Christopher A. Ferrara Is Number One On Dante's 'Skinny Bitches, Well Trained And Obedient' Corner June 2010

In short, God help us all if Barack Obama ascends to the White House, the very throne of what Jefferson, that great hater of Catholicism, liked to call the Empire of Liberty. And so I am voting Republican in this election. Because this time the Republicans, by adding Sarah Palin to their ticket, have done just enough to present voters with a clear moral choice. But more important, because under no circumstances can Catholics sit back and allow a veritable forerunner of the Antichrist to become President of the United States. Christopher A. Ferrara Why I am Voting Republican this Year

'I dreamed of this one here as Lord
and huntsman, pursing the wolf and
the cubs up the mountain (which
blocks the sight of Lucca from the Pisans).

And skinny bitches, well trained and
obedient; he had out in front as
leaders of the pack Gualandi with
Sismondi and Lanfranchi.

A short run, and the father with his
sons Seemed to grow tired, and then I
thought I saw Long fangs sunk deep
into their sides, ripped open'
Inferno xxxiii

Further apologies from Christopher A. Ferrara defending himself in the position he took on voting in 2008, claiming that he was following Church teachings and not common opinion when casting his ballot in the 2008 presidential election.

Mr. Ferrara is a Roman Catholic, who by no means would follow common conservative protestant opinion on who Barack Obama really is, you see, just about every protestant conservative nut case believed that Barack Obama is the Antichrist, don't know the actual number of those who believe such nonsense, but it is a high number.

So what does Mr. Ferrara call Barack Obama, so as not to look like he is following the common protestant consensus? Lets try calling Barack Obama a veritable forerunner of the Antichrist, ya that'll do the trick, no one would expect that Mr. Ferrara is falling lock step with the protestant nut cases if he uses this terminology, because as we all know the words forerunner to the Antichrist sounds more like Catholic terminology, than protestant.

So problem solved, Mr. Ferrara can claim that by casting his vote in the 2008 election he was helping to hinder the rise of a veritable forerunner of the Antichrist! Good job Mr. Ferrara! Your vote hinders the manifestation of the forerunner to the Antichrist!!!! WOW!!! Good bye Church Fathers, good bye 2000 years of Church teaching on what hinders the manifestation of the Antichrist, hello Mr. Ferrara, no longer does the world need the visible presence of the Divinely Ordained Authority of the Holy Roman Emperor to hinder the manifestation of the Antichrist as the Church and the Church Fathers have taught, no, it is the act of casting your vote in a modern democratic election that hinders the manifestation of the Antichrist!

Question for Mr. Ferrara, do you really want to use the same terminology when describing Barack Obama as Our Lady did at LaSalette when telling the world about the forerunner to Antichrist? These words should not be thrown around lightly as if they mean nothing. Our Lady used the title forerunner to Antichrist to describe a very bad man who will cooperate with Satan himself in order to persecute the faithful, do you really believe that you possess the authority to bestow this title of forerunner to Antichrist on Barack Obama? Or are you mistaken?

Here is where it gets funny! If you ninnies really believe that Barack Obama is the Antichrist or a veritable forerunner of the Antichrist, then you must realise that Mr. Obama was elected to office, thus it stands to reason that only by casting ballots in a modern democratic election gave Obama the position of authority he needed to carry out his Antichrist agenda!! Do you get it??? Modern democracy does not hinder the manifestation of the Antichrist, but gives rise to the Antichrist!!! You said so yourself! This is just hilarious. Hey lets all vote to help hinder the manifestation of the Antichrist because our votes give rise to the manifestation of the Antichrist!!!

Now for part of the article by Mr. Ferrara

The Remnant and Common Opinion
From Vatican II to the Iraq War the Remnant has followed the Church, not the public opinion weather vane.

Revisiting Some Issues

Having written all this, it occurs to me that an astute reader might object that The Remnant itself followed common opinion in advocating a vote for McCain-Palin in the last election. I myself even argued that such a vote was morally obligatory. But here, as with all the other issues it addresses, The Remnant followed Catholic teaching, not common opinion, even if application of the teaching to this particular case was entirely debatable. The Church has always taught that Catholics living in a democracy have a duty to vote in order to avert grave harm to the common good. Hence in 1948 Pius XII bound Catholics under pain of mortal sin to vote against the Communists in the Italian election of that year, even though the opposition candidates were hardly orthodox Catholic statesmen. The Pope declared that it would be “a grave sin, a mortal offense” [AAS 40 (1948), 119] to abstain from that election.

In The Remnant’s view, then, the Presidential election of 2008 presented such a scenario, even if we can all agree that the Republicans are a joke—Palin included, mea culpa—and that the election (as do all American elections) presented a choice between the lesser of two evils. But so did the Italian election of 1948. Again, application of Catholic teaching here is debatable, but it was not common opinion, but rather Catholic teaching, that motivated the position we took: that the election of McCain-Palin would (if only for a time) avert greater harm to the common good. It seemed to us that America would be better off with Pat Buchanan, Bill Donahue and Focus on the Family exerting influence over the White House than Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the Southern Poverty Law Center; that despite their shortcomings, we’d also take a Roberts or an Alito over a Sotomayor or a Kagan on the U.S. Supreme Court any day of the week. From a traditional Catholic perspective, McCain-Palin were a dismal duo, and we never contended otherwise. But it seemed clear to us that this dismal duo would at least have slowed down America’s freefall into the hell that Obama and his minions are now preparing in haste, while they still hold power.

Were we wrong? Consider that a year ago one objector wrote to The Remnant to complain: “there is absolutely no reason to think that a Republican government would have slowed the revolution to any degree…” Absolutely no reason? To any degree? Does anyone still believe this after eighteen months of the Obama administration? First of all, the very issues that now agitate the Tea Partiers and the nullification crowd would not even be issues had Obama been defeated. Moreover, the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan continue as before, while the Afghanistan debacle has only gotten worse, so the argument that Obama, unlike McCain, would at least end the war is now shown to be the canard The Remnant argued it was before the election. The federal government will be funding abortion again through Obamacare, and has already resumed that funding within the U.S. military. Sotomayor is on the Supreme Court, with the noxious Kagan soon to follow. The federal deficit created by the Democrat Congress will soon exceed the GDP—the sign of a nation in its economic death throes. And, as this article appears, Congress is poised to pass both the DISCLOSE Act, which neutralizes grassroots political opposition by imposing chilling disclosure requirements on small advocacy groups while exempting all the big ones, and the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act (PCNAA), which will give Obama “emergency powers” to commandeer the Internet—an “Internet kill switch,” as critics are calling it. Even the ACLU is alarmed by the DISCLOSE Act and is calling upon the Senate (the House has already passed it) to defeat the bill.

And what about the Iraq War? When common opinion was screaming “Disarm Hussein!” and “support our troops!” The Remnant, following not common opinion but Catholic teaching, was arguing that Bush’s war did not meet the Church’s just war criteria, that no weapons of mass destruction would be found, that the war Bush just had to have would turn into a pointless quagmire claiming thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, fanning Muslim hatred of America across the world, that a fundamentalist Shiite regime would replace the Hussein regime, and that Iraqi Catholics and other Christians would be driven from the country. Right on all counts.

Does any Catholic still believe the Iraq War is some sort of Christian crusade against the evil of Islam? Go watch minute 26, hour 8 of the PBS documentary on life aboard the U.S.S. Nimitz during its deployment to Iraq and elsewhere. A young petty officer is asked whether he viewed the Iraq War as a Christian crusade. His answer says it all: “Do I think we’re imposing Christianity into the Middle East or anything like that? No, I don’t. I think we’re imposing our culture more, which incorporates Christianity, but incorporates McDonald’s a little bit more.” The Iraq War is no crusade for Jesus Christ; it is a crusade for Ronald McDonald. According to the McDonald’s website, “We have not set a firm date for the development of McDonald’s restaurants in Iraq. Eventually we will take steps to open McDonald’s restaurants in Iraq… Click here to apply for a franchise in Iraq.” There may be no Christians left in Iraq thanks to this “Christian crusade,” but there will be Happy Meals. Mission accomplished.

Are any of the super patriots who cancelled their subscriptions in a huff over the war back in 2003—about a thousand, Mike Matt tells me—still prepared to defend “Operation Iraqi Freedom” today now that Commander-in-Chief Obama is in charge? Come forward, please, and explain yourselves! What, no takers? Well then, how about sending in a written apology to the Editor, along with your new subscription order?

Conclusion

Long before I came aboard, The Remnant was navigating successfully through the twin tempests of the crisis in our Church and the crisis in our civilization, guided solely by the polestar of Catholic teaching. I am not saying that its navigation has been perfect at all times. What I am saying is this: The Remnant has never allowed itself to be guided by the drunken sailors who take over the ship of state in Plato’s famous allegory of democracy in The Republic. Unlike the American ship of state, with its “conservative” and liberal contenders for the wheel, the Good Ship Remnant has always stayed away from the deadly shallows of common opinion. It will not go there for money, for fame, or even to please its own subscribers. That kind of integrity is almost impossible to find in the realm of journalism today. And I am proud that The Remnant will let me be a part of it.

Do You Know Your Enemy?

Revolt Against The Honor To Obey!