Slavery... 21st Century Style
And let's all give a big 'Thank You' to the Democratic Party
Interesting little bit o' info from the good folks at the Idaho Board of Education.
Under the heading "Minority/At-Risk Program", we learn that those who are young and disabled, or young and poor, can rate up to 3,000 taxpayer dollars a year to help defray the costs of a college education.
OK, I'm not a heartless creep. I can live with all this stuff. Hey, That's the kind of stuff our Faith demands of us. Right?
But then I saw the other two criteria...
1. Be a migrant farm worker or the dependent of a migrant farm worker. Doesn't this fall under "poor"? I don't know of many migrant farm workers who are exactly backstroking in cash. So why this special and separate qualifier? This sounds awfully Orwellian in that "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". Poor is poor. I don't care if your daddy is a migrant farm worker of Mexican heritage, or a laid off steel worker of African heritage, or a rancher of European heritage who just lost everything to the bank. Like I said... poor is poor. But not according to the Idaho Board of Education.
2. Be a member of an ethnic minority historically underrepresented in higher education in Idaho. And I must respond, who gives a damn? Just because someone is a member of a "minority" that means they are further qualified for financial assistance? I'm I the only one who finds this to be unbelievably racist? The State of Idaho is telling Blacks, American Indians, Latinos, etc, that precisely because they're Blacks, American Indians, Latinos, etc, they're genetically incapable of being able to make it without assistance from the State. Essentially, Idaho is saying "Dark Skin = Stupid".
It just hit me, according to the State of Idaho, the following individual rates taxpayer dollars to pay for college -- An 18 year old kid whose daddy is a multi-millionaire, and;
1. A US citizen and a resident of Idaho who graduated from an Idaho high school.
2. Blind in one eye.
3. Black.
Hey, he meets the required 3 out of 5 criteria for financial assistance. And who am I to argue with the Idaho Board of Education?
And let's all give a big 'Thank You' to the Democratic Party
Interesting little bit o' info from the good folks at the Idaho Board of Education.
Under the heading "Minority/At-Risk Program", we learn that those who are young and disabled, or young and poor, can rate up to 3,000 taxpayer dollars a year to help defray the costs of a college education.
OK, I'm not a heartless creep. I can live with all this stuff. Hey, That's the kind of stuff our Faith demands of us. Right?
But then I saw the other two criteria...
1. Be a migrant farm worker or the dependent of a migrant farm worker. Doesn't this fall under "poor"? I don't know of many migrant farm workers who are exactly backstroking in cash. So why this special and separate qualifier? This sounds awfully Orwellian in that "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". Poor is poor. I don't care if your daddy is a migrant farm worker of Mexican heritage, or a laid off steel worker of African heritage, or a rancher of European heritage who just lost everything to the bank. Like I said... poor is poor. But not according to the Idaho Board of Education.
2. Be a member of an ethnic minority historically underrepresented in higher education in Idaho. And I must respond, who gives a damn? Just because someone is a member of a "minority" that means they are further qualified for financial assistance? I'm I the only one who finds this to be unbelievably racist? The State of Idaho is telling Blacks, American Indians, Latinos, etc, that precisely because they're Blacks, American Indians, Latinos, etc, they're genetically incapable of being able to make it without assistance from the State. Essentially, Idaho is saying "Dark Skin = Stupid".
It just hit me, according to the State of Idaho, the following individual rates taxpayer dollars to pay for college -- An 18 year old kid whose daddy is a multi-millionaire, and;
1. A US citizen and a resident of Idaho who graduated from an Idaho high school.
2. Blind in one eye.
3. Black.
Hey, he meets the required 3 out of 5 criteria for financial assistance. And who am I to argue with the Idaho Board of Education?
posted by Kevin Whiteman at
5:07 PM
6 Comments:
1. Be a migrant farm worker or the dependent of a migrant farm worker. Doesn't this fall under "poor"?... So why this special and separate qualifier?
Because liberals hate people of European Christian descent and intend to transfer our wealth to "migrants", who are defined (presumably) as Mestizo Hispanics.
Giving our money away to those who did not earn it makes it harder for us to provide for our own families.
To liberals, this is a good thing. Recall that former President Clinton celebrated the claim that, by 2050, the US will no longer have a European majority.
Note also that this is not voluntary almsgiving to the poor, but the involuntary redistribution of wealth a la Communism. (No, I dont believe that the voters had much to say about it.)
2. Be a member of an ethnic minority historically underrepresented in higher education in Idaho. And I must respond, who gives a damn? Just because someone is a member of a "minority" that means they are further qualified for financial assistance? I'm I the only one who finds this to be unbelievably racist?
Who gives a damn? Liberals. Anti-Christians. Non-Christians. They are all the same, ideologically.
According to Liberal ideology, minorities were exploited and oppressed by people of European Christian descent (read: White people). In other words, we stole their lands, their wealth, and their labour. We, therefore, have to give it back.
Dont bother saying "But, I didnt exploit any Mexicans!" or "I didnt own any Blacks!" or "I didnt harm any Jews!".
Maybe you didnt. Maybe one or more of your ancestors did. Maybe none of them did.
Whatever the facts of the matter are, they are completely irrelevant to Liberals. The accusation is the crime. The point is (a) to get you to consider whatever it is they are "accusing" you of as something bad which needs to be redressed, and (b) to get you to spend more time "defending" yourself (by accepting their terminology and, thereby, conceding their point) than doing anything else. It is a form of subtle, psychological control.
The State of Idaho is telling Blacks, American Indians, Latinos, etc, that precisely because they're Blacks, American Indians, Latinos, etc, they're genetically incapable of being able to make it without assistance from the State.
In all the millions of dollars that have already spent integrating the public (read: government) education system, re-writing history to emphasise the "contributions" of minorities in America and worldwide, lowering academic standards to accomodate the lower average intelligence of Blacks and Hispanics (argue all you want about why that is the case: the facts remain self-evident), forcing business owners to hire less qualified "people of colour" over more qualified Americans (in accordance with Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action policies)... we have still not been able to raise these poor people's academic performance, enhance their real earning power, and elevate them to at least middle class economic standards.
The only exceptions to this rule seem to be the Asians (both East and South Asians, alike). These people come to America, stick to their own kind, dont ask for handouts, bust their humps working and studying, and actually improve their standings and those of their families.
The difference, in my opinion, is staggering: one broad group (Blacks & Hispanics [two groups, actually]) blame everyone for their problems, expect handouts, and go nowhere; whereas another broad group (Asians), dont blame anyone, dont ask for handouts, and make something of themselves. I think that speaks volumes.
[pause]
Anyhow, the unfortunate thing about this whole situation is that it is inevitable so long as you buy the original premise of "Multiculturalism". "Multiculturalism" eventually points out the obvious disparities among the various peoples inhabiting the United States, leading to demands of Equality of Outcome (and not, as is claimed, Equality of Opportunity).
Sadly, European Christians (and, by "Christians", I mean "Catholics" -- not heretics or schismatics) in America dont seem to have enough cultural pride and integrity to tell their straphangers "No!" and to encourage them to stop whining and deal with their problems as men.
Only then will they fix their ecomonic problems.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum
One thing I want to make sure I haven't misunderstood... when you say ...the lower average intelligence of Blacks and Hispanics, is this outlook based somewhere in Catholicism?
I read in the Holy Gospel of St John that those who are Bartized in The Lord are "Sons of God". I don't read of caveats, provisos, or qualifiers. No "greater sons of God", no "lesser sons of God". Sons of God, period.
I gotta be honest, it sounds an awful lot like your saying something along the lines of "...but some are more equal that others."
I gotta be honest, it sounds an awful lot like your saying something along the lines of "...but some are more equal that others."
As far as the Faith is concerned, we are all equal before God, so long as we are baptised, profess the true Faith, adhere to the traditional Sacraments, &c.
As far as genetic attributes are concerned (ex., body structure, athletic ability, intelligence, personality traits, &c.), we are all endowed differently, individually and collectively.
But, that has nothing to do with our Salvation or lack thereof. A weak man or a cripple who lives a Catholic life will most likely achieve Salvation, whereas a genius who is an unrepentant heretic will most likely go to hell.
Pax tecum
P.S. But then again, perhaps we actually are "more equal than others" when it comes to the happiness that thost of us will achieve in Heaven? Is it not a tenet of the Faith that the more Grace that we accumulate before we die, the greater the share of glory in Heaven? Certainly, those of us who are going to Heaven are not all equal in the amount of Grace we possess, but only with regard to the fact that we all equally possess the right to Heaven?
I must ask... (&c.)
"Less intelligent"? Hard to say without knowing much more about them other than the fact that Abp. Lefebvre ordained them. Certainly, when compared to the likes of Cardinal Mahoney or Abp. Weakland, they must've been men of much greater religious and moral virtue than the latter-named individuals.
Pax Domini, etc.
they must've been men of much greater religious and moral virtue than the latter-named individuals.
But I didn't ask about their religious or moral virtue. I'm asking about their intelligence.
As we would both agree, being ordained a Catholic priest is no easy feat... especially in pre-Vatican 2 Catholicism. And knowing the reputation of Abp Lefevbre, I would say it was a safe bet that he wouldn't ordain someone who failed to have the wherewithall to be a priest of the Latin Rite. In other words -- you had to be one sharp cookie.
With that said, your ...the lower average intelligence of Blacks and Hispanics comment makes me think one of two things;
1. Being ordained a priest in the traditional, pre-V2 Church wasn't really all that hard.
Or
2. Abp Lefevbre was the ecclesiastical version of a "diploma mill", hence, he was a fraud.
But I didn't ask about their religious or moral virtue. I'm asking about their intelligence.
Once again, my answer is that it is hard to gauge their intelligence knowing only that Abp. Lefebvre ordained them. We havent mentioned any names, examined anything they may have said or written, etc.
As we would both agree, being ordained a Catholic priest is no easy feat... especially in pre-Vatican II Catholicism.
I would definitely agree with you, but I am not wholly convinced that possessing great intelligence is a prerequisite for being a good Catholic priest.
Possessing a firm understanding of and adherence to the traditional Faith, however, is definitely an obvious prerequisite.
That brings up another interesting point... when you mentioned "especially in pre-Vatican 2 Catholicism".
I would suggest that nowadays having more intelligence -- or, perhaps more correctly, at least more education (which is not the same thing) -- is definitely a pre-requisite for being a good, traditional Catholic priest. Why? Because now one cannot simply rely on unbroken tradition to adhere to the Faith: one must examine and understand the history of Tradition up to Vatican II, understand what happened at V2 and why, and make the moral decision to "do the right thing."
Does that require extraordinary intelligence? I dont think so. Does it require strong faith and strong character? I think so.
Now, obviously, one cannot be an idiot and be a good Catholic priest. Afterall, priests are leaders, and leaders (as you know from your military experience) must be sufficiently capable of leading their followers, physically, mentally, and spiritually. Incapability leads to incompetence which leads to a lack of respect.
But, I would argue that there are probably a lot of extremely intelligent Novus Ordo priests who use their intelligence for diabolical purposes such as leading the Faithful away from the Faith, paradoxical as that may sound. So, clearly (in my view), intelligence in a priest -- while necessary at, at least an average level -- is not as important as simply having the Faith.
In other words, which would you choose: a genius Novus Ordo priest, or a Traditional priest of average intelligence?
Anyhow, when you say, "Being ordained a priest in the traditional, pre-V2 Church wasn't really all that hard"... while I wouldnt go so far as to say it was a cake-walk, I would say that it was probably a little easier back before V2 to be a traditional priest because there was no (or at least much less) confusion in the Church -- as compared to now, where there are now two, maybe three, generations of priests who dont know anything else but the Novus Ordo.
And, I know enough (or think I know enough) about Abp. Lefebvre to be of the opinion that the man was a genius and a man of extremely strong Faith who acted prudently, rationally, and correctly... which is exactly why he is hated by the Novus Ordo.
Enough for tonight. Requiescat in pacem.
Dominus tecum
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home