The Gospel Truth

A Rule Book for Politicians…Part II

January 20, 2011
1 Comment

Slavery has often been called the country’s original sin.

The founding fathers pragmatically put it in the body of the document so that there could be a United States.

Without this first great compromise, it is likely that the nation would have broken into at least two and maybe like ancient Gaul into three distinct parts.

Given the pain, misery and sorrow that the compromise allowed, I sometimes think it would have been better not to have compromised on such an important moral issues and let the political chips fall where they may.

Of course as brilliant as were Washington, Madison, Adams et al., they did not possess a prophetic sense.

Most of the Eastern and Northern colonies believed that slavery as a singular economic institution was ultimately unprofitable and would eventually just fade away.

None had the foresight to see that a young inventor, named Eli Whitney applied his genius to developing a workable cotton gin that revolutionized the cotton industry, and made the South even more dependent on cotton.

View Image

Did his genius cause the Civil War?

King Cotton need even more slaves, giving rise to an ever-important slave trade that just underscored the abuses done to a different race of mankind.

The nation fixed the problem with its Civil War Amendments that allowed for black adult males to have the right to vote.

But after the federal occupying troops left the 11 Southern states in 1877, notorious Jim Crow Laws, and Black Codes institutionalized a legalized system of segregation that permeated Southern culture far into the 20th century.

And all this was for a moral compromise.

The courts, even with the freedom amendments, still protected the South under the U. S. Constitution.

That was until 1954 when the Earl Warren Court decided the Brown vs. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas, which officially desegregated all the public schools in America.

This was a very popular moral decision that was very bad constitutional law.

According to the Constitution the Federal Courts had no right to interfere with the states’ right to educate its children.

I know that sounds crass of me but that’s what the 10th Amendment says and the last time I looked it was still a part of the document.

So in its efforts to right a wrong the Court had violated the separation of powers, which is one of the most vital cogs in the protective wheel of our balance of powers.

Good came out of the decision but the harm had been done.

Set a precedent that violates the letter of the law, even if you are doing a good thing and you make it easier for the next violation, which most likely be up to no good.

This the principle of the Nose of the Camel.

And while the nose may not smell so bad and may even be kind of cute, we all know what happens when the entire camel is lodged within the tent.

View Image

Once his nose is in the tent...

In a word, the tent becomes uninhabitable.

Liberals like to call this Camel Principle by its popular name, that is the living constitution.

The logic behind this that was applied to the Topeka school system was that the Constitution was written a couple hundred years ago, exclusively by men who would not have been able to understand the world Americans inhabited today.

So using the elastic clause and the 14th Amendment, the Court has been able to fashion just about anything they thought need doing.

In other words, Sociology trumped the law.

The best and most offensive example of this was the infamous Roe v. Wade decision that was forced on the American people, on January 22, 1973.

It was not only a sad day in our country but was a blight on our most important institution, namely marriage.

Roe was the end result of the Brown decision in 1954.

If the one eliminated our original sin, this one created an even bigger actual sin.

The one educated millions of black children and the second has resulted in over 50 million unborn children, including 17 million black children, being sacrificed on an altar of choice.

Historic irony?

This case did not happen.  At least three members of the Court, Harry Blackmun, William Douglas and William Brennan conspired to find just the right case to drive home this alleged right for women.

View Image

The architect of Roe

The creative justices manufactured the artificial right of women out of a penumbra in the right to privacy in the 9th amendment, adding Astronomy to Sociology to their arsenal of legal precedents.

Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg

Astronomy was their guide

Norma McCorvey, a poor unmarried pregnant woman, who had already given birth to her child  while the decision was pending.

She easily became the unwitting dupe of the agenda-driven left.

At first she claimed she had been raped and could have gotten an abortion under Texas law but without a police report her lies were exposed.

View Image

Easily became a dupe

On a side note the use of the word right in terms of an abortion is an only an affront to the English language, it is an abomination that mocks 200 years of American history.

What women have is not a right but a license to rid them of any of their unborn off-spring.

It is a privilege that was granted to them by seven men, ultimately for the benefit of men and to the detriment of women.

You don’t believe me?

Just ask Hugh Hefner, one of the most consistent supporters of a woman’s right to choose, both financially and ideologically.

The next big push on our freedoms and out civilization of freedom is ObamaCare.  This virtual take-over of one sixth of our economy is designed to force Americans to buy a product that we might not want.

Like Brown if this does eventually pass Court muster, the government can force us to buy or maybe even sell anything they feel might not be good for the general welfare.

Maybe something like a new Chevrolet Volt.

View Image

Buy this car...or else!

Given what I have written in the past two weeks, is in a nutshell why the Tea Party arose at approximately this time and place in history.  One of their battle cries has been to get back to the Constitution.

And the reason for this, the Constitution is our governing principle.

Since the Progressives in 1900 the country has gradually gotten away from being a nation of laws but more a nation of sociologists, who want to staple, fold, bend and mutilate our governing principle so out of shape that they will have carte blanche to do and enact what ever laws they deem necessary for our control.

And for this they are mocked!

A recent article in the New Yorker Magazine questioned whether the Constitution had become a cult.

Like the leaders of business and insurance, now it is the Constitution that is being marginalized and turned into something foreign and alien to American society.

This reminds me of the card game that the baseball players relaxed with in the movie, Bang the Drum Slowly.

They called it TEGWAR..the Exciting Game Without Any Rules.

Bang the Drum Slowly Poster

Gave us TEGWAR

 

The ball players made up the rules as they went along, relieving the mark of all of his money.

Sound familiar?


Is Bill O’Reilly A Pinhead?

October 4, 2010
1 Comment

I just finished reading TV and radio host, Bill O’Reilly’s latest book, Pinheads and Patriots: Where you stand in the age of Obama.

For the uninformed, a regular feature on O’Reilly’s Fox News TV show is where the host categorizes news figures as pinheads or patriots.

The latter are the worthies who have done something that benefits society.

Pinheads slide on a slippery slope.  Get in with the wrong crowd, get taken in by their own success, or get some bad advice, and all of that can lead to a residence in Pinheadville, a place everyone should avoid if you can.

Like his TV show, the Factor with its no spin zone, O’Reilly has an uncanny knack for irritating me to the nth degree.

As par for his mini golf course, he vainly attempts to be fair and balanced, which by my standards only guarantees that he will be wrong 50% of the time.

The very nature of his motto implies a certain kind of moral equivalency that is destructive to moral issues, such as abortion.

He takes so much time in bending over backwards so as appear to be fair that he nullifies or undercuts the truth that his positions supposedly are based on.

Oh don’t get me wrong, there are times when he shows his true combative mettle, especially in dealing with the likes of Barney Frank, the homosexual Congressman from Massachusetts.

 

Congressman Frank doing his Elmer Fudd "look"

O'Reilly finally got combative

 

After reading Pinheads, I have come to the conclusion that O’Reilly is at his combative best when discussing economic issues as demonstrated by his boisterous confrontation with Frank and his splendid but incomplete interview with Barack Obama–the latter which comprised the last and arguably the best chapter in his book.

But I wasn’t crazy about how Bill was so chummy with the president.  They bonded like two pals after a friendly game of basketball.

 

View Image

What's next--shooting some hoops?

 

I have noticed that aspect of O’Reilly’s demeanor when dealing with left-wing icons–with the sole exception Mr. Frank.

His deference reminds me of the way opposing lawyers pal around after a nasty court case.

You could have had them switch sides during the court proceedings and they would have done so like chameleons on a bush.

My biggest complaint with Bill is his bogus claim that he is a cultural warrior.

That would be risible if it were not so serious.  To Bill the culture war involves saving a few Christmas trees and creches from extinction.

He is more like a cultural spectator, sitting on the sideline, afraid to really take a side than a real cultural warrior.

The major issue of the current culture war is abortion.

It serves as the symbol for the attitudes and deep beliefs that separate us as a people…just as slavery bifurcated the nation 150 years ago.

 

Missed the whole point!

 

Abortion has divided us into right and left, red and blue states, and conservative and liberal.

I interviewed Bill on my old radio station, WGNU, just before his ascendancy into the big time…though I take absolutely no credit for it.

The interview on WGNU lasted about 15 minutes–I was a big deal around the station for landing O’Reilly–on our small station.  I usually produced my own show—well at least I procured all my own guests.

Of that 15 minutes, I spoke no more than 90 seconds and let him do most of the talking, which was not a difficult chore.

I think that’s what has made me a really good interviewer— I let the guest speak.  I believe people would rather hear the ideas of the guests than my interpretation of their ideas.

As a footnote that’s why O’Reilly is a poor interviewer— he is too interested in giving his spin and in his own the no-spin zone–rather than letting them talk.

The only issue I challenged him on was abortion.

I feel that he does not like to discuss the subject.  I think he may be afraid of the acrimony and unpopularity that is attendant to being authentically pro-life.

His answer if my recall is accurate was pure whishy-washiness…a vapid, non-committal bit of unadulterated intellectual fluff that was designed to get out of the hole with the fewest scrapes.

His autobiography A Bold Piece of Meat or whatever the nun called him many years ago went a long way in understanding just who Bill O’Reilly really is.  I was generally impressed with his candor about his wise-guy past. (No, I am not saying he was a hitman for the Mafia!)

I was amazed as to how poor a student he was in grade school.  He prided himself on being the bane of most of the nuns existence.

Fortunately for him his buddy Clem was did some things, Bill would never in all of his boldness have attempted.

At 6’4″ tall sports were his forte.  He played virtually everything that had a ball or a puck.

O’Reilly appears much taller when you stand next to him–which I did at a benefit for the St. Agnes Home here in St. Louis.

One thing I will say is that he is very generous with his time for charitable causes–I believe he waived his usual $75,000 fee.

The format for his talk was written questions in advance so he could filter the ones he did not want to answer.

I had written one about abortion but I was told it never made it to the floor, even though he did spend three hours answering questions.

I had a personal conflict that night–I really wanted to hear him speak but dinner took so long that I did not want to miss any more of the Holy Cross-SIU basketball game that was being televised at the same time.

Bill’s father had gone to Holy Cross and became an accountant.

 

View Image

Taller in person

 

I tried to use this as an ice-breaker during my interview but his father’s education did not seem to hold a high place in his priority system.

I tried that with a Cardinal of the Church one time with a similar result.

That’s how I got to briefly talk to him.  We were waiting in the wings, getting ready to bolt when he was making his entrance from the same spot.

I briefly mentioned his being on my program years ago.  He politely nodded with that disdainful look he sometimes has on the air when he wanted to dismiss a subject.

For the record my early departure was all for naught as Holy Cross was down by 10 points at the half and never got back into the game and as we were summarily eliminated from the NCAA’s Big Dance as we had been for the last 50 years.

 

File:Fenwick Hall CollegeOfTheHolyCross.jpg

Another link with O'Reilly

 

I was not surprised that O’Reilly had failed again to adequately broach the “A” subject.

In his book on the culture war, Bill does not even list abortion in the index.  How can he call himself a cultural warrior?

In his Bold Piece book, there are just two comments in the book on abortion. I think he said that we really didn’t know when life began and the second was similarly dismissive.

I do remember that his thoughts on this issue could have been written by Harry Blackmun, who had written the majority opinion on the infamous Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

I am not saying that Bill is pro-choice but I think this giant cultural warrior is a midget when it comes to defending innocent life.

 

This is what REAL cultural warriors do!

 

He is a wimp, or whatever word fits someone who does not have the courage of his convictions.

Perhaps he is afraid of offending women.

After watching his colleague, the Foxy Meghan Kelly eat his lunch time and time again, maybe I am on to something.

I think all women should be offended by this attack on the greatest power that any human could ever have–the ability to give life to a child of God.

They should all know that abortion was invented by men for the benefit of men.

I don’t know who said that but it sounds like something Hugh Hefner could sink his false teeth into.

They tell me that the Jesuits at Holy Cross virtually let the feminists run the place because they are afraid of them.

Millions of real women are out there protesting what abortion is doing to women.

I have seen them..I have stood with them.

Where is O’Reilly?  Has he ever picketed an abortion clinic?  Has he ever attended a march in Washington D. C.?

That’s what cultural warriors do…not sit around and pontificate about the assault on Christmas as testament their membership in the culture war crusade.

Does all this make Bill a pinhead?   I’ll let you make up your mind.

 

View Image

A resident of Pinheadville?

 

Send me your comments, I would love to hear what YOU think Bill is.


About author

After graduating from Holy Cross, Bill Borst earned an MA in Asian History from St. John's University and a Ph.D in American History from St. Louis University. (1972) A former New Yorker, he taught for many years in the St. Louis area, while also hosting a weekly radio show on WGNU from 1984-2006. He currently is a regular substitute for conservative Phyllis Schlafly on KSIV radio. (1320) He is the author of two books on social history, "Liberalism: Fatal Consequences," and "The Scorpion and the Frog: A Natural Conspiracy." He just retired as the Features editor of the Mindszenty Foundation Monthly Report. In his 11 years from 2003-2013 he wrote nearly 130 essays on Catholic culture and world affairs. Many in St. Louis also know him as the "Baseball Professor," because of a course that he offered at Maryville College from 1973-74. It was arguably the first fully-accredited baseball history course in the Midwest.The author of several short books on the old St. Louis Browns, he started the St. Louis Browns Historical Society in 1984. In 2009 his first two plays were produced on the local stage. "The Last Memory of an Ol' Brownie Fan," ran six performances at the Sound Stage in Crestwood and "A Perfect Choice" ran for two performances at the Rigali Center Theater in Shrewsberry. His third play, "A Moment of Grace," ran six performances at DeSmet High School in January of 2011with First Run Theater in January of 2011. He is currently working on a 4th play, "A Family Way," which is a comedy about a happy dysfunctional family. He can reached at bbprof@sbcglobal.net

Search

Navigation

Categories:

Links:

Archives:

Feeds