______________________________
I heard this whisper from an informant:
Here’s the deal. He and his lawyer refuse to accept the conditions that the ROCOR laid down to receive him. That is, he’d be “retired” and have no diocese… he’d just live at a monastery or a seminary. The OCA Lesser Synod of Bishops told him to show up last week at a meeting, but he was a no-show. A full Synod meeting is due next week and they might order him to appear.
I’ve been vetting this one… asking around to see what others have heard. As one of the Cabinet put it:
This makes sense. There have been rumblings that he was/is the stumbling block in the negotiations. Moreover, you can’t blame the ROCOR for their stance; they aren’t crazy.
There were other replies, but they were all in the same general mould. That is, this has been “out there” for some time, I’m reporting nothing new; indeed, the only thing that I’m doing is putting the general buzz into writing. This means that the pow-wow in the District between Potapov, Shevkunov, and Fathausen went nowhere fast. This is turning into an “instant replay” of the soap opera that surrounded the no-nun nuns in Maryland. Hilarion Kapral told them that they couldn’t have a starets that wasn’t under his authority (which makes sense… he wanted full authority over the convent and its doings). The dippy nuns refused, so, Hilarion said, “OK, it’s your bed; you lie in it”; he pulled the antimins and he shitcanned the lot of ‘em (which was the RIGHT thing to do).
Now, El Gordo AND HIS LAWYER are pulling the same gnarly shit. Note that, kids… “and his lawyer”. What’s wrong with that picture? If James Paffhausen had tried to pull off such a stunt with the likes of Leonty Turkevich or Anastassy Gribanovsky (or Laurus Škurla or Kiprian Borisevich), he’d be lunch. Tikhon Mollard is at sixes and sevens, since he’s a pusillanimous coward, he doesn’t know what to do. Ergo, he ran off to St T’s to confer with his sugar daddy Herman (remember Herman? He’s still alive n’ kicking) about what to do about this festering pustule.
Now, we all know that Herman’s a stubborn Hunkie and a maximalist. He’s been a “my way or the highway” sort for his entire clerical career. He’s always gone whole-hog… that happened with his mismanagement of the Mayfield PA situation (egged on by SVS and ADS… Fr Basil Stroyen told him not to do it, but he did it anyway). Herman wanted to shitcan Vinnie Peterson after the DUI incident… but Vinnie’s pals on the Holy Synod (with the hearty support of Tikhon Fitzgerald (Love BT)) torpedoed it. That was a case where maximalism was the right thing to do. Herman wanted to kick John Perich in the arse for his questionable activities on QVC, but Bobby quashed that (another case where maximalism was the right course of action). Herman went full-throttle for David Brum’s heretical “doctrine” that the Metropolitan is the “Primate”, the tin-pot dictator of the OCA with authority over all the bishops (the Orthodox view is that the First Hierarch (первоиерарх) is the “Chairman of the Board” of a loosely-held Synod).
Ergo, one can guess what Herman told his boy-toy protégé Mollard. My Nicky said (as we were driving to work Friday morning), “Herman told [Mollard] to shitcan [Paffhausen]”. There’s no doubt that’s what Herman told Mollard… it fits his personality, his history, and his standard MO. In this case, it’d be right. Leonty Turkevich would’ve tossed Paffhausen out on his ear. JP’s threatening to sue the Church! He’d do it… remember, JP allowed his suspended pal Velencia to sue a priest in good standing. There are no legal grounds for his suing the Church, but he’s making blustery threats. JP thinks that he can get away with it. I opined that the Centre wanted JP busted down in rank. As a Cabinet member replied to that:
JP’s supporters would go nuts and I doubt the Synod wants to deal with the fallout.
That’s what JP’s counting on. He’s counting on the fact that the Synod will be its usual craven and cowering self. Mollard knows that if he were to give in to JP, especially, if it involved money, it’d cause a kafuffle. He’s between two nasty cow pats, and he can’t avoid stepping in one or the other. Herman, no doubt, told him to shitcan JP… but Mollard, being a “nice guy” and a generally-clueless dweeb, is dithering. Which way shall he go? We won’t know until the Synod meeting, shall we? However, what I posted above makes a great deal of sense… and do note that you didn’t read it on oca.org, nor did you get it from Lil Mizz Ginny (who now appears to be working as a flack for SVS) or John Jillions. Indeed, quo vadis, Tikhon Mollard?
Barbara-Marie Drezhlo
Saturday 9 March 2013
Albany NY
Voices from Russia 
9 March 2013. You Can’t Make Up Shit Like This… Gun Nutter Governor in South Dakota Signs Bill Authorising Armed Guards in Schools… WHAT A MAROON!
Tags: Barack Obama, CNN, Dennis Daugaard, guns, legal affairs, legal principle, militia, National Rifle Association, NRA, political commentary, politics, Republican, Right to keep and bear arms, right-wing, Second Amendment, Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, South Dakota, United States, United States Constitution, USA
______________________________
On Friday, CNN reported that South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard signed a controversial bill that allows school boards in the mostly-rural state to let school employees, hired security personnel, or volunteers carry guns in schools. Under the new law, which comes into effect on 1 July, school boards will be able to establish school sentinel programmes “to secure or enhance the deterrence of physical threat and defence of the school, its students, its staff, and members of the public on the school premises against violent attack”. All “sentinels” will have to pass a weapons training course similar to the one designed for South Dakota law enforcement officers.
The move came in the wake of a brutal shooting at a school in Connecticut in December last year that left 20 young children and 6 adult staff dead. It also reflects a deep divide between tough gun control advocates, including US President Barack Obama, and gun rights supporters backed by the powerful the National Rifle Association. Recently, Obama called for a ban on military-style assault weapons, a limit on the number of rounds in individual magazine clips, and a comprehensive background check and database for all gun buyers in the nation.
The Second Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees American citizens the “right to bear arms”. However, the historical and societal interpretation of those words is at the heart of the impassioned debate about guns in the USA today. Gun control advocates argue the Founding Fathers who drafted the Constitution and other documents didn’t necessarily mean that all citizens have the right to bear any kind of arms and have access to any amount of ammunition at any time and in any context. Gun rights supporters say the president’s proposals are unconstitutional and a violation of citizens’ rights.
8 March 2013
RIA-Novosti
http://en.ria.ru/world/20130309/179904006/South-Dakota-Arms-Teachers-Against-Violent-Attacks.html
Editor’s Note:
Let’s take a look at the text of the Second Amendment:
Hmm… the “right” to bear arms is linked indissolubly with “a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”. That means that arms-bearing and militia membership go hand-in-hand. One could argue, using “strict constructivist” guidelines, that the only people who have an untrammelled right to bear arms are those who are members of a recognised federal or state military reserve unit (such IS the modern incarnation of a “militia”, after all). There is no “right” to have guns because one “wants to own them”… nor is there a right to own guns to “oppose a tyrannical government”. The only right granted by the US Constitution is that since guns are necessary to an efficient militia for the common defence, citizens shall have the right to own them. The wording of the Amendment does NOT confer an unrestricted or unrestrained right to own weapons… that is crucial to the intent of the Founders… do note that the clause concerning a militia comes first, implying that it trumps the later (subordinate) clause. This could mean that the government could ban handgun ownership, as handguns are militarily useless.
Strict construction requires a judge to apply the text only as it is. Look at the Second Amendment… it makes explicit mention of a “militia”, and that such a militia is “necessary” for the defence of the state. Therefore, strict construction, which is beloved of the Troglodyte Right, requires judges to strike down permissive gun ownership laws. In short, all pro-gun nutter judges are actually “activist jurists”, reading meaning into the Amendment that isn’t there. In fact, since there are well-regulated and legally-established military reserve units, with appropriate stored weapons and munitions, strict construction would lead one to the inescapable conclusion that the government could (and, indeed, MUST) ban most private-ownership of weapons (with the possible exception of registered hunters), as the already-provided-for military reserve is the modern “well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”. There’s no way around it. The wording of the Amendment is clear; it isn’t at all vague or incoherent. The maintenance of an organised militia force and arms-bearing by citizens go hand-in-hand. The NRA and Governor Daugaard are chock fulla shit. They’ve invented a “right” that the Founders never intended to confer.
Isn’t it funny when the Righties bite their own arse? They can’t get around it without using the methods and arguments of “activists”. Reflect on this… they’re so stupid and dense that they can’t see the obvious truth in the Second Amendment. Do you really want such sorts in charge of the country? I don’t… and I’m not alone…
BMD