The American Spectator

John Spencer Yantiss| 12.18.08 @ 10:14AM

Typical, and predictable, in the trending of human society across the globe today. Ultra-liberals/Greens/Socialists control the mainstream media in virtually every nation, despite strong support for traditional values amongst the common masses. Of course, Jehovah tells us in His word, the Bible, that this will happen as time races down to what has come to be called "the end times."

Also of course, most of what I just wrote will be ridiculed by a large, vocal minority, the very ultra-liberals who not only control the media, but academia, and most governments. Sadly, this number also includes many deluded of us "little people," those in the general population who at present are essentially powerless to stem the tide of degradation being inflicted on us--and themselves--by the perpetrators of secular humanism is all of its virulent perversity.

Dosser| 12.18.08 @ 1:23PM

Unfortunately, I have to agree that we can see the progress of society towards the end-times as depicted in the Bible. What is sad is that many of the faithful are slowly being converted to this secular humanism without their notice. Things are upside-down. Concepts I thought were unheard of in a civilized society are now accepted. We are marching towards the end-times at an exponential rate.

Alan Brooks| 12.18.08 @ 10:05PM

Catholics can have a good conscience, it was the protestants, ie lutherans, who began the T4 euthanasia program in Germany.
(btw Mussolini was a nun compared to Hitler & Stalin). the Concordat was Pope Pacellis compromise w/ Nazis against Communism which seemed right at the time.
i'm tired of anti-Catholic propaganda- like the "Pope is the antichrist".

Alan brooks| 12.18.08 @ 10:08PM

that is to say Protestants, Lutherans for instance, backed Nazi euthanaia far far more than Catholics.

But of course someone here will disagree

Karsten Duncan| 12.18.08 @ 10:13PM

The Condordat with nothing to do with a Papal compromise with Nazis. It was a treaty with the Mussolini reghime made before the criminal and irrational nature of the Mussolini regime became apparent.

Karsten Duncan| 12.18.08 @ 10:15PM

I don't believer this is a sign of the "End Times." But it is a call to arms to us all to resist dehmanising evil. It is a call that is heard in every age.

Alan Brooks| 12.18.08 @ 11:38PM

Concordat had "nothing to do with" a papal compromise w/Nazis?
nothing at all?? you really believe that karsten?

see i knew someone would disagree.

Alan Brooks| 12.19.08 @ 12:34AM

anyway, we're agreed nothing Pacelli did could compare with what german lutherans did?
and italian fascists were saints compared to nazis and communists.

Philoktetes| 12.19.08 @ 1:01PM

Alan Brooks, you dumb@ss. Nobody called the pope the anti-christ or anything else. I am so glad all the Catholics in Germany stood bravely against the Nazis and rose up and overthrew Hitler and saved the world from another world war. Whew. It was close.

Toots| 12.19.08 @ 7:32PM

All things on the planet, belongs to the POPE, and the CROWN of Britain.

For people to educate them selves and their children will take another 100 years to go through the laws, and what it means.

Most people will not bother, people will have to fight for their rights, but because peoples is being taken away because the moment has come, to realise no man has any rights to anything on the earth, it belongs to the Crown of Britan and the Pope in Rome that is the Law.

While every body has been woring about who in hollywood is doing what with who and stope watching the distractions of the football matches, it will be too late what they should have had their eye on, they have chosen to ignore.

It's too late for all of us, people are like wondering sheep. Too stupid to know the right way to go, worring about what Religion, what race, and what you should have been focus on is the law ofor the common man.

You thought paying your taxes, was enough, the answer is no, it's not enough, your life is not enough. The pope and the Crown owns every man woman and child in America and they are about to cash in. You are nothing but a SLAVE to the British Crown. Your constitution, what Constitution it's not even worth the paper it's written on.

You see you people don't think, you have the movies, the violence the football matches, but wht you should have been doing, you were not paying attention to. There are three laws, one is Gods laws the 10 commandments, then there is the laws writtewn by man, then there is the laws of the Crown and the Pope in Rome. These are the oldest laws, and when these was written the average man living in Britain could not read, the only people who spoke latin, and Greek, were the Rich Barons and Land owners, with titles from the Crown. People left Britain and thought they won the war of indipendence form the Crown, the reality is you won nothing because the land belongs to the CROWN.

Your Government including Washington, deceived you. And every thing you have now will be taken away, houses land businesses, any thing of value, because it belongs to the Crown of England. Do you think your government is going to tell you that.

America is finished, Canada at least have a bit more respect from the Crown because they were never under any elusion who own or run's things.
Americans feels they can attack any country in the world and some of these countries, are other Commonwealth countries, and Sovergin states in the world. America has no respect for them, or their citizens. And The Crown feels that America may become bold enough to focus on the British Isles. Not now but in distant future, the tree has grown too tall and has to be cut down.

The leaders and states men and women will not be affected by these changes, they come under the clissification of Knight's, the rest of the population are no more than owning a sheep or a goat.

Jobe| 12.19.08 @ 8:45PM

Things are becoming centralised, towards the old system. The system of the old ROMAN EMPIRE.
Where the Pope in Rome Crowned all the Kings of Europe. All the Land in Europe was Crown Land.

It's going back to how it was, all 4 corners of the globe will become blocked, America will become a part of Canada, and Mexico, and South America.

Then there is the problems that will remain in the Holy Land that is the Middle East. America will try along with Britain and Israel to bring them on board, it's never going to happen. Then there is the Russians, who will not go along with it either.
Then there is the Chinese, who will not go along with it.

3 Groups that don't care about the Crown or the Pope, and that is where the final conflict will be. This 3 groups want nothing to do with the Pope or the New King of Europe, and the Pope's idea of one world religion. Under a one world government controled by Europe. That is what these wars are about it has nothing to do with Terrorism. The attack on the world trade centre was planned, the bombs were placed to bring down the building. As for how the planes were involved or what happend I dont know for certain.

But all these thing were by design for a set of purposes. People need to get to understand that. The government is not being honest with the people. It's engineered to remove all rights from the American public. So if you don't agree with what they are doing you have no legal rights.

In the New year 2009, there is going to be huge food shortage, and the price of food is going to go up, like the oil prices went up, people are going to start to starve in America. It's going to happen across the world. People will not grow food to supply to Europe because they have to feed their own populations.

We are moving now towards world wide famine, for the first time since the dark ages, we are heading towards how it was, The Pope Crowned all the Kings of Europe. These will be New World Governments. The Democrats have no power, the Republicans have no power.

When people realise, what is going on Rome will be destroyed, the whore of Babylon which sits on 7 HILLS will be destroyed. The Pope will set up a new establishment in Israel. And the new world King will want the people to be worshiped, it will work for a while. These two world powers will bring desaster to the world because you have the false King, and the false prophet, it will all come to a head in 2012. Because there is only one King, the false prophet was the one misleading the world, the false Religion they make it up as they go, self appointed Christ on earth.

Who still collect money from every European government, and American government that is how they have become so rich, decked in gold and scarlet. And their church is filled with dead mens bones. They are the source of all evil in the world, these two illfaited people who have fought for power to decieve, and control the world, the Chirch of the Catholic faith has been no widow, because they do not marry and live normal life, they abuse little boys and girls.

The Pope is a man that is born of a woman, like all other men, but choose to elevate himself above God, before man it is called blasphemy.

Our father who is in heaven hallowed be thy name, they kingdom come, thy will be done, on
earth as in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we for give those who trespass against us.

Lead us not into temptation, and deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom the power and the glory, for ever and ever Amen.

This guy call himself the glory of the olives.
His only glory is in hell where he belongs.

During the Inquisition, the Catholic Pope ordered murdered the people of faith all across Europe
And is about to do it again, this false church, has caused more deaths and poverty, in persuit of power, over Kings and queens of Europe. And also ordinary people in the world, now it is said it is the Muslims that is causing the deaths of people in the modern age, no it is not. Politics is what is causing the deaths of people in this age, people who are deemed as Terrorist are people fighting for the freedom of their people. No different from how it has always been, throught history.

The Bible says: As it was in the beginning, so shall it be in the end.

Alan Brooks| 12.20.08 @ 8:31PM

so I'M the dumb@ss??
you guys are crazier than me!

gtwrkrwt| 12.22.08 @ 6:08PM

the dumass is the guy provoked into responding to jokers

Arnold I. Reeves| 12.23.08 @ 1:47AM

Mr. Colebatch, your volte-face is welcome, but it is too late and too limited. When Australians had their referendum on the republican issue in 1999, you defended the pro-death Elizabeth II, and saw nothing wrong with her having signed abortion into law. You also saw nothing wrong with the truly astonishing number of public sodomites who were anti-republican spokesmen in that referendum, and who have continued to dominate anti-republican comment in Australia.

Now, at last, you are fighting against the pro-death monarchist monster you helped create. Don't expect us to be grateful until you actively realize what Catholics recognized long ago: that a pro-life republican government is legitimate; a pro-death monarchy is not.

Coolderry| 12.23.08 @ 5:31AM

A Speech to share:

Mr Speaker,

His Excellency’s speech has led me to consider the valuable role that he plays in the constitutional life of South Australia and to reflect on the larger constitutional questions that are to be put before the Australian people in November.

A civilised society derives its moral authority from beyond the exclusively temporal. Western civilisation is indebted to Christianity for much that is distinctive and central to its achievements from rejecting the practice of slavery to political pluralism and a concern for social justice and human rights.

This century has been littered with attempts to create a purely secular state. The absence of the restraining influence of Christianity on the State has been catastrophic in many of these experiments. At the extreme end, the millions that have been slaughtered in Stalin’s purges and Hitler’s Final Solution are a testament to the need for restraint. A state that sources its authority in God succumbs less easily to the hubris of state power. Hence, I am attracted to the argument that the Crown is a symbol of something greater than itself and a reminder of the ultimate source of all authority. But, better a pious republic that a Godless Monarchy.

Mr Speaker, I am also mindful of my Party’s policy of support for a republic. However, I make the point that this does not commit me, or anyone else in the Party, to blind support for the model on offer. An uncritical republican stance is no contribution at all to the evolution of the republic we need to have.

When Robert Manne blithely dismissed the public’s concern with the detail of the model as “a second order issue”, Michael Duffy was right to rebuke him for being both frivolous and contemptuous of legitimate public disquiet in the worst traditions of our local elites.

The republican movement must accept a good deal of the blame for the fact that the debate over the model has been so impoverished. Those critics who point out that the official Yes case literature has five blank pages, where there should have been arguments, clearly have a point. If, as I expect, there is a No vote in South Australia and insufficient support nationally, the ARM should reflect on its own failures to persuade people of a case that clear majorities were willing to support.

Significant changes to our Constitution are quite rightly difficult to bring about. They oblige political parties and broader movements for social change to bring the people with them.

As long as a significant proportion of the population feels wary of proposed constitutional change, referenda are bound to fail. I am surprised that the Republican Movement allowed Paul Keating to set the republican timetable. It is wishful thinking to believe that a referendum to allow an Australian Republic before 2001 will be successful. Gratefully remembering Britain’s role in the defence of Australia during the Second World War, and deeply attached to the present Monarch, too many Australians find the notion offensive. Notwithstanding his brilliance, Paul Keating only intensified those reactions when he started to give us unreliable history lessons and to question the patriotism of anyone who disagreed with him.

As Bob Hawke pointed out, the most natural time for change would be at the end of the present reign. If his argument had been accepted, so would the change itself and there would have been plenty of time to sort out the fine print. Instead, we have a model which a great many distinguished legal minds say is unworkable. Mr Speaker, I am not a lawyer, but I know enough about the nuts and bolts of Government to share some of their practical concerns. If the theory of competing mandates applies to direct election, as the ARM argues, it must also be a problem with a President who enjoys the support, not only of a tokenistic Appointment Committee, but a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of the Federal Parliament.

If the former Chief Justice of Australia, Sir Harry Gibbs, says there is likely to be a Mexican standoff in the event of a dismissal, the ARM should do more than dismiss his arguments with a sneer. Reassurance without substance is not very reassuring.

Time does not permit a rehearsal of all the potential problems – but let me briefly list them; I think instant dismissibility of the President undermines the checks and balances to executive power. I cannot see any sense in having more than one deputy president, each able to assume the full powers of the President. The notionally secret deliberations of the appointment committee would also inevitably become public, as Richard McGarvie has pointed out, and would deter the most suitable people from allowing their names to be put forward. None of these problems can plausibly be dismissed as frivolous, nor can the inevitable changes involving the High Court in constitutional crises.

The non-justiciability clause was an after-thought, so badly drafted as to be an open invitation to the Court to decide to which particular parts of the constitution it actually applies. Thoughtful republicans, as well as monarchists, are worried about these time bombs. Most of us have children, and want them to grow up in a politically stable climate such as we have ourselves enjoyed.

On this occasion I shall be voting “no”, because I cannot in all conscience do otherwise. My problems are with the model on offer rather than republicanism generally and I am not alone in my concerns. To the 30% of Labor voters who share them, I can only say that they should feel free to follow their consciences.

An Article:

The Republican Debate We Had to Have
Fr Ephraem Chifley OP

Recently I was at a barbecue quietly discussing the forthcoming referendum on the Republic with some ALP friends, some of whom were incensed that I have chosen to vote No. One Greek mate went so far as to wave his finger at me and ask in hurt though loud tones what my Uncle Ben would have thought of me and my support for the Protestant British monarchy. I imagine that after his speech in the South Australian parliament on Tuesday night young Jack Snelling has probably had similar if more serious conversations with the party’s hierarchy. Though a republican of a thoughtful kind, Mr Snelling does not accept that the proposed constitution will do what it is supposed to do. It has such serious, indeed fatal, flaws that he finds himself unable to vote for it. His reasonable and principled position cannot be construed as any sort of betrayal of the great traditions of the Labor party.

So what would Uncle Ben think? Being the son of an Irish Catholic immigrant there are good reasons for thinking that Joseph Benedict Chifley would be a republican. The question is, however, what sort of republican would he be. It might be worthwhile reflecting on the first line of the Irish Constitution to understand the kind of Republic he might have been interested in. It begins, for example, by invoking the Trinity as the source of state power and all authority.

Not all the Irish have been republicans, of course. During the American Revolution the Deism and “no-popery” of the establishment republicans, like Maddison and Jefferson, propelled thousands of Maryland Irish into the army of the Christian (if Protestant) King. There is even a species of poignant Irish folksong that celebrates their feats of arms. They probably found it incongruous to sing hymns to Christ the President.

Mr Snelling’s position is far more mainstream. It reflects the views of a third of his party and its immigrant Irish Catholic traditions. When he says that “a state that sources its authority in God succumbs less easily to the hubris of state power” I have no doubt that Uncle Ben would have agreed wholeheartedly.

There is nothing intrinsically immoral about either a monarchy or a republic. As Mr Snelling says, “better a pious republic than a Godless monarchy.” The inverse is doubtless the case as well. While the Australian Labor Party has the establishment of a republic as a strict policy, support for the model on offer cannot be imposed. Considering that the current model has fatal flaws it is just as well that Mr Snelling has pointed out to the party faithful that they may vote against it with a clear conscience. He also reminds us that the Coalition does not have a monopoly on respect for tradition, constitutional prudence and concern for stable government.

The defects in the Keating/Turnbull model stem principally from an insufficiently articulated, indeed profoundly confused, notion of the origins of constitutional authority. Sovereignty is vested in neither the Crown nor the people but in the increasingly frayed moral authority of the parliament. The charge that it would be a politicians’ republic is an effective criticism because it is so obviously true. In all of this there is more than a suggestion that our democratic system is already a sort of elective dictatorship and that the remaining checks and balances should be deleted in the name of progress. The Australian people are justly suspicious of a system that pretends to work without an independent umpire.

Then there are the practical problems of the model. The Catholic Church understands very well the dangers of the Avignon dilemma. A sacked president and his plethora of deputies are potentially a severe constitutional embarassment. Although the authors of the model have attempted to wallpaper over this structural fault with the non-justiciability clause, the clause itself is ambiguous enough to oblige the intervention of the High Court even as to its application. The idea of protracted litigation about who is in fact running the country in the event of a Mexican standoff is profoundly disturbing. It demands a more detailed and persuasive rebuttal from the republican side than has so far been given, or perhaps can be given.

Mr Snelling has done the party - and indeed the republican cause - a great service. As he says: “An uncritical approach is no contribution at all to the evolution of the republic we need to have.”