extreme Catholic
1971
2003
technorati.com
Review extreme Catholic on blogarama
![[Valid Atom]](http://extremecatholic.blogspot.com/images/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom feed"){kind=small}
Cheers for the home team: New York Post
Judge blasts bad bank, erases 525G debt: New York Post
Judge Blasts Bank's Foreclosure Conduct and Cancels Mortgage: law.com
Hero of the day: Jeffrey Spinner: Reuters
Happy Thanksgiving: Judge Erases Long Island Family’s Mortgage
- The judge just increased the risk and therefore the costs borrowing for everyone.
- Rather than just own the house free and clear and raise the cash for "health care" and "the online business" from actual earnings -- they gambled -- it looks to me like a $250,000 "cash-out" -- the excess of loan principal over the amount required to own the house free and clear.
Regardless of the value of the house increasing or decreasing, they should have anticipated what the monthly payments would be and have earnings to cover it, or sell the house on their own terms and move to a rental.
My problems with the story:
- "...10.375 percent, which soared to 12.375..." Soared? Was that meant in a sarcastic sense?
- They have owned and occupied the house for 15 years and have zero (or negative) equity in it? Tell me if that is due to "bank bullying".
posted by Patrick Sweeney at 9:58 PM Permalink
This fat lip thing reminds me of Patton's slap
Navy Seals Face Court Martial for Alleged Terrorist Bloody Lip?, CBS News
General George S. Patton was reprimanded and nearly was taken out of the war for slapping two soldiers whom he thought were malingerers. The great movie '''Patton''' blends the two incidents into one.
The Seals deny that they had injured their target. They are not claiming that one of them hit Ahmed Hashim Abed and it was justified.
Patton justified his slapping of these two soldiers as a way to restore their self-confidence. One soldier last admitted that it did. It was wrong then, and today, it is inconceivable that a general would slap a soldier not showing a visible wound.
Violence in the Catholic faith, is limited to self-defense, and in the larger context, internal order (i.e. police) and external threat (i.e. military).
I can't prejudge this case, but I will be paying careful attention.
posted by Patrick Sweeney at 7:49 PM Permalink
Chris Matthews on the attack. Bishop Tobin is the tonight's victim. Youtube
It starts with Matthew's absurd spin on the JFK 1960 quote. Matthews is immediately talking over the bishop's first answer. It's a cheap tactic to heat up the "guest". Also, around 4:30 into the interview, MSNBC seems to turn the volume up on Matthews microphone, and lower it on Bishop Tobin. After about 4:45, listen carefully and Matthews interrupts every 3 or 4 seconds. After 4:29, the longest uninterrupted interval where the bishop speaks is about 5 seconds -- In all I think that after Matthews launched on the criminalization of abortion -- the bishop got about 10 seconds in all to speak -- once the Matthews rant started. I'd love to head an edited tape of the interview which included only Bishop Tobin's voice -- it would run about 18 seconds out of the 9 mins 24.
Labels: abortion, media, politics, pro-life
posted by Patrick Sweeney at 8:46 PM Permalink
Reverse
I contributed to ReverseTheVote.org, but I think we need daily updates on what to do to influence the vote. There's a element of despair setting in that (a) this can't be fixed until the 2010 election, (b) this can't be fixed until the 2012 election, or (c) if you think socialized medicine can be stopped at this point, you probably also think that Social Security and Medicare can be "stopped" as well. Was this all baked into the nation's fabric on November 28, 1932?
Labels: health care, poltics
posted by Patrick Sweeney at 10:15 PM Permalink
The traditional marriage debate is not rational
Society and Marriage: Quid pro Quo : Dr Jeff Mirus, Catholic Culture
...it makes no sense to provide the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, a very simple and pragmatic reason: Society will gain no benefit from doing so. Heterosexual marriage generates families which constitute the fundamental unit of the social order. This is a great benefit to society as a whole. Indeed, it is the sine qua non of society, and it is a benefit provided at considerable sacrifice on the part of the married couple. In return for this benefit, all societies foster, encourage and protect marriage in various ways, including laws which make it financially easier for married couples to maintain their families. This arrangement is based on a quid pro quo which cannot be duplicated by same-sex couples.By de-criminalizing contraception, society proceeded down a slippery slope which leads to the call for "marriage equality." Heterosexual marriages can remain as sterile as homosexual marriages. If you think children are "a great benefit to society as a whole", look at their treatment in the tax code which is how "society" can put its money where its mouth is. No, I don't think we can turn back the clock to pre-Griswald, but we can't pretend this is a rational debate either.
posted by Patrick Sweeney at 11:44 PM Permalink
The Bishops support HR 3962 with Stupak-Pitts
US bishops laud Stupak amendment’s passage; no comment on Pelosi plan
Divide and conquer. The bill lacks:
It included:
While the bishops are not libertarians but statists, but this bill has no recognition of subsidiarity.
The pro-abortion people are not sweating, they are certain Stupak will be killed in "reconciliation" process.
Labels: abortion, catholic, usccb
posted by Patrick Sweeney at 11:03 PM Permalink
The Coming victory of the socialists
Barack Obama's America: High Unemployment to Last for "Years" : Rush Limbaugh November 10, 2009
Rush writes "It is to create so much transference of wealth. It is to create so much dependence on the middle class on government that Democrats will never lose power. That's the objective here, to make so many of you dependent on your very existence for government subsidies, handouts, and checks that you think only the Democrat Party will provide those for you; that everybody knows, "The Republicans, if they ever get in power, are going to cut that back." So this is the long-term goal."What I can add here is that this an entanglement, a confusion, an economic fog around checks I'm writing (or not, thanks to the withholding), and the checks I'm getting in transfer payments or services.
What I fear is that there will never be credible political movement to take an axe and strike at the root. The last chance for that vanished with the failure of will on the part of Hastert, Frist, and Bush to provide an "exit strategy" for those under 40 from Social Security and Medicare. No, we're stuck with that.
We will wake up in a world, where not only the employees of the federal government will look to Washington with anxious anticipation of what impact nameless faceless bureaucrats will have, but every citizen on the grid as well. Over time, we'll feel like we're federal government employees.
Labels: rush limbaugh, socialism
posted by Patrick Sweeney at 10:29 PM Permalink
Odd Things about the Fort Hood Shooting (2) This is just a personal observation as I've not been methodical about writing down the sources, but it seems to me that the response to demonstrate this was a not a terrorist act, and indeed not even a criminal act, comes a little too fast and too well-packaged to be completely a spontaneous reaction to the events of Thursday.
There's a therapeutic interpretation (stress drove Major Hasan to insanity). This one is popular with the liberals and undoubtedly with the lawyers who will be handling the still-living Major Hasan. Members of Hasan's family rushed to any reporters to paint the suspect as a model officer and model citizen, incapable of anger or rage, and moderate in all his views.
There's the jihadi interpretation -- this was a ''shahid'' or martyrdom attack. This brings a sort of fame and glory, which I presume is automatic if one shouts Allahu Akbar ("God is Great") as one kills others in the name of Islam. This would be popular with radical Islamists and those in sympathy with them.
posted by Patrick Sweeney at 7:11 PM Permalink
Odd things about the Fort Hood shooting (1)
President's Obama's shout out before his comments on the Fort Hood shootings: YouTube
I was waiting for, and millions of people were waiting for something that would be consoling and reassuring to the American people on Thursday afternoon from the President. It was bizarre. He seems to make some effort in his remarks to dwell on the mundane bureaucratic meeting which has just concluded and I'm wondering, doesn't he realize the gravity of what has just happened? When he remarks come he focuses on what we don't know and then cautions us not to jump to conclusions with little resolve to determine its cause and punish those responsible.
This reporter expresses what I felt:
posted by Patrick Sweeney at 6:53 PM Permalink
Did the FBI immediately deny the Fort Hood Shooting was terrorist?
These blogs seem to have thought so.
North Star National. Mark Wilson
North Start National, Andy Hefty
Examiner, Larry Amon
The only official comment I was able to find was that the question of it being a terrorist attack or motivated by terrorism is not yet known. Mark Steyn remarked that if one applies the FBI's narrow definition of terrorism, it only applies to those carrying a Al Queda membership card.
Labels: crime, islam, terrorism
posted by Patrick Sweeney at 3:07 PM Permalink
Bishops reverse course on HR 3962: Catholic Online
Psalm 146:3 "put not your faith in princes." The USCCB reaps what it sowed in Faithful Citizenship: "As Catholics, we are not single issue voters." After riding the "single payer" federal government controlled health care bandwagon for years as if it were a mandate of the Gospel, it is now very muddy waters we have to contend with to fight what was once supported. The idea that the invisible authors of HR 3962 would maintain Hyde restrictions was ludicrous from the start.
posted by Patrick Sweeney at 6:43 PM Permalink