Posted on 04/08/2011 2:27:55 AM PDT by HarleyD
This may be one of the more disturbing things I have ever seen. This video is shown to people, and even more frightening, many are likely inspired by it. This guy basically says that the problem with our country is that "everyone can vote", both ignorant know-nothings who only care about themselves(aka people who support abortion, gay marriage, etc), and informed people(aka people who agree with his/the organizations particular views)
and this is all presented in such a way as if it is incontrovertible. as if having an opinion that a woman has a right to choose or that homosexuality is someone's own business means you havent read a book in your life and are just saying that because you only care about your own "selfish interests".
and scariest of all, they actually use the words "Benevolent Dictatorship", where only those who agree with this guy's views are allowed to vote. true freedom. i think im gonna be sick
Heaven is a benevolent dictatorship. Right?
But this isn’t heaven. The problem with all human government including ours is that it is run by people. While we are on Earth, we will always have that problem. So even the best government conceived will be flawed by the requirement to man it with people.
To acknowledge this human failing isn’t the same as saying that there aren’t worse things than an ugly flawed constitutional republic.
Originally people had to own property to be able to vote.
It should be returned to some version of this: People who either serve in the military or have a net paying IN TO the government, etc., should vote.
Those on the dole or who pay nothing should have no say.
Sounds tough to today's wimply ears but that is how it was back when things were sane.
You CAN NOT have people who do nothing but parasite off of others be allowed to vote.
Why? Because they eventually get the hang of it and vote for craven politicians (i.e., Rats) who give them everything in return for votes.
Then the country is destroyed, which ours almost is.
Sounds crazy to the public-skool educated person, but, it's reality.
This Mr. Voris seems quite nutty, by modern standards, when he says that only the virtuous should be allowed to vote. How shall we test for virtue?
But he is echoing John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
I bet the trains would run on time...
Your post is ridiculous. I think thiose who support homosexuality & abortion are ruining the country. It’s not a freedom thing. It’s an intelligent, insightful thing. If you can’t recognize the problems those issues have brought upon us, then you are in some serious trouble.
When you give any human absolute power, after awhile other people look like ants.
I agree 100% and have been ranting for years that only people with their own skin in the game should get the vote.
There are only two possible mechanisms by which a person acquires money from someone else which they did not earn themselves via work (or investment): (1) Charity; (2) Theft.
Charity is voluntary.
Since paying taxes is not voluntary, and is in fact enforced at gunpoint, social entitlement programs are literally armed robbery, with the government acting as the proxy thief.
Thus, it is obscene that the recipients of social welfare programs are permitted to vote. If only the payers vote, and they still vote to sustain some level of social welfare safety net programs, I would actually be fine with it because at least then it would be legitimate charity.
“i think im gonna be sick”
This guy is just a garden variety idiot, and hardly represents the Catholic Church - or anything for that matter. If every nutjob makes you sick, you should carry a sack of airsick bags with you.
Sadly many Catholic clergy haven fallen for the lies of socialism and similar nonsense, I had a nun once tell me that what America needed was a “mild form” of socialism. Well the good sister got her wish with Obama and the country is now nearly bankrupt.
This is in contrast to socialism, he explained, which is an ideology in which private property and private interests are totally placed in the service of government policies. What the Pope proposes in ‘Caritas in Veritate,’ said Cardinal Turkson, is ‘achieving the common good without sacrificing personal, private interests, aspirations and desires.’You can do as we've done -- email this to your local priest/bishop and be a right holy pain in the *** until they get it in their heads. The Pope is doing his bit from the top down, we need to work from the top up and tell the bishops who aren't orthodox (small o) "clean up your act or git. And remember bad shepherds get judged much worse than bad sheep"Cardinal Turkson said the Council was also surprised that the Pope’s concept of the ‘gift,’ was perceived in some circles as encouraging government welfare handouts. In ‘Caritas in Veritate,’ Pope Benedict described the concept of “gift” as a way to understand God’s love for men and women in his gift of life and his gift of Jesus.
Whether he intended to or not, Cardinal Turkson has now echoed what many conservative Catholics in America have been calling for repeatedly — subsidiarity in economic policy. More importantly, the Cardinal observes the heart of the matter in noting that a ‘handout’ and a ‘gift’ are not at all the same, with the latter being more in keeping with the Gospel message.
One of the key principles of Catholic social thought is known as the principle of subsidiarity. This tenet holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization. In other words, any activity which can be performed by a more decentralized entity should be. This principle is a bulwark of limited government and personal freedom. It conflicts with the passion for centralization and bureaucracy characteristic of the Welfare State.
How many times a day do you say that? You may not agree with what this guy would use as a test of who should vote, but the idea that the franchise should be limited goes right back to the founding fathers. Every expansion of the franchise in this country has been shortly thereafter followed by an expansion of government proving the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they limited it in the first place.
I suspect there's a lot this guy says that you don't like and figured this one would be a good hot buttom issue with folks on FR, otherwise you wouldn't have that BS about "be sick" tacked on. I also suspect you would be more than happy to have a monarchy with Christ as King and those He appoints filling all government jobs, right?
I fail to understand how it can be considered “equality” that the vote of a deadbeat, drug-addicted petty loser carries the same weight as that of a hard-working, law-abiding pillar of the community. The former contributes nothing, even philosophically, to his society, while the latter is the very core of it. All a vote does is allow the deadbeat to steal the fruits of the worker’s labor.
There are a subset of Catholic FReepers who refer to themselves as "monarchists", because a benevolent dictatorship (i.e. a monarchy) is their preferred/ideal form of government. Some of them actually cheered on the (perceived) demise of the USA and of free market capitalism after Obama was elected. One of their more vocal members was the recently banned B-Chan, but there are others who are still active and posting on Free Republic. I'm not surprised to hear that the supposedly conservative Michael Voris is a monarchist, too. It's not for nothing that he's referred to as part of the "Catholic Taliban".
God help the United States of America, if Catholic Monarchism is considered part of the "conservatism" that is promoted on Free Republic. Here's hoping that they get caught in their anti-Americanism, and quickly too.
What he means by web-based McCarthyism is what John L Allen (of the National Catholic Reporter) calls the “Catholic Taliban”.Allen’s explanation of this term was recently spelled out to an audience at the University of Texas. It was necessary, Allen said, to strike “a balance between two extremes”. This is how he described these extremes:
“On the one extreme lies what my friend and colleague George Weigel correctly terms ‘Catholicism Lite’, meaning a watered-down, sold-out form of secularised religiosity, Catholic in name only. On the other is what I call ‘Taliban Catholicism’, meaning a distorted, angry form of the faith that knows only how to excoriate, condemn, and smash the TV sets of the modern world........Singled out for special attention was RealCatholicTV.com, which, accused the paper, is “hunting for ‘traitorous’ nuns, priests or bishops throughout the American Church”. “We’re no more engaged in a witch hunt than a doctor excising a cancer is engaged in a witch hunt,” said Michael Voris of RealCatholicTV.com and St Michael’s Media. “We’re just shining a spotlight on people who are Catholics who do not live the faith.”
-- from the thread Attacks build up on the ‘Taliban’ and the ‘McCarthyites’ of the Catholic blogosphere
I would also like to point out that neither Michael Voris, nor me, nor any other layman, speaks for the Catholic Church. The Magisterium is still the Pope & the bishops teaching in union with him.
I consider myself a Catholic Monarchist. This is because I’ve examined the prophecies involved and have not found them incongruent with either my faith or my personal political predilections. Should a true Catholic Monarch arise in my lifetime, I would seek emigration, as the USA is not a monarchy, and the whole GMC prophecy is wrapped up in Europe anyway. There’s no reason for it to influence American politics apart from a possible exodus of the conservative Catholic vote. Until that time, a Republic is still the most sensible way to go.
GCM prophecy, of course. A true divine right of Kings will be resurrected long before Detroit ever is....
As for the "Catholic Taliban", first I think that's slander of the worst sort given that I know of no one who is planning to kill those who don't agree with them, and second, at least the guy in question is working hard for maximum shock value in a lot of his little comments. Whether he and his organization are anywhere near as radical as some people think remains to be seen.
I followed your link to see the name of "the paper" which refers to Michael Voris as "hunting." Well, what do you know. It's the New York Slimes.
1. Since when do conservatives at FR take the NYT at face value? When they're going after Catholics, of course.
2. Why, after all the exhortations by anti-Catholics to clean up our own church, would anyone consider it a bad thing to shine a spotlight on bad priests, nuns or bishops?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.