence votes in the House of Commons to bring down the Conservative minority government and force an election, said Liberal MP Bob Rae.
“You need three parties to defeat a government in this situation, so we’ll just have to see what happens,” Rae told Newsnet Saturday from Vancouver. “But the decision for the Liberals will not be made by anybody except our leader and he’ll be giving us that direction when the time comes.”
On Friday, the party paid tribute to Dion, setting aside the criticism often levied against him for failing to unite the party and instead focusing on his passion for the environment.
In a speech to delegates, Dion said he hoped the tribute could inspire the party to win the next election under Ignatieff.
If you listen to late night radio, like I do, tonight would have been important to listen because of what was shared on air. There is a court case going before the United States Supreme Court tomorrow about Philip J. Berg who has filed this law suit in the courts to force Barack Obama to produce his birth certificate and or naturalization papers prior to the election that is to take place on Tuesday. If he does not and the court let’s the case stand – we could see Barack removed from the ticket in worst case scenario.
This man has brought forth this lawsuit because of the U.S. Constitution. He has seen fit to take Barack to task for his birthplace and he questions his U.S. Birthright. A requirement for high public office is a constitutional rule that says any person who attempts office should prove their citizenship of the United States. A reason that Arnold Schwartzenegger cannot run for the Presidency, unless that law is changed…. There is a slight chance that the court could rule in Berg’s favor and remove Barack from the ticket. God Help us All.
There is a chance that the High Court will deny this law suit from moving forward with a denial from the court to force Barack Obama to prove any paperwork.
The stakes could not be higher tonight. The world is on the brink of a cataclysm. Whoever wins this election on Tuesday is going to have a lot of work to do. There is so much at stake that every person who is of age and can ably VOTE should get up from their sofas and go VOTE. I think that employers should enable all of their employees to vote, no matter how long that takes. Advance polling stations are reporting lines of up to six hours wait time for people to vote.
The shift of power is coming to pass. The energy that is about to be released is enormous. Shit is going to happen over the next few days. If this election goes off without a hitch and Obama wins the White House we will see history made. Let us pray that Americans will vote rightly and for the right reasons for the right candidate. The world is about to shift on its axis. Will you be prepared?
In less than 48 hours Bush will be relieved of his office, because the transition will begin. 77 days from beginning to end. And both candidates have run this exercise. May the best man win.
WASHINGTON (AFP) – Months before Tuesday’s election, John McCain and Barack Obama were secretly planning for a job only one of them will face — transitioning their political campaigns into a governing machine.
The new president will have a transition of just 77 days from his election to his inuguration to slow the ship of state, replace thousands of government officials and chart a new course.
Since the first transition, in 1797, from president George Washington to John Adams, the peaceful handover of power has become ever more choreographed with each successive administration, especially since World War II.
But the 2009 cycle, from President George W. Bush to his successor will be more fraught than usual, with the United States mired in a financial crisis and with more than 150,000 soliders in combat abroad.
“You have to go back to 1933 to find a transition as equally challenging as this one,” said Darrell West, director of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, citing the transfer of power to Franklin D. Roosevelt during a banking crisis.
“We have a bad economy, we have two wars, basically there is no money for the new president to address the major problems.”
Unlike nations which have a permanent civil service, many top positions in the US government are political appointments, meaning that whole ranks of staff are flushed out by an incoming president.
Tales are legion of aides showing up to work at the White House after the inuguration to find computers stripped of hard discs, offices with no files and no idea how to do their jobs.
President Harry Truman famously knew nothing about the nascent US atomic weapons program when he assumed power after the death of Roosevelt in 1945.
Whoever wins in Tuesday’s election will move quickly to put the key elements of their governing team in place.
“Right after the election, you would expect, particularly if it is Barack Obama, a decision making team in place,” said Martha Kumar, a political science professor at Towson University, who has studied presidential transitions.
That would include a White House chief of staff, personnel director, a presidential legal counsel, a press team, national security advisors, National Economic Council officials and a budget director, she said.
It is thought likely that Obama would also act quickly to appoint a Secretary of Defense — Bush’s Pentagon chief Robert Gates has been mentioned as a candidate — and Treasury Secretary.
Given the financial turmoil McCain would also be expected to put together an economic team quickly to calm roiled stockmarkets.
In all, president-elects have the power to appoint around 7,000 people to serve in their administration — but tend to concentrate at first on just a few hundred crucial posts.
If Obama wins, he is likely to find it easier to get key officials quickly cleared through Senate confirmation, with Democrats in control on Capitol Hill than McCain who could see key personel challenged by the rival party.
Such is the complicated nature of presidential transitions that both candidates have been preparing for months — though in secrecy so as not to appear to be prejudging the election.
John Podesta, once White House chief of staff for president Bill Clinton heads the Obama transition team, sketching transition plans and vetting potential candidates for top government jobs.
Democrats have bad memories of the chaotic Clinton transition in 1992-93, which left the administration floundering in its first few months in office.
McCain’s transition pointman is former Reagan administration Navy secretary, John Lehman, who may seek to emulate the highly efficient Bush effort during the 2000-2001 transition which was truncated by the Florida recount debacle.
US government departments have also been getting ready for months — for the first wartime change of presidents for 40 years, which has sparked fears that US enemies might try to exploit the situation.
Gates has spoken of the need for a smooth handover, and to find a way to get top national security nominees security clearances as quickly as possible.
Bush requested 8.5 million dollars in funding from his 2009 budget for the transition, which will see the president elect’s team given office space in Washington DC.
Soon after election day, the White House will offer briefings and other help to the top aides of the president-elect and members of the winner’s press operation have been invited to shadow members of Bush’s spokespeople.
I got this image of Barack Obama from a friend who lives in San Francisco.
If you don’t VOTE on Tuesday, then you can’t participate in your Democratic right to be heard. Please, for the Love of God and the hope of the United States of America, GO VOTE …
This is a reprint in whole of an article I posted a few days ago.
I found this text on Bear’s Blog.
As most of you know, I was appointed pastor here at the Newman Center on April 15th of this year. When I arrived, I set out to address a series of various projects to repair our facilities. To date, most of these deferred maintenance items have been addressed. In the middle of dealing with contractors, the parish finance committee, the building department of the diocese, neighbors, etc., I received a FAX from the bishop’s office on the 30th of June. It was the bishop’s pastoral letter for the month of July.
This single FAX threw my whole summer, and in fact, my whole life into a turmoil. Recently, I was speaking with some of our parishioners who advocate for the ordination of women. In the course of our conversation, a question arose which has haunted me: “At what point do you cease to be an agent for healing and growth and become an accomplice of injustice?” By asking all of the pastors of the Diocese of Fresno to promote Catholics to vote “Yes” on Proposition 8, the bishop has placed me in a moral predicament.
In his “Pastoral,” the bishop states: “Marriage is much more than simply two persons loving each other. Marriage is naturally, socially, and biologically, directed to bringing forth life.”
Actually, there are TWO ends to marriage: 1) Unitive and 2) Procreative. The unitive end of marriage is simply a union of love and life. The Procreative end is, of course, to create new life. It is important to understand that the unitive end of marriage is sufficient for a valid marriage. The Church sanctions, and considers a sacrament, the marriage of elderly heterosexual couples who are biologically incapable of reproduction. So, if two people of different genders who are incapable of reproduction can enter into a valid marriage, then why is that two people of the same gender, who are incapable of reproduction, cannot enter into a valid marriage.
The objections which are raised at this point are taken from Sacred Scripture. Scripture scholars reveal the problematic nature of attempting to use passages from the Hebrew Scriptures as an argument against same gender relationships. Essentially, these scriptures are addressing the cultic practices in which sex with temple prostitutes was part of an act of worshiping Pagan gods. With regard to the Pauline epistles, John J. McNeill, in his book: “The Church and the Homosexual,” makes the following point: “The persons referred to in Romans 1:26 are probably not homosexuals that is, those who are psychologically inclined toward their own sex—since they are portrayed as ‘abandoning their natural customs.’” The Pauline epistles do not explicitly treat the question of homosexual activity between two persons who share a homosexual orientation, and as such cannot be read as explicitly condemning such behavior. Therefore, same gender sex by two individuals with same sex orientation is not “abandoning their natural custom.”
In 1973, as a result of a greater understanding of human psychology, the American Psychological Association declassified homosexuality as a mental illness. In 1975, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Church’s watchdog for orthodoxy) produced a document entitled: “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics.” In this document, they made the most remarkable statement. They stated that there are “homosexuals who are such because of some kind of innate instinct.” While these statements are hardly glowing affirmations of gay and lesbian persons, they represent a watershed in human perception and understanding of gay and lesbian people.
These new insights have occurred as a result of the birth and development of the science of psychology and understanding of brain development in the 19th and 20th centuries. The California Supreme Court cited and quoted an amicus brief filed by the APA in the Court’s opinion issued on May 15, 2008 that struck down California’s ban on same sex marriage. Specifically, the court relied on the APA’s brief in concluding that the very nature of sexual orientation is related to the gender of partners to whom one is attracted, so that prohibiting same sex marriage discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, rather than just imposing disparate burdens on gay people.
In directing the faithful to vote “Yes” on Proposition 8, the California Bishops are not merely entering the political arena, they are ignoring the advances and insights of neurology, psychology and the very statements made by the Church itself that homosexuality is innate (i.e. orientation). In doing this, they are making a statement which has a direct, and damaging, effect on some of the people who may be sitting in the pews next to you today. The statement made by the bishop reaffirms the feelings of exclusion and alienation that are suffered by individuals and their loved ones who have left the Church over this very issue. Imagine what hearing such damaging words at Mass does to an adolescent who has just discovered that he/she is gay/lesbian? What is the hierarchy saying to him/her? What are they demanding from that individual? What would it have meant to you personally to hear from the pulpit at church that you could never date? Never fall in love, never kiss or hold hands with another person? Never be able to marry? How would you view yourself? How would others hearing those same words be directed to view you? How would you view your life and your future? How would you feel when you saw a car with a “Yes on 8” bumper sticker? When you overheard someone in a public place use the word “faggot?”
I remember the first time I heard that word, faggot, I was hanging out with my cousins. They all played on the football team of the Catholic high school in our town. One of them spat out the word in the form of a curse. I was just a kid in the 5th grade, I’d never heard the word before, and so I asked: “What’s a faggot?” A faggot is a guy who likes other guys, was the curt reply. Now pause. Think. What would those words mean to someone in junior high school who discovers that he/she is attracted to people of their same gender? The greatest fear that he/she would have is that they would be rejected by the people they love the most—their family. So, their solution is to try to pass as straight, deceive, and in effect—lie. Of course, this leads ultimately to self loathing. It should come as little surprise that gay teenagers have elevated suicide rates. According to the Center for Disease Control’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey (1999), 33% of gay youth will attempt suicide.
The bishop states: “The Church has spoken out constantly that those with a homosexual orientation must be respected with the dignity of every child of God. Every individual is created in the image and likeness of God and should never be subjected to prejudice or hatred.” A pious thought uttered by a cleric, robbed of any substantive meaning, as the executioner begins his work. Only a few select people actually read those documents. What most Catholics hear about being gay or lesbian at their parish church is–silence. A numbing silence, which slowly and insidiously tells them, “You don’t belong here, this is not for you, and you are not welcome.” It is not the crude overt vulgarity of some churches. But rather, it is the coldness of a maitre d’ who simply won’t seat you, or the club which has put you on a waiting list with no intention of allowing you to join. And simply asks you to wait in polite almost, apologetic tones.
In effect, the bishops are asking gay and lesbian people to live their lives alone. Why? Who does this benefit? How exactly is society helped by singling out a minority and excluding them from the union of love and life, which is marriage? How is marriage protected by intimidating gay and lesbian people into loveless and lonely lives? What is accomplished by this? Worse still, is to intimidate a gay or lesbian person into a heterosexual marriage, which is doomed from its inception, and makes two victims instead of one by this hurtful “theology.” This “theology,” which is parroted by clerics in polished tones from pulpits, produces the very prejudice and hatred in our society which they claim to abhor.
When the hierarchy prohibited artificial birth control, most of the faithful in the United States, Canada and Europe scratched their heads in wonderment and proceeded to ignore them. There is an expression in theology: “the voice of the people is the voice of God.” If your son or daughter is gay/lesbian let them know that you love them unconditionally. Let them know that you are not ashamed or embarrassed by them. Guide them as you would your other children to finding true and abiding love. Let them know that marriage is a union of love and life and is possible for them too.
I do not presume to tell you how to vote but I do ask that you pray to the Creator of us all. Think and consider the effects of your vote on others, especially minorities in our society who are sitting next to you in church, and at work. The act of casting a vote takes you a few minutes but it can cause other human beings untold happiness or sorrow for a lifetime. It can grant them hope and acceptance, or it can cause them to lose civil rights. It can be a rebuff to bigotry and hatred, or it can encourage bigotry and hatred. Personally, I am morally compelled to vote “NO” on Proposition 8. It is my hope that the people of California will join with those others around the world such as Canada, Europe and South Africa who welcome their gay and lesbian family members fully into society by granting them the civil right to marry.
I know these words of truth will cost me dearly. But to withhold them, would be far more costly and I would become an accomplice to a moral evil that strips gay and lesbian people not only of their civil rights but of their human dignity as well. Jesus said, “The truth will set you free.” He didn’t promise that it would be easy or without personal cost to speak that truth.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has asked the Governor General to dissolve Parliament this morning. So Canada is now in election mode, the vote takes place on October 14th. Here in Canada we have a multiple party system with Stephen Harper leading the Conservative Party, Jack Layton leading the NDP, Stephane Dion leading the Liberal Party and Gilles Duceppe leading the Bloq Quebecois and Elizabeth May leading the Green Party. This post was over at Echo Mouse, I think she captures the news today well:
Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper breaks his own law and rides in a 4 car cavalcade to the Governer General’s mansion across the street from his house to ask her to dissolve parliament.
Quick, nickname needed for Harper……wait, his surname fits perfectly!
Okay so The Harper has called an election. You know what irks me, more than all this political bullshit? The bastard did this shortly after 8 a.m. on a Sunday morning! This is what we’re in for people. Re-elect this conning harper and we’re not going to see sleep again for a very long time!
After he does his bit, we hear from all the opposition party leaders – Stephane Dion (Liberals), Gilles Duceppe (Bloc Quebecois) and now, Jack Layton (NDP). I’m not even awake yet. Who can parse this rhetoric this early in the morning? On a sunday no less!?
Some brave soul working for Macleans Magazine (Canadian mag) has actually live-blogged Conning Harper’s morning speech. – Live from Rideau Hall -It’s pretty good. Not as raucous as Jezebel and Gawker but good.
The scariest thing in Canadian politics the last few years has been the balls out repetition in style with the USA politicians. For example…..
Harper wouldn’t name his opponents. Just like the Republicans, seems the opposition loses their names during a campaign. That’s just tacky. And passive aggressive.
Extra scary note is the “Stand Up For” bit. Harper did it two years ago, with his “Stand UP for Canada” bit. Which, by the way, he’s completely against. He’s systematically trying to dissolve Canada and merge us with the USA. Want proof? What was McCain saying at the RNC? “Stand up for the USA”. Uh huh. And now, Harper is saying it again. Creeepayyyy! Harper wants this over before the Americans finish their election. We’re way too closely linked, our governments and countries. It’s freaking me the hell out.
Harper stood in front of a podium positioned in front of a rose garden. Now if he’d had Canadian flags on either side of him I’d have thrown up. Somebody needs to tell him, the proper position in Canada is in front of a parliament building, on a stage indoors, OR in front of TREES! Not a freaking rose garden. This is not the USA! Gahhhhh!!!
Harper accuses the other parties of name calling and vicious campaigning. Uh, Harper, that’s what YOU did and always do. Pot meet kettle, as they say. Plus, he’s full of shit. But that’s just me…nobody has to agree. The guy has Hitler’s birthday for heaven’s sake. Fine, so does my older brother, but still.
(Quick Edit to add…) Jesus Christ! Elizabeth May of the Green Party just SCREAMED from my tv and nearly deafened me. I swear, it was SHRILL! Yes, I’m saying it because it WAS. That woman needs to lower her pitch and STOP SCREAMING. Holy hell, I wouldn’t vote for her for that alone. Americans think Pitbull Sarah is shrill? Oh trust me, she has NOTHING on Elizabeth May. Good God.
So much doublespeak flying out of all their asses, I can’t keep up. That’s why I turn to Canadian bloggers for all parties. Okay, I mostly read Liberal bloggers because the rest are too full of crap. But I do try to be non-partisan when deciding. Currently, I’m making it my personal mission to leave comments blasting their lack of focus on healthcare. It must be working because all of a sudden, they’re all mentioning healthcare!
I am not sure which way I am voting just yet. I haven’t decided. You can read the rest of the post over at Echo Mouse at the link listed above.
DENVER — The Clintons have left the building. Finally.
Bill Clinton did his bit for Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention Wednesday night, just as Hillary had done her bit the night before. And now, at long last, they are getting off the stage so Obama can get on.
It is not a moment too soon. For a convention devoted to the nomination of Barack Obama, there has been an awful lot of attention lavished on both Clintons. But the Clintons have returned the favor.
The theme of Bill’s speech could easily be reduced to one word: Ready.
“Barack Obama is ready to lead America and restore American leadership in the world,” Bill said. “Ready to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Barack Obama is ready to be president of the United States.”
But Bill Clinton is also a charmer. It is his greatest political gift. And he was charming Wednesday night.
“The campaign generated so much heat, it increased global warming,” he said of the primaries. “In the end, my candidate didn’t win. But I’m very proud of the campaign she ran: She never quit on the people she stood up for, on the changes she pushed for, on the future she wants for all our children.”
Along with praising his wife and supporting his party’s nominee, Bill had one great task: to begin his own redemption.
Although his reputation had survived impeachment virtually untarnished — at least among Democrats — it did not survive his wife’s campaign. Never famous for self-control in private, he showed a lack of it in public, delivering finger-wagging accusations in New Hampshire that Obama’s campaign was a “fairy tale” and making racially tinged comments about Obama in South Carolina.
Wednesday night, however, Bill recognized the historic importance of Obama’s nomination.
“His life is a 21st-century incarnation of the American dream,” Bill said. “His achievements are proof of our continuing progress toward the ‘more perfect union’ of our founders’ dreams.”
Bill talked about the “humanity” of America and said: “We see that humanity, that strength, and our future in Barack and Michelle Obama and their beautiful children.”
Some African-Americans, who had been among Bill’s greatest supporters, were shocked and saddened by the role he played in the primary campaign. In the beginning, he thought he would be his wife’s ambassador to black America, but he ended up by being her ambassador to white, rural America. (After all, before Bill was called the “first black president,” he was called the “Bubba” president.)
Some in Hillary’s campaign still believe Bill was misused, his role never clearly defined. “She didn’t want to be seen as Bill’s third term,” a Hillary adviser said. “He was in a rage over how they used him.”
He was in a rage over a lot of things during the campaign, and even those who count him as a great president and a good friend admit that his political victories and political skills come from a different era of American politics.
“He was not used to the 24/7 news cycle and people with cell phones recording what he said at every stop,” a close associate of his told me. “But you can’t blame Bill Clinton for the loss. At end of the day, he was a huge plus.”
Now, both Clintons have a chance to be a plus for Obama. But one of the greatest contributions they can make is to leave the spotlight. There can be only one nominee.
Conventions are a time for unity and good feelings, however, and the crowd received Bill very, very warmly Wednesday night.
What an amazing day it was to watch democracy in action. We spent the better part, well, the entire night watching the proceedings take place. I’ve given you all the transcripts from the major speakers over the last two nights. It was a history making moment this evening when Barack Obama was nominated as the first African American man by acclimation.
The last two night have been a Clinton love fest. First Hillary rocked the Pepsi Center in Denver last night with her impassioned speech in support of Barack. And then tonight we heard from Bill Clinton who spoke very eloquently and masterfully that Barack is “ready to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States, that He is ready to lead the nation and is ready to be the next President of the United States.”
Joe Biden stepped up to the podium after the most amazing introduction by his son Beau. It was just an amazing night of speeches. I think Joe spoke to everyone in his speech and he shared some very important facts of life. He said:
…that you are defined by your sense of honor, and you are redeemed by your loyalty. She believes bravery lives in every heart and her expectation is that it will be summoned.
Joey, God sends no cross you cannot bear.” And when I triumphed, she was quick to remind me it was because of others.
My parents taught us to live our faith, and treasure our family. We learned the dignity of work, and we were told that anyone can make it if they try.
In his speech he spoke to the desire of a nation and to the deires of her people. Change is the constant theme of this convention and that so many powerful people have steeped up to encourage voters to elect Barack Obama the next President of the United States.
We have been given a view of the present day and the current administration and we have also been shown what needs to happen to make the United States great again. All of us have a voice and the right to vote. And the time is now to speak up and go into our communities to make sure that every able bodied voter goes to the poll in November and we must elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States.
“You can learn an awful lot about a man campaigning with him, debating him and seeing how he reacts under pressure. You learn about the strength of his mind, but even more importantly, you learn about the quality of his heart.
I watched how he touched people, how he inspired them, and I realized he has tapped into the oldest American belief of all: We don’t have to accept a situation we cannot bear.
We have the power to change it. That’s Barack Obama, and that’s what he will do for this country. He’ll change it.
The choice in this election is clear. These times require more than a good soldier; they require a wise leader, a leader who can deliver change the change everybody knows we need.
Barack Obama will deliver that change. Barack Obama will reform our tax code. He’ll cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people who draw a paycheck. That’s the change we need.Barack Obama will transform our economy by making alternative energy a genuine national priority, creating 5 million new jobs and finally freeing us from the grip of foreign oil. That’s the change we need.
Barack Obama knows that any country that out teaches us today will out-compete us tomorrow. He’ll invest in the next generation of teachers. He’ll make college more affordable. That’s the change we need.Barack Obama will bring down health care costs by $2,500 for the typical family, and, at long last, deliver affordable, accessible health care for all Americans. That’s the change we need.
Barack Obama will put more cops on the streets, put the “security” back in Social Security and never give up until we achieve equal pay for women. That’s the change we need.”
and to close this post I leave you with the final thoughts from Joe Biden’s speech:
Our greatest presidents — from Abraham Lincoln to Franklin Roosevelt to John Kennedy — they all challenged us to embrace change. Now, it’s our responsibility to meet that challenge.
Millions of Americans have been knocked down. And this is the time as Americans, together, we get back up. Our people are too good, our debt to our parents and grandparents too great, our obligation to our children is too sacred.
These are extraordinary times. This is an extraordinary election. The American people are ready. I’m ready. Barack Obama is ready. This is his time. This is our time. This is America’s time.
May God bless America and protect our troops.
Be a part of history in the making. Use your God given right as a citizen. VOTE…
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), bitterly divided over sexuality and the Bible, set up another confrontation Friday over its ban on ordaining non-celibate gays and lesbians.
The denomination’s General Assembly, meeting in San Jose, Calif., voted 54 percent to 46 percent Friday to drop the requirement that would-be ministers, deacons and elders live in “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between and a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness.”
The proposed change to the church constitution requires approval from a majority the nation’s 173 presbyteries, or regional church bodies — a yearlong process that has proven to be a barrier to similar efforts in the past.
Of equal importance to advocates on both side of the debate, the assembly also voted to allow gay and lesbian candidates for ordination to conscientiously object to the existing standard. Local presbyteries and church councils that approve ordinations would consider such requests on a case-by-case basis.
That vote was an “an authoritative interpretation” of the church constitution rather than a change to it, so it goes into effect immediately. The interpretation supersedes a ruling from the church’s high court, issued in February, that said there were no exceptions to the so-called “fidelity and chastity” requirement.
Both votes could put further strain on the 2.2-million member church, which like other mainline Protestant denominations has seen some conservative churches leave after losing battles over the place of gays and lesbians in the church and what the Bible says about gay relationships.
“My biggest concern is, ‘How does the church move forward?’” said the Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow, moderator of the General Assembly. “There’s great disappointment in some folks and great joy in others, but it really does go back to how do we as a church model for the world a way to live together amid great diversity of opinion?”
Jon Walton, co-moderator of the San Francisco-based Covenant Network of Presbyterians, which advocates a broader role for gays and lesbians, hailed both votes Friday, calling it “a day we’ve been waiting almost 30 years to see happen.” He also expressed hope church members can move forward together.
The denomination adopted the “chastity and fidelity” clause in 1996, replacing language that had the same effect: prohibiting non-celibate gays and lesbians from ministry.
The proposed new language would demand candidates “pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions.”
By agreeing to that, “they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church.” A presbytery or church council could decide that a gay or lesbian person does not meet that standard.
“This week the General Assembly voted from faith rather than fear,” Lisa Larges, minister coordinator of the advocacy group That All May Freely Serve, said in a statement. “They voted for a vibrant future of our church … .”
More conservative Presbyterians can take comfort in the fact that twice before — in 1997 and 2001 — the nation’s presbyteries overwhelmingly rejected efforts to rescind the gay ordination ban.
Ministers and elders who vote at the church’sGeneral Assembly meetings generally are more liberal, and in the next step small conservative presbyteries have an equal vote as those of larger liberal ones.
Paul Detterman, executive director of Louisville, Ky.-based Presbyterians for Renewal, which opposes changing the ordination standards, said the debate is not about homosexuality but following the Bible.
For much of Christian history, denominations have interpreted Scripture as prohibiting gay sex.
“From the evangelical perspective this is a lovers’ quarrel,” Detterman said. “We are so passionate about people understanding and knowing the love of God for them. If there’s a situation where we were simply against gays, there are a lot of easier places to be than the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)”
Later Friday, the General Assembly is scheduled to vote on a proposal to change the denomination’s definition of marriage from between “a man and a woman” to “two people.”
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), bitterly divided over sexuality and the Bible, set up another confrontation Friday over its ban on ordaining non-celibate gays and lesbians.
The denomination’s General Assembly, meeting in San Jose, Calif., voted 54 percent to 46 percent Friday to drop the requirement that would-be ministers, deacons and elders live in “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between and a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness.”
The proposed change to the church constitution requires approval from a majority the nation’s 173 presbyteries, or regional church bodies — a yearlong process that has proven to be a barrier to similar efforts in the past.
Of equal importance to advocates on both side of the debate, the assembly also voted to allow gay and lesbian candidates for ordination to conscientiously object to the existing standard. Local presbyteries and church councils that approve ordinations would consider such requests on a case-by-case basis.
That vote was an “an authoritative interpretation” of the church constitution rather than a change to it, so it goes into effect immediately. The interpretation supersedes a ruling from the church’s high court, issued in February, that said there were no exceptions to the so-called “fidelity and chastity” requirement…
More Light Presbyterians said a decision today by the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) to lift its ban on ordination for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons is good news for Presbyterians and Christians across the country and world.
“This is a great moment affirming God’s love for all people. We are thankful to the Commissioners at this Assembly who upheld standards for leadership and service in our Church, and at the same time eliminated categorical discrimination that has denied ordination to LGBT persons based simply on who they are and who they fall in love with,” said Michael J. Adee, Executive Director and Field Organizer for the organization.
The action by the General Assembly removes G.60106b from its Book of Order, the Constitution which governs the Church and replaces it with new language. Formerly, it required fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness to be eligible for ordination as deacons, elders or ministers.
“The intent of this standard, passed over a decade ago, was to bar LGBT persons from full membership and service in our Church since marriage equality is not yet available to most in our country,” Adee said.
New language passed by the General Assembly reaffirms historic standards of the Church that focus on faith and character which has withstood the test of time, and did not exclude anyone based on sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status…
Yesterday, General Assembly voted to restore the Heidelberg Catechism to its original language:
…After rejection of the minority report and extended debate, the Assembly voted with a strong 60% majority to restore the Heidelberg Catechism to its historic accuracy which did not include a reference to “homosexual perversion”…
These changes will still have to be approved by a vote of the presbyteries, so it’s not over yet. But this good beginning is certainly reason for rejoicing.
Tonight, after fifty-four hard-fought contests, our primary season has finally come to an end.
Sixteen months have passed since we first stood together on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois. Thousands of miles have been traveled. Millions of voices have been heard. And because of what you said – because you decided that change must come to Washington; because you believed that this year must be different than all the rest; because you chose to listen not to your doubts or your fears but to your greatest hopes and highest aspirations, tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another – a journey that will bring a new and better day to America.
Tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.
I want to thank every American who stood with us over the course of this campaign – through the good days and the bad; from the snows of Cedar Rapids to the sunshine of Sioux Falls. And tonight I also want to thank the men and woman who took this journey with me as fellow candidates for President.
At this defining moment for our nation, we should be proud that our party put forth one of the most talented, qualified field of individuals ever to run for this office. I have not just competed with them as rivals, I have learned from them as friends, as public servants, and as patriots who love America and are willing to work tirelessly to make this country better. They are leaders of this party, and leaders that America will turn to for years to come.
That is particularly true for the candidate who has traveled further on this journey than anyone else. Senator Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign not just because she’s a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she’s a leader who inspires millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight.
We’ve certainly had our differences over the last sixteen months. But as someone who’s shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning – even in the face of tough odds – is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago; what sent her to work at the Children’s Defense Fund and made her fight for health care as First Lady; what led her to the United States Senate and fueled her barrier-breaking campaign for the presidency – an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be. And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country, she will be central to that victory. When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen. Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton.
There are those who say that this primary has somehow left us weaker and more divided. Well I say that because of this primary, there are millions of Americans who have cast their ballot for the very first time. There are Independents and Republicans who understand that this election isn’t just about the party in charge of Washington, it’s about the need to change Washington. There are young people, and African-Americans, and Latinos, and women of all ages who have voted in numbers that have broken records and inspired a nation.
All of you chose to support a candidate you believe in deeply. But at the end of the day, we aren’t the reason you came out and waited in lines that stretched block after block to make your voice heard. You didn’t do that because of me or Senator Clinton or anyone else. You did it because you know in your hearts that at this moment – a moment that will define a generation – we cannot afford to keep doing what we’ve been doing. We owe our children a better future. We owe our country a better future. And for all those who dream of that future tonight, I say – let us begin the work together. Let us unite in common effort to chart a new course for America.
In just a few short months, the Republican Party will arrive in St. Paul with a very different agenda. They will come here to nominate John McCain, a man who has served this country heroically. I honor that service, and I respect his many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine. My differences with him are not personal; they are with the policies he has proposed in this campaign.
Because while John McCain can legitimately tout moments of independence from his party in the past, such independence has not been the hallmark of his presidential campaign.
It’s not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush ninety-five percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year.
It’s not change when he offers four more years of Bush economic policies that have failed to create well-paying jobs, or insure our workers, or help Americans afford the skyrocketing cost of college – policies that have lowered the real incomes of the average American family, widened the gap between Wall Street and Main Street, and left our children with a mountain of debt.
And it’s not change when he promises to continue a policy in Iraq that asks everything of our brave men and women in uniform and nothing of Iraqi politicians – a policy where all we look for are reasons to stay in Iraq, while we spend billions of dollars a month on a war that isn’t making the American people any safer.
So I’ll say this – there are many words to describe John McCain’s attempt to pass off his embrace of George Bush’s policies as bipartisan and new. But change is not one of them.
Change is a foreign policy that doesn’t begin and end with a war that should’ve never been authorized and never been waged. I won’t stand here and pretend that there are many good options left in Iraq, but what’s not an option is leaving our troops in that country for the next hundred years – especially at a time when our military is overstretched, our nation is isolated, and nearly every other threat to America is being ignored.
We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in – but start leaving we must. It’s time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future. It’s time to rebuild our military and give our veterans the care they need and the benefits they deserve when they come home. It’s time to refocus our efforts on al Qaeda’s leadership and Afghanistan, and rally the world against the common threats of the 21st century – terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. That’s what change is.
Change is realizing that meeting today’s threats requires not just our firepower, but the power of our diplomacy – tough, direct diplomacy where the President of the United States isn’t afraid to let any petty dictator know where America stands and what we stand for. We must once again have the courage and conviction to lead the free world. That is the legacy of Roosevelt, and Truman, and Kennedy. That’s what the American people want. That’s what change is.
Change is building an economy that rewards not just wealth, but the work and workers who created it. It’s understanding that the struggles facing working families can’t be solved by spending billions of dollars on more tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs, but by giving a the middle-class a tax break, and investing in our crumbling infrastructure, and transforming how we use energy, and improving our schools, and renewing our commitment to science and innovation. It’s understanding that fiscal responsibility and shared prosperity can go hand-in-hand, as they did when Bill Clinton was President.
John McCain has spent a lot of time talking about trips to Iraq in the last few weeks, but maybe if he spent some time taking trips to the cities and towns that have been hardest hit by this economy – cities in Michigan, and Ohio, and right here in Minnesota – he’d understand the kind of change that people are looking for.
Maybe if he went to Iowa and met the student who works the night shift after a full day of class and still can’t pay the medical bills for a sister who’s ill, he’d understand that she can’t afford four more years of a health care plan that only takes care of the healthy and wealthy. She needs us to pass health care plan that guarantees insurance to every American who wants it and brings down premiums for every family who needs it. That’s the change we need.
Maybe if he went to Pennsylvania and met the man who lost his job but can’t even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one, he’d understand that we can’t afford four more years of our addiction to oil from dictators. That man needs us to pass an energy policy that works with automakers to raise fuel standards, and makes corporations pay for their pollution, and oil companies invest their record profits in a clean energy future – an energy policy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced. That’s the change we need.
And maybe if he spent some time in the schools of South Carolina or St. Paul or where he spoke tonight in New Orleans, he’d understand that we can’t afford to leave the money behind for No Child Left Behind; that we owe it to our children to invest in early childhood education; to recruit an army of new teachers and give them better pay and more support; to finally decide that in this global economy, the chance to get a college education should not be a privilege for the wealthy few, but the birthright of every American. That’s the change we need in America. That’s why I’m running for President.
The other side will come here in September and offer a very different set of policies and positions, and that is a debate I look forward to. It is a debate the American people deserve. But what you don’t deserve is another election that’s governed by fear, and innuendo, and division. What you won’t hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon – that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize. Because we may call ourselves Democrats and Republicans, but we are Americans first. We are always Americans first.
Despite what the good Senator from Arizona said tonight, I have seen people of differing views and opinions find common cause many times during my two decades in public life, and I have brought many together myself. I’ve walked arm-in-arm with community leaders on the South Side of Chicago and watched tensions fade as black, white, and Latino fought together for good jobs and good schools. I’ve sat across the table from law enforcement and civil rights advocates to reform a criminal justice system that sent thirteen innocent people to death row. And I’ve worked with friends in the other party to provide more children with health insurance and more working families with a tax break; to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and ensure that the American people know where their tax dollars are being spent; and to reduce the influence of lobbyists who have all too often set the agenda in Washington.
In our country, I have found that this cooperation happens not because we agree on everything, but because behind all the labels and false divisions and categories that define us; beyond all the petty bickering and point-scoring in Washington, Americans are a decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common challenges and common hopes. And every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again.
So it was for that band of patriots who declared in a Philadelphia hall the formation of a more perfect union; and for all those who gave on the fields of Gettysburg and Antietam their last full measure of devotion to save that same union.
So it was for the Greatest Generation that conquered fear itself, and liberated a continent from tyranny, and made this country home to untold opportunity and prosperity.
So it was for the workers who stood out on the picket lines; the women who shattered glass ceilings; the children who braved a Selma bridge for freedom’s cause.
So it has been for every generation that faced down the greatest challenges and the most improbable odds to leave their children a world that’s better, and kinder, and more just.
And so it must be for us.
America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.
The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.
Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Tuesday that the Canadian government has no plans to boycott the entire Beijing Olympic Games, nor does he expect other countries to do so.
“I don’t anticipate any kind of a boycott of the Games themselves. … I don’t see either in this country or internationally a push for that,” he told a news conference.
“I would note that even the Dalai Lama has not called for such a boycott,” Harper said.
Human rights groups have urged leaders to boycott the Summer Games to protest China’s human rights record and its crackdown on anti-government demonstrations in Tibet last month.
No heads of state have expressed plans to boycott the entire event but several suggested they may stay away from the opening ceremonies.
The prime minister said such boycotts are often ineffective and would only harm the athletes who have trained for years to compete in the Olympics.
Harper also reiterated that he does not plan to attend the Aug. 8 opening ceremony himself and never planned to, but Ottawa will be sending a high-level representative.
On Monday, Defence Minister Peter MacKay had said he couldn’t rule out a boycott of the sporting event since there had yet to be a discussion.
“The prime minister’s statement that he won’t be attending is a signal of a personal decision that he’s taken … But as far as a policy or something reflective of government policy, we have not taken that decision just yet,” MacKay said.
His director of communications later said, however, there was no plan to discuss the issue in cabinet and that MacKay only addressed it in response to reporters’ queries. Harper confirmed on Tuesday that there won’t be any talks about a boycott.
A number of countries have suggested they are considering a boycott of the ceremonies as a symbol of displeasure over China’s violent handling of the Tibet protests, which have left at least 22 people dead.
No countries have said they plan to boycott the entire Games, running Aug. 8-24 in Beijing, although some — including France, Belgium and Norway, as well as the president of the European Union’s parliament — have suggested they’re in favour of a boycott of the opening ceremonies.
Leaders in Britain and the United States have said they will attend.
(Ottawa) If the Conservatives had hoped to put the Tom Lukiwski issue behind them, they won’t be able to because of pressure from within their own caucus.
Senator Nancy Ruth, the only openly gay member of the Conservative caucus, said she plans to raise the issue when caucus meets Wednesday.
“Apologies are never enough,” Ruth said in an telephone interview. “There always needs to be action.”
Prime Minister Stephen Harper refused Monday to discipline Lukiwski over a vulgar homophobic slur the Regina MP uttered 16 years ago while he was a provincial Conservative organizer. (story)
Harper acknowledged that Lukiwski’s remarks were “completely unacceptable,” but he told the House of Commons that he considers the matter is closed following Lukiwski’s apology.
Harper added the government will not be stripping Lukiwski of his title as parliamentary secretary to the House leader.
Ruth would not offer an opinion on whether Lukiwski should resign from that position, but she plans to tell him and her caucus that more needs to be done.
“I will speak to him and let him know that it’s not good enough, and I’ll do it in the most tactful way I can,” Ruth said while en route to Ottawa.
“There are queers everywhere _ including in his constituency _ and we don’t ever forget this stuff.”
She suggested that Lukiwski spend some time in his constituency with a group of gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans-gender people to develop a better understanding of the challenges they face.
Ruth said her discussions about homosexuality with Harper have always been positive. He considers sexual preference a private matter, she said.
That openness leads her to believe Harper will be willing to listen to her suggestions on how Lukiwski can begin making reparations.
A swaggering Lukiwski was videotaped on the evening of a provincial leaders’ debate in 1991 trying to draw distinctions between those who are gay and straight.
“There’s As and there’s Bs,” he said. “The As are guys like me. The Bs are homosexual faggots with dirt on their fingernails that transmit disease.”
Since the tape was made public last week, Lukiwski has apologized during a news conference and in the House of Commons.
The opposition has demanded that Lukiwski be fired from his parliamentary secretary duties, saying to do otherwise would condone bigotry.
Ruth said she has reservations about Lukiwski’s apology.
“When people say that stuff, there’s something deep-seated that’s true.”
She is, however, going to give him the benefit of the doubt, as people do change over sixteen years.
“I know he has experience with homosexuals in the caucus _ I’m in the caucus, there are others.
Ruth was appointed to the Senate in March of 2005 by then-prime minister Paul Martin as an independent Progressive Conservative. When she later joined the Conservative caucus, she met with Harper who asked why she thought she had been approached to join.
“I said that it was because it was the year of gay marriage, and I was a lesbian,” Ruth said.
“His response was `that’s interesting. I’m sure there’s more to it than that.”’
Ruth says that Harper has been respectful of her views which she finds remarkable.
“And he listens. I actually got a budget line in last year around an action plan for women.”
If you are like me and you enjoy watching the media take aim at the U.S. President, then this video is a must see. Well worth the 10 minutes to watch it.
NEW YORK – The daughter of President John F. Kennedy endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, saying he could inspire Americans in the same way her father once did.
“I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them,” Caroline Kennedy wrote in an op-ed posted Saturday on the Web site of The New York Times. “But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.”
Kennedy, who was four days shy of her 6th birthday when her father was assassinated, wrote that Obama “has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things.”
And she appealed to other parents to pick a candidate who she said could invigorate a younger generation that is too often “hopeless, defeated and disengaged.”
Kennedy wrote that she wants a president “who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved.”
By DAVID ESPO and CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press
COLUMBIA, S.C. – Barack Obama routed Hillary Rodham Clinton in the racially-charged South Carolina primary Saturday night, regaining campaign momentum in the prelude to a Feb. 5 coast-to-coast competition for more than 1,600 Democratic National Convention delegates.
Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina battled for a distant second place. Either way it was a sharp setback in the state where he was born and scored a primary victory in his first presidential campaign four years ago.
About half the voters were black, according to polling place interviews, and four out of five of them supported Obama. Black women turned out in particularly large numbers. Obama, the first-term Illinois senator, got a quarter of the white vote while Clinton and Edwards split the rest.
The victory was Obama’s first since he won the kickoff Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3. Clinton, a New York senator and former first lady, scored an upset in the New Hampshire primary a few days later. They split the Nevada caucuses, she winning the turnout race, he gaining a one-delegate margin. In an historic race, she hopes to become the first woman to occupy the White House, and Obama is the strongest black contender in history.
The South Carolina primary marked the end of the first phase of the campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, a series of single-state contests that winnowed the field, conferred co-front-runner status on Clinton and Obama but had relatively few delegates at stake.
That all changes in 10 days’ time, when New York, Illinois and California are among the 15 states holding primaries in a virtual nationwide primary. Another seven states and American Samoa will hold Democratic caucuses on the same day.
Obama’s “South Carolina voters rejected the politics of the past,” said Robert Gibbs, a spokesman for Obama.
The first fragmentary returns showed Obama with 57 percent of the vote, Clinton gaining 29 percent and Edwards at 13 percent.
All three contenders campaigned in South Carolina on primary day, but only Obama and Edwards arranged to speak to supporters after the polls closed. Clinton decided to fly to Tennessee, one of the Feb. 5 states, leaving as the polls were closing.
After playing a muted role in the earlier contests, the issue of race dominated an incendiary week that included a shift in strategy for Obama, a remarkably bitter debate and fresh scrutiny of the former president’s role in his wife’s campaign.
Each side accused the other of playing the race card, sparking a controversy that frequently involved Bill Clinton.
“They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender. That’s why people tell me Hillary doesn’t have a chance of winning here,” former President Clinton said at one stop as he campaigned for his wife, strongly suggesting that blacks would not support a white alternative to Obama.
Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as “the black candidate,” a tag that could hurt him outside the South.
Nearly six in 10 voters said the former president’s efforts for his wife was important to their choice, and among them, slightly more favored Obama than the former first lady.
Overall, Obama defeated Clinton among both men and women.
The exit polls showed the economy was the most important issue in the race. About one quarter picked health care. And only one in five said it was the war in Iraq, underscoring the extent to which the once-dominant issue has faded in the face of financial concerns.
The exit poll was conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for The Associated Press and the networks.
Clinton and Obama swapped accusatory radio commercials earlier in the week.
The former first lady aired an ad saying Obama had once approved of Republican ideas. His camp responded quickly that Clinton “will say anything.” First she, then he, pulled the commercials after a short run on the air.
Given the bickering, Edwards looked for an opening to reinvigorate a candidacy all but eclipsed by the historic campaign between Obama and Clinton. He went on the “Late Show with David Letterman” at midweek to say he wanted to represent the “grown-up wing of the Democratic party.”
That was one night after a finger-wagging debate in which Obama told Clinton he was helping unemployed workers on the streets of Chicago when “you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart.”
Moments later, the former first lady said she was fighting against misguided Republican policies “when you were practicing law and representing your contributor … in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago.”
___
Associated Press writers Beth Fouhy, Seanna Adcox and Mike Baker in Columbia, S.C., contributed to this report.
The Ebenezer Sermon:
To the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta yesterday…
Know hope:
The Scripture tells us that when Joshua and the Israelites arrived at the gates of Jericho, they could not enter. The walls of the city were too steep for any one person to climb; too strong to be taken down with brute force. And so they sat for days, unable to pass on through.
But God had a plan for his people. He told them to stand together and march together around the city, and on the seventh day he told them that when they heard the sound of the ram’s horn, they should speak with one voice. And at the chosen hour, when the horn sounded and a chorus of voices cried out together, the mighty walls of Jericho came tumbling down.
There are many lessons to take from this passage, just as there are many lessons to take from this day, just as there are many memories that fill the space of this church. As I was thinking about which ones we need to remember at this hour, my mind went back to the very beginning of the modern Civil Rights Era.
Can he win it all??? Predictions… Obama ’08…
We do NOT like, NOR endorse Huckabee, we hope he looses…
************************
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
DES MOINES, Iowa (Reuters) – Barack Obama took the first step to winning the Democratic presidential nomination on Thursday with a victory in Iowa, while Mike Huckabee capped a stunning political rise to beat Republican rival Mitt Romney.
Obama, an Illinois senator bidding to make U.S. history as the first black president, won the first Democratic test on the road to the White House with a win over New YorkSen. Hillary Clinton and former North CarolinaSen. John Edwards, who were in a tight battle for second.
Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor and ordained Baptist minister, was projected by television networks to beat Romney fairly easily despite being dramatically outspent by the wealthy former Massachusetts governor and venture capitalist.
For the winner in Iowa, the prize is valuable momentum and at least a temporary claim to the front-runner’s slot in their battle to win the party’s presidential nomination in the November election.
The third-place finisher in the heavyweight Democratic showdown, meanwhile, could find themselves hobbling into New Hampshire for Tuesday’s primary.
The 2008 campaign is the most open presidential race in more than 50 years, with no sitting president or vice president seeking their party’s nomination.
The loss was a heavy blow for Clinton, the former first lady who a few months ago was considered in some quarters the almost certain Democratic nominee. The loss creates immense pressure to turn around her campaign in New Hampshire over the next five days.
Obama’s win effectively makes him the candidate to beat among Democrats, and a win next week in New Hampshire could set him on a nearly unstoppable drive to the nomination. The next big contest would be in South Carolina, where more than half of the voters are black.
Iowa voters filled gathering spots in more than 1,700 precincts around the state to declare a presidential preference in Iowa’s caucuses, which open the state-by-state battle to choose candidates in the November 4 election to succeed President George W. Bush.
In the Democratic caucuses, voters debated their options and cajoled their neighbors to switch to their candidate. Republicans conducted essentially a preference poll, casting votes soon after the caucus begins.
For Republicans, Huckabee’s upset reshaped a race where no candidate has been able to claim front-runner status.
Iowa, where a sizable bloc of religious conservatives had fueled Huckabee’s rapid rise, represented perhaps the best chance for the former Arkansas governor to break through with a win. His rise has been fueled by evangelical and religious conservatives who constitute a sizable bloc in Iowa.
He will face tougher going in New Hampshire, where there are fewer evangelicals, and he has lingered well behind Romney and ArizonaSen. John McCain in polls.
Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts who has had to justify his Mormon faith during the campaign, launched aggressive advertising campaigns against Huckabee and McCain in recent weeks.
Iowa’s opening contest in the nominating battle has traditionally served to winnow the presidential field of laggards and elevate some surprise contenders.
Record turnout was expected for the Democrats, surpassing the 124,000 Iowans who participated in 2004. Republicans could challenge their record of 87,000 caucus participants in 2000.
(Additional reporting by Matthew Bigg, Andy Sullivan, Ellen Wulhorst, Deborah Charles and Ed Stoddard; Editing by David Wiessler)
This notion of freedom is something that I have not thought about but I guess I can write about it. What is freedom? Growing up in middle America I lived under the protective shadow of my parents, and as a young person I wasn’t so free that I could know the people I wanted to know and have the friends I wanted to have. My parents had their prejudices and issues. So I had to mask reality with a layer of ‘pleasing’ so that I would not rock the proverbial social boat.
The social and family gospel of the times was no blacks, no gays, no opinionated friends and surely not a boy-friend. I kept that model to please my family until I had decided to move out on my own. That was my first taste of freedom, so I thought.
True as it was, I was a slave to the bottle. I was a slave to image, I was a slave to social pressure. So with that I wasn’t really free was I? I was a slave to what I thought was reality, in my warped young mind. I did not have the street smarts to know the difference. I surely did not know what the right path was, because no one pointed it out to me. All the young men I knew were walking one certain path and I was surely following them. Which led to many mistakes, heartaches and problems.
In the 90′s when I met my then partner, and he subsequently committed suicide after learning he was sick, I met a man who began my education on being free. I think this was the first time that I felt totally free. I could explore my sexuality in all its carnality, and I was wrapped in a blanket of safety by my Master at the time.
Living within the community of leather men, I was protected, I was safe and I could ask my questions and get my answers from men who would not lie to me nor abuse me, because my Master deemed me special above the other boys he knew.
When I was diagnosed with AIDS in 1994, I have written about this before, that blanket of protection got a little tighter. Humans became animals, adults became monsters, Christians became sinners to the highest degree. Men were dying, my friends were sick and they too died alone and on the street, left out in the cold by people who were supposed to love them and care for them.
In my little leather world I was free, I put down the bottle for the first time and I started to live. I stopped counting the days until I would eventually die, as I was told, and I lived. I had a life outside my job, and that life was to take care of myself – I had a lot of help, my Master saw to my every need, medical, financial and practical.
I went to work and when I crossed the threshold into the building, which was a bar at that time, I left that world outside, outside. In that womb of safety I did whatever I was told. I did not question any chore I was asked to perform, although I did. I could be whomever I wanted to be, in that sense I was free.
But always, my Master’s eyes were always upon me. I was untouchable and that was the rule of the day. It was the most freeing time of my life, to give my life over to the care of another human being in all senses of the word. I wanted for nothing, I needed nothing, I was loved and protected in ways today do not exist. I gave my trust to one man and his community and they never let me down.
There was sacred life in the community of the profane. There was sacred love in the realm of the profane. To the outsider we were the strange and the demented, we were other and we were strange, they used to say that we were abusive and profane. How could we be human and live the way we were all living. I can tell you that in those years I never felt so free in my life to be who I wanted to be, because nobody told me otherwise. In my Masters house I was free…
When he departed my life, that freedom disappeared. I had to reenter the social world of what they told me was normal. I was sick, I was alone, but I was also sober… I never felt so much pain as I did in those intervening years emotionally, physically and mentally.
That cocoon of protection and freedom was gone, and I had to relearn what it meant to live in the ‘straight world.’ I became a slave to social norms. I was bound to the life I was handed by the community I lived in. All those things I took for granted in that other world were shackles that held me to the ground. I was no longer free…
I moved from one location to another, I fought the system of medical care that only wanted me to die rather than pay out to help care for me as a citizen of the United States, and a resident of where I was living. I was not free, I was chained to a life that did not want me to survive.
I tried a geographic cure to try and settle myself somewhere and I fell into the trap of addiction once again. I was a slave to cannabis, I was a slave to the bottle and I was a slave to whatever drug ended up on the coffee table. Eighteen months later I had been physically beaten up so badly by the one I was with that I was unrecognizable and ended up in a safe house thousands of miles from where I had been, because someone know where I was and he saved me from imminent death.
I was free again…
After a month in that safe house I risked my life by reentering the world, and I returned to the only place I knew life. I returned to that life that had me chained to one spot, playing the system for all that is was worth. I became a cast iron bitch in order to save my life. I did things that I had to do, I was crazy because of the circus of medical care that kept me always on the edge of a nervous breakdown. I was surely not free…
A warning to parents… Never lie to your children, because one day they will seek the truth to those lies. I guess that at some point for some reason I had chatted with someone who got me to ask the right question at the right time. A well spoken and protected lie became the key to real freedom.
**********
I got sober again, I put down the drugs, the bottle and the life that chained me to the ground and I began to be free, again…
I got on a plane and sought sanctuary. I paid the price I had to pay in order to make it all right and above board. I left all that I knew, for a land that promised me freedom beyond anything that I had ever experienced. I got off the plane and entered a life that was miles from where I had been, and I began to learn what it meant to be free.
I found a place to live, I found a meeting to attend and to root to. I met people who would help me build a home, find medical care and I entered a social system of well placed people in all the right places.
Sobriety is a freeing experience. I put down all those ways that I had always clung to. I turned my back on the life I hated. I worked the program because they told me that if i truly wanted to be free, I had to get rid of the wreckage of my past, give freely of what I had and I had to suit up and show up every day of my life. I started to learn how to be totally free and a year would pass before I learned how to stay in my day…
I met a boy, I fell in love, and I started building a home for both of us. Surely two sober people walking the same path could not go wrong, right???
A year into my sobriety, I started a university career at age 34. What did I know about going back to school? I was much older than the other students. But they told me that I would always have help. I met a man who became my mentor, my father, my friend and closest adviser.
Two years into my new life, I was learning what it meant to be really free. The war in Iraq was looming and people were marching in the streets. Sew Canadian flags to your backpacks and never mention that you were an American. I followed that direction. I marched like everyone else marched against the war. I was free…
I hit a wall during that time, because I did not know where I was socially and politically. I had one foot still planted there and one foot firmly planted here. I was divided and conflicted. I sat with my mentor one afternoon and I told him that I did not know how to feel, what to think or where to go next.
Wiser advice was never so important to me than what he told me. He said “if you don’t know where you are going, stop and sit down where you are, look around for the signs, get comfortable with your feelings and learn about them. Find comfort in what you are feeling until it feels natural and free. Because if you don’t learn about what you are feeling how can you move forward? When you are ready, consult your map, ask your questions and then take a few steps, one after the other, and soon you will be on your way.”
I chose the Maple leaf, I walked away from my paternal heritage and history. I embraced my maternal heritage and I never looked back. I will tell you that I never felt such freedom in my life. From that day forward I lived to be free, I lived to be me.
The days, months and years that would follow that decision posed very harsh and painful experiences. Life became tragically painful as my then boyfriend was diagnosed Bi-Polar and he fell into the pit of hell and sat there for ten months and I had to care for both of us.
There was a cost that came with my freedom, because I chose to settle down with my partner and we were building a life together and I was the sole care taker for our home. I made my choice, now I had to learn how to grow up. Not that I wasn’t grown up, but I learned a very valuable lesson in maturity. I put the needs of my partner before my own and learned how to truly care for another because it was the right thing to do, and as God as my witness, I never felt so much freedom in my life, although I would not see that until I sit here and write out the words.
Thank god for my sober community and the advisers who helped me and the doctors who cared for my partner, and the system that made it possible for us to live. The longer I stayed sober, the freer I became. Sobriety frees one of the past, and gives one the ability to move forward in life.
In the society that I live in today we are free. If I don’t agree with political leaders I can protest. If I don’t agree with my government I can vote and make a difference. With an education I can do anything, with a degree I have knowledge, and with specialization I can do what I love to do.
**********
Living abroad, watching the world from above the Northern border, I have perspective. And I can tell you that living in the United States was a lesson in following the leader. We were taught certain lessons, we were told certain truths, my father beat into me love for the flag and my country, he taught me never to question the leaders of government and God forbid never question the wisdom of the president.
Keep your mouth shut and do as you are told. Learn the history as it was written and follow the example set out by your parents, and never ever question your place in the grand scheme of things…
I watched the pre-war riots in the streets of my city. I watched protesters march day after day after day. I got angry and I started to disagree with all that I had known. I had “spit in the face of my father” by leaving the country because I wanted to be free…
I say to my friends and people who live below the Northern Border,
“You want to be free, pack up your family, and leave the comfort of your lazy boys and your beer and sofas, and live somewhere else for one year, and watch the world go by from another location, other than the one you look at it go by in today, see how the world looks from where we are and think hard upon the ways you know, because after that year abroad you will never see your world quite the same way ever again…”
You will never feel as free as I feel free today…
Freedom is a choice… I choose to be free… I am free …
My Side of the Street by Jeremiah Andrews is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Canada License.
“What we are not make us , what we know not teach us, what we have not give us, in the most precious name of God, Creator, Redeemer and Giver of life, who is, who was, and is to come.” Amen…
Carre Rouge – Support Quebec Students
OBAMA 2012
Sober Blogs
Nike High Dunk
Rock the Sox
Boot Boy
Defeat is Worse than Death, You have to live with Defeat
The Author of My Side of the Street
From High Above Montreal - Welcome to My Side of the Street. Keeping it clean for 10 years.
I am gay, clean and sober and I have been HIV Positive for 17 + years now, who knew!!
I hold a B.A. in Religious Studies and I have completed my Certificate in Pastoral Ministry. Currently I am studying at Dawson College in Montreal.
There is an ABOUT ME up there on the header.
Let me address the sacred and the profane. You can't have one without the other, they are integral parts of life. They make us who we are. Each one of us is a little sinner and a little saint. Hence, the sacred and the profane.
I have been blogging on Word Press for a number of years. I encourage discussion. But let me say that what you think of me is none of my business. If you find you have a problem with what I write, then ask yourself why? We may not agree all the time and that's ok. I am just not going to be bullied again.
Serenity Please.
If you feel the need to write you can find me at [eragon@ca.inter.net] I read all my mail and I even write back.