No Communion for You

Back in May, the Archbishop of San Francisco, the Most Reverend Salvatore Cordileone, issued a public statement concerning a prominent member of his archdiocese; Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

After making numerous attempts to have a private meeting with The Speaker and being denied at every turn. The Archbishop did the only sensible and correct thing under Canon Law. He denied communion to her within his archdiocese.

This is a simple corrective measure used by the Church to bring attention to the matter to a wayward member. This isn’t political or the weaponizing of the Church. It has been used for centuries to correct errors.

Nancy Pelosi claims to be a devout Catholic in public, as do many other politicians. But she doesn’t follow Church teachings and doctrine when it comes to abortion and other sins. And her refusing to have a meeting with her own Archbishop clearly shows she is unrepentant in this matter.

Some say that communion or the Eucharist is for everyone. This is not true at all. It is for the body of believers not to the ungodly. And even within a Catholic Mass, communion is offered only to other Catholics, not to Protestants who may be attending.

At the end of June, The Speaker was traveling abroad and she attended Mass at the Vatican. There she received communion from the head of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Francis himself.

This snub against one of the Pope’s archbishops doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. I have written many times about Pope Francis and his Marxist roots. He is a full blown serpent in the heart of the Garden of Christendom. A false teacher, an anti-Christ, and a Leftist.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

To say the Left took the recent election results badly is an understatement of proportions so immense it makes Rosie O’Donnell look like Kate Moss on a meth binge. One of the more stunning results came from New Jersey, where Republican Edward Durr unseated Democrat state Senate President Steve Sweeney after running a primary campaign that cost around $150 and a total expenditure of around $2200. Talk about bang for the buck!

Well, the Left has decided Durr is unfit to serve in the public sector because of an answer he gave during an interview recently. When asked what he would do as Senate leader, he said he didn’t know. That got Leftist and self-professed expert Tom Nichols to lament about how the lack of experience in politics is a bad thing.

But what does the Left mean by experience? Good question, since I got nothing else for a Lexicon entry.

experience

What the Left thinks it means – the basic information necessary to speak intelligently on a topic

What it really means – the Left’s excuse for dumb people making poor decisions and to discredit smart people making astute observations

I know I’ve talked about appeals to authority before, but for the new people reading this, an appeal to authority is the rhetorical equivalent of “because an expert said so.” Although this does work with some subjects (i.e. talking to a cardiologist about heart issues), it doesn’t always bear good fruit (i.e. talking to a YouTube creator about, well, just about anything). Even people we think would have the credentials to give good advice can be wrong or deceiving. I’m looking right at you, Dr. Fauci. So, it’s important we show a reasonable amount of skepticism when we see someone appealing to authority.

Especially when that authority is derived from whether an expert has a college degree. The Left loves to deflect criticism of the Socialist Socialite’s dumb ideas about economics because she has an economics degree. I ran into this recently on Facebook when a Leftist posting on a thread by The Atlas Society mocked the Socialist Socialite’s lack of knowledge of economics. The meme they posted was of a tiny handbag with the caption “AOC carrying around everything she knows about economics.” Funny, yet accurate!

Ah, but a Leftist took exception to it by suggesting the Socialist Socialite was smarter than Ayn Rand on economics because the former had a degree in the subject and Rand didn’t. Never mind the fact Rand lived through what the Socialist Socialite thinks would make America great and realized it absolutely sucks, it was the degree that tipped the scale in the Leftist’s mind.

That’s when I dropped the metaphorical hammer and pointed out Ronald Reagan also had an economics degree.

The Left seem to be impressed with college degrees, mainly because they’re often the result of Leftist indoctrina…I mean teaching. But the degree itself is just a piece of paper signifying that the recipient has completed the necessary coursework to graduate and, thus, can start paying back the student loans they’ve amassed. Yes, nothing says you’re an adult like crippling debt! Between grade inflation and meaningless majors, the value of a college degree is quickly becoming as valuable as an expired K-Mart coupon without imparting the most important reason to go to college.

Partying.

Seriously, the most important reason to go to college is to develop the ability to process and apply knowledge. And that’s where the Left and to some extent the Right fail. If I have to sit through another video of clueless Congresscritters trying to get a representative from a social media executive to explain how Twitter works, I’m liable to send a tersely-worded email that some low level intern is going to have to respond to with a stock answer ensuring me my elected official “cares about your opinion.” And we don’t want that, do we?

Although there is some merit to the notion public officials should have experience in politics to hold office, sometimes it’s the experts who are the problem in the first place. But the Left never thinks Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, or Maxine Waters (who have all been in office for at least half of my life, by the way) are the problem. Instead, it’s people like Chuck Grassley, who has been in office for, well, most of my life, who are the real troublemakers. You see, the Left loves experience via age when it’s coming from a fellow Leftist. If it’s anyone else, it’s “Get out of the way of progress!” Yet, in my experience with the aforementioned politicians, I would take Grassley over Schumer, Pelosi, and Waters not because he’s one of my Senators. It’s because he knows what he’s doing most of the time, and he knows when he’s out of his depth.

That’s what real experience does for a person. It’s knowing what you know and what you don’t know. For all of the talk of Grassley being a “dumb farmer” (as a former Democrat Senate candidate said and later regretted after being stomped like a narc at a drug deal), he has a deeper understanding of issues that matter to people, not because he has a fancy degree on his resume, but because he actually does the legwork to talk to people. I swear he’s in Iowa more often than I am, and I live here!

However, a lack of experience isn’t a deal-breaker when it comes to politics. After working in Corporate America for a number of decades, sometimes the best ideas come from people who are just starting a job because their minds haven’t been infected with “the way we’ve always done it.” Either that or their souls haven’t been crushed…

Anyway, a new perspective may be what is needed to solve problems. By definition, a desire for change is liberal, but liberals aren’t the same as Leftists. Leftists call for change without actually meaning it. Remember Flint’s water problem? Still there, but Leftists aren’t. You’re more likely to find Bigfoot working on a screenplay at a Starbucks than find any of the Leftists who trumpeted how Flint’s water problems are because of Republicans (if you discount all the Democrats who were and are in charge, of course.) Here’s an idea, Flintites. Next time there’s an election, why not…you know…vote for someone other than the Leftists who screwed up the city in the first place? It’s not like Republicans are going to make the water any worse, right?

To Nichols’ point (aside from the one on his head), dismissing someone because of a lack of experience only serves to maintain the status quo, which by definition is what a conservative wants. He does have a good point that the Right doesn’t tend to support new left-leaning officials, but he botched the reasons why. First off, Leftists do the same thing with new right-leaning officials like Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene, albeit with more claims they’re insane. (In the spirit of bipartisanship, I’m willing to concede the point about MTG.) Second, it’s not a lack of experience the Right objects to with the Socialist Socialite; it’s the fact she’s an empty pant-suit, as demonstrated throughout her tenure as a Representative. I wouldn’t trust her to run my car though a car wash, let alone run any significant office in America. And if you’ve tried to run an office through a car wash, you know what I mean.

While Edward Durr may not have any real experience in governing, he’s admitted he’s willing to learn the ropes. That bit of refreshing honesty makes me a fan of his and I look forward to seeing what he’s able to do.

That, and the fact the only reason he ran for office is because of government bureaucracy and duplicity around New Jersey’s concealed carry permits. Thanks Leftists!