A proud shout out

Obligatorily photo plug of the boys:

Top L to Bottom R: Our oldest, our married 2nd oldest,
our youngest, the adorable baby, our third oldest.

And here's one of the young family:

And just because:

Always ready to embrace the coolness

I love my boys and have been proud of them for a host of reasons through the years.  Not that I would ever pretend they are angels or don't have any rough spots that tarnish their perfection.  Of course not.  But on the overall measure in this present era, they are pretty good.  So good I sometimes take it for granted that if I call on them to step up to the plate in a moment of need, I just assume they will. 

Add to that my daughter-in-law, who is about as good as one could hope for in the 'first daughter-in-law department', and that's not bad.  My son and daughter-in-law have had it particularly rough. They broke with modern trends and didn't wait until their late 20s to marry.  Then, to add to the fun of starting a new life together, they opened their own book store with not much more to go on than hard work and prayer.  Then they discovered, barely a year into the new life, that they would be parents.  Even if things were at times up to their ears with stress, it was baby fore!  

Then so excited was the baby to join us, she showed up several weeks early.  Now that was rough. I know what it was being a first time dad, and I can't imagine what it would have been spending the first weeks in an ICU with our baby hooked up like that.  When my son sat in the ICU and told me all he could do was watch the other new parents leave the hospital with their babies and all the balloons and flowers, it was all I could do to keep a grip on myself.

Yet they have shown, like my sons in general, a stunning resiliency that is to be admired.  They've certainly done better than I ever would. I know they've had help, and her family is nearby and is every bit as good and grounded as one could hope a child's new in-laws and family would be.  And, again, a shout out to our sons who have time and again dropped everything to be there when they've needed them.

But on the whole, I have to say my son and daughter-in-law have been splendid through the maelstrom.  I remember being married, being a new dad, and just getting on in life and how crazy things could be.  Multiply it a thousand times over and that's been their lives.  And yet, this:

I adore their wit and whimsy when it comes to how they've promoted their store over the years.  Yes, it's tough because they miss the extra time with the baby due to the pile of obligations that come with being entrepreneurs.  But they've been troopers all the way, and I have to say that's a blessing from God I'm willing to trade many a trivial request for.   

One of many skills our daughter-in-law has learned. That's a beat up old copy
of LoTR fixed with her new custom designed, hand crafted cover 

Oh, and as if all that wasn't enough, they decided to broaden their to-do list by embarking on writing a novel trilogy that's right up their ally.  It's still in the editing stage, but I have to say their vision for the story has even this non-fan of the fantasy/sci-fi world curious.  So we'll see. 

Finally, for the shameless proud grandpa of it, I can't deny that the cuteness is definitely strong with this one: 

Henry Spencer seems grounded by comparison

 

Because no person in history apart from Nazis ever put their arm out like that. 

It reminds me of 2017 when ESPN pulled announcer Bob Lee from the calling U. of Virginia football for fear someone might be triggered.  Though he was of Korean ancestry, and Lee is by no means an uncommon Korean surname, the stellar leadership at ESPN was afraid that if you said his proper name Robert instead of Bob, and added an 'E' between his first and last names, then you'd have, well, you know.  And violence, death, suicide, emotional and psychological trauma might just happen next. 

Really.  It's almost impossible to imagine just how low and worthlessly ridiculous is the modern class of malcontents calling themselves our superiors and leading our world's institutions and organizations of power and influence. The are every Hollywood stereotype of a useless ruler ever. 

Our modern leaders in one photo (From The Great Race)

Worse, they encourage those who are on the Left to actually excuse such idiocy, as unfathomably moronic as it seems.  It's as if the entire 21st Century Left was carved out of a David Lynch fever dream. But what is to call them out?  They hold the crown, the scepter and the orb.  And more than half that see the problems for what they are nonetheless lack the character, courage or convictions to call them out for what they are. 

Remember, when you see the divisions, the hate, the idiocy, the conflicts, the violence, they destruction, the perpetual outrage, it's important to remember these things are desired and pushed for.  When you begin to endorse, excuse and promote this level of bat crazy psycho madness, it becomes easier and easier to someday insist there just aren't any strange camps in the German woods and leave it at that. 

Ed Feser notices the derangement and tries to joke about it, but humor falls flat when no matter how absurd you are, the reality is even worse: 

The biggest lesson from Ken Burns

Burns reminds me of the adage that history isn't so much written by the winners as it is taught by the winners. Or at least taught by those who want to keep in the good graces of the winners.  Saying in 2025 that we need to focus more on the negative of America's history is like saying McCarthy should have spent more time focused on Communism. At this stage, the negative is all that most, especially the young, ever hear.  From our schools and their curriculums, the media and press, Hollywood, and even churches.  After all, a growing number of such venues as Evangelical churches are led by younger and younger leaders who have, for most of their lives, heard that there is scant difference between the Swastika and the Stars and Stripes.

As my sons said from their time in public school, and that was in the 2000s: Pretty much everything America was a negative.  And what heroism, or 'glorious' chapters as Burns says, was mentioned at all was wrapped in the assumption of malice, bigotry, and ulterior motives.  In other words, we might have beaten the Nazis, but it had nothing to do with anything other than our own lust for power, empire, money for arms manufacturers, or other nefarious reasons.  And that was going on 20 years ago.   

For those who spent years wondering what they would do if a force of tyranny ever rose and sought to destroy our nation, our heritage, our values and our freedoms, now we can see.  Someone like Burns either knows what he is doing, or is so oblivious to his own place in our historical context that it’s no longer profitable to care what he says.

At least he is honest

Fareed Zakaria, that oracle of obtuseness, who once declared in 2016 that the world never looked better and we owe it all to the Obama administration even as we were told ISIS was the new normal, comes out of the closet and speaks the words.  He says it's time for Democrats to ditch those working class voters, especially the white ones, who the Dems lost ages ago. Increasingly it's hipster educated professional (read: wealthy) women, minorities and yes, even whites who have flocked to the Dems in recent years:  

"They have a solid base of college-educated professionals, women and minorities. Many of the swing voters who have helped them win the popular vote in seven of the past nine presidential elections are registered independents and suburbanites"

And so: 

"Biden failed to win the working class. Democrats might want to stop trying"

Just stop bothering with those working class types and catch the wave.  Do working class Americans have concerns?  Could they be hurting?  Are they perhaps suffering and need attention?  Aren't they part of that working poor scraping by that the Left has forever cared about? Perhaps.  But  the bigger question is can the Democrats win by giving two flying damns or a hell about them and their problems?  Mr. Zakaria apparently thinks 'no' is the answer to that question.

Yep. Nothing like coming out and saying exactly who it is Democrats shouldn't care about for political expediency.  It's almost like he's suggesting the Democrats never really cared about the working class in the first place, pandering to them only because it was convenient.  

You know, whenever something happens or someone says something, even someone in a religious or non-political setting, journalists often frame it as being the result of politically driven agendas and expediency. As if people can't actually have pure motives because everything must be an ulterior, usually political, motive. It makes me think of the thief who assumes everyone else must be a dishonest crook.  

Last week on Wednesday January 15th

Was the first time I saw anyone or anything officially mention the upcoming Martin Luther King holiday.  I heard a brief allusion to it about a week earlier, but wasn't sure the context.   I just remember it being referenced in some vague way.  On the 15th, there was one story on the local news about a gathering for MLK Day, and a mention of some basic details. That was it.  Since then I've heard and seen some other references to it, but nothing spectacular.  A couple on the morning news on Saturday, including mention that the MLK parade was cancelled due to cold. 

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but in some ways this shows what we are up against with that thing we call the Left.  Something is true today, false tomorrow.  Something is nakedly evil today, no big deal tomorrow.  A person is a veritable god today, who was that? tomorrow.  We just have to admit that the 'here today, gone later' today approach to truth has been a tough nut to crack for those trying to oppose what the modern progressive movement has to offer. 

So in my younger days, it was Kennedy who was the messianic god figure of the 1960s.  It seemed that not a week went by that I didn't hear or see referenced the famous line 'Ask not what your country can do for you.'  By the end of the 1980s, however, that sacred line was quickly being replaced by 'I have a dream!'  

By the 1990s, MLK had become in many ways our substitute Jesus.  As Christians were being told to put it under a bushel and happily complying, and as the J-Word was increasingly barred from polite society, MLK became that important person we could all quote, reference or appeal to in the most mixed of company, including in the highest profile media outlets.  By the time I was in ministry in the mid-90s, it wasn't anything to hear entire sermons where MLK would be quoted or referenced more than Jesus.  That was especially true among African American ministers I knew. 

When my sons were in public school in the 2000s, I can still remember when they would begin prepping for that year's MLK celebration festivities.  Often those preparatory activities began even before they broke for Winter Break (again, by then the C and J Words no longer part of our national discourse).  In fact, it almost became one of those cultural signposts that told me Christmas was just around the corner when I first began hearing about the upcoming MLK celebrations in January.  

In ministry, I remember being part of various groups and, even before Christmas, being asked that most crucial of all questions - what are my plans for MLK day?  Is my church doing anything?  Am I doing anything?  I remember in an ecumenical group I served in, that question was poised once in our year end November meeting (we didn't have a December meeting, so that was always our final for the year).  I shocked them when I said I didn't get into the whole MLK thing.  I spent most of that meeting fending off questions about my real motives for not paying proper dues to the man. 

All of this is to say that, since 2021, it's nothing for me to forget about the holiday until about this time.  A week, possibly two, ahead of time.  Mostly references to this or that community gathering and that's about it.  Used to be I couldn't watch the news or read publications or turn on PBS without seeing someone quoting or referencing MLK in an interview, speech, lecture, or sermon at least twice or three times a week.  I can't remember last time I heard that sort of a reference now. 

Why?  Because of 2020, that's why.  Apart from Deacon Greydanus, who insists the 2020 protests were overwhelmingly peaceful, nobody was really harmed or killed, just some unfortunate coincidences with a little harmless vandalism and graffiti, most on the Left embrace the violence.  Oh, they shed a tear.  But it was destruction, and even death, to serve the righteous cause.  Sometimes, it turns out, violence is a darn good answer.   

Same with things like White Privilege or Whiteness as only a pejorative.   We now know the only racist is the one who won't judge, exonerate, condemn or discriminate based on proper skin colors.  Just like so many things that post-war liberalism called evil that are now called good, and vice versa.  

So with that, where does the myth of MLK fit in?  Oh, in 2021 there were some attempts here and there by activists to insist we had the MLK legacy all wrong.  Turns out he was never averse to a little bit of the ultra-violence.  Leading my boys to start referring to him as MLK: Ninja Warrior!  And some of his family said that MLK knew sometimes you just have to judge based on the color of someone's skin as opposed to that content of character gibberish.  But on the whole, it's just been tough to maintain the MLK myth in light of its growing inconvenience to the new BLM iteration of the postliberal Left. 

After all, if you think about the idealized, almost deified picture that MLK enjoyed for the 80s through the 2010s, it goes down tough now that we're being told to embrace condemnation based on skin color and the occasional butt kicking for the cause.  Even if it includes the worst slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust.  I mean, do those famous quotes of MLK that were repeated so often for so many years really help in this context?  I don't think so.  Which is probably why, long before I heard any actual reference to MLK activities this year, I knew it was coming around the corner only because of this: 

RIP Bob Uecker

He was America's favorite underachiever.  An athlete who embodied the joys of being lost in the team, but with a grin.  A professional baseball player who made a lasting impact by perpetually mocking his own career legacy and himself.  A man who taught the world the value of laughing louder at yourself than anyone else. 

When I was in high school, he was a legend, more than you'd think from those crazy, hazy days of the 1980s.  I don't know how many millions of times, when we would shift around in an auditorium or on the gym bleachers or move around in a classroom, you'd invariably hear someone say 'I must be in the Front Row!'  Even as young and foolish teens, we saw the value in a man who had that sense of self deprecation, but not in a passive aggressive way of avoiding confrontation.  

Truth be told, he was better than he suggested.  Sometimes the better ones are able to be silly with their own reputations because they know the truth.  He was with St. Louis when the won the World Series,  and would also play with the Braves and Phillies.  

Adopting the moniker 'Mr. Baseball', his career as an announcer for the Brewers, and as a comedian (the "Comic Bard of Baseball") surpassed anything he did on the diamond.  But it was his lampooning of himself - and by extension, most professional athletes or celebrities with an inflated opinion of themselves - that I remember the best. And that endeared him to a generation of young Americans sometimes given the choice by our modern society of greatness or nothingness.  

May he receive from God a portion of the blessings, and a little of the laughter, that he gave to so many of us. 

"When I came up to bat with three men on and two outs in the ninth, I looked in the other team's dugout and they were already in street clothes."

"How do you catch a knuckleball?  You wait until it stops rolling, then go pick it up."

"Sporting goods companies pay me not to endorse their products."

"I spent three of the best years of my life in 10th grade."

"I didn't get a lot of awards as a player.  But they did have a Bob Uecker Day Off for me once in Philly."

Bob Uecker, RIP.   

What I don't trust

People who go off emotionally half cocked over a bad experience and become the biggest cheerleaders against what they once embraced.  I give you:

I knew little of Steve Skojec, except the occasional online references.  And those were often from folks on the Left railing against him for his supposed frothing at the mouth zealotry on behalf of traditional Catholicism.  

Then something happened.  I've never gotten exactly what, though it seems to revolve around the ill treatment of one of his children at the hands of a Catholic Traditionalist leaning priest.  Which isn't hard to believe.  I don't think Traditional Catholics are immune to bad behavior any more than any other group.

But what has happened since has been a complete 180 reversal as Mr. Skojec has become everything anyone who hates Catholic Traditionalism ever hoped for.   For non-Catholics, non-Christians, and those Catholics who have cheered Pope Francis's assault on Traditional Catholicism, Mr. Skojec has become as quoted as Shakespeare.    

It puts me in mind of Rod Dreher, another who I see like a Thomas Paine character.  A man who makes good points, but can't be counted on to keep things in perspective over the long haul or when the going gets tough.  

So for years Dreher raged against the growing assault on religious liberty by the Left.  Fair call.  But when Covid hit, he embraced the mass hysteria, all but calling on any and all jack-booted thugs possible to kick down doors and drag away those reprobates gathering to worship God when our expert class strictly forbad such affronts to our wellbeing.  Yes, he later conceded that there were serious problems with how Covid was handled.  But as far as I know, he never came out and fully apologized and owned up to the part he played in that same oppression and persecution of dissenters. 

Folks like this never quite settle for me.  With Mr. S, how do I know that something else won't set him off with the latest group he now identifies with, only to see him turn on them?  And with Dreher, who knows?   He's too wild in his deviations far too often to rely on him beyond acknowledging when he makes a valid point.  When ISIS managed to down a plane some years ago, Dreher came off as almost giddy because he insisted it proved Trump hadn't 'eradicated ISIS', the multiple deaths being an additional lament tacked on to his triumphant slam against Trump.  A little loss of priority there, IMHO. 

I know.  Some might say 'But Dave, if someone was a Nazi or a porn star or a terrorist cultist, you would celebrate them leaving it and renouncing everything to do with it.'  That is true.  Because I consider those objectively evil things that are born of Hell and any who can escape their grasp are to be celebrated and prayed for and helped.  

I don't, however, put people gathering to worship God or preferring the Latin Mass in that category.  Something in other days, both Dreher and Skojec would have agreed with and fought bitterly against any suggestion otherwise.  But then, something happened and they snapped, and became everything they once condemned in order to attack the very things they once cherished.  And for me, that's just too unstable and fickle for my likes.  They might, and do, make good points sometimes, but I'll look to others to ultimately stand up for the cause of Good when the time is ripe. 

Trump is going for his five bonus armies

 Heh:

Yep.  As any RISK player knows, N. America is the easiest continent to hold once you get it (at least that gives you more than two bonus armies a turn).  And if you start with America, then you need Canada, Greenland and Central America to make it a full continent and get those five extra armies a turn. 

My sons noted that, and joked that Trump must have been playing RISK recently.  A much saner appraisal than the bat nuts psycho hysterics around the world and across the media and leftwing punditry we're seeing.  Sometimes I think Trump does these things just to watch people make him look calm, reasonable and sane by comparison. 

Personally I think it's how he operates.  Throw a verbal grenade into the conference, create chaos, and then while your opponents are beating themselves senseless with lunacy and being distracted by their own nuttiness, he goes about getting done what he wants to do.  

It reminds me of what one of my sons said back during Trump's first term.  The only thing that makes Donald Trump seem grounded and sensible by comparison is his opponents. 

If your best defense is that you were only joking about someone losing their home in the LA fires

 You might want to reconsider where you've ended up in life:

Yep.  Lewis is one of the contributors over at Where Peter Is.  Mostly that site exists to remind us that only reprobates dare question the singular orthodox awesomeness of Pope Francis, with not infrequent reminders that the Left's appraisal of anyone or anything right of center is a reliable witness.

Nonetheless, Lewis's apparent defense of his dig is a good remedy for those who labor under the delusion that somehow one side of the ideological divide is where the beautiful people are, and the other side are the meanies.  An argument not a few former conservatives have used over the years to justify their alliance with advocates of what those conservatives once so strongly condemned. 

Despite those who try to insist that is why they have aligned the way they have, however, Mr. Lewis does yeoman's work showing why appeals to the better behavior on one side or the other as justification for taking a stand is generally a fool's argument.  I suppose that's something. 

BTW, we won't even get into the irony that, once again, those on the modern Left today sound more and more like the old fundamentalist stereotypes of yesterday - "they're suffering because God decreed it!"  We'll leave it with Lewis's defense that he was only joking about Gibson losing his home in the LA fires.

UPDATE:  So already I need to clarify.  I'm not saying that this only happens to the left of center.  Of course not.  I'm pointing out that 1) those former conservatives who cling to the idea that history shows progressives are the good guys as opposed to those nasty rightwing types have reality against them and, 2) increasingly the modern Left acts very much like all the things it warned us about ages ago with its stereotypes of what conservatives and fundamentalists were all about. With that extra twist being that this is demonstrated here by none other than a former conservative. 

The staggering intolerance of the modern Left

 A white Jewish liberal guy tries to shout down and keep a black man from talking:

The look you get when a white man tells a black man to shut up on national TV in 2024

Here is a link if you wish to see the video, from shortly after last year's election.  

So in  the midst of the crazy last year, we did something I haven't done in a long, long time.  We started watching a currently running TV show.  It's called Blue Bloods.  It stars Tom Selleck as the patriarch of an Irish Catholic family that works within law enforcement.  

I was aware of it only by reputation, that it was a show of rightwing bigotry, racism, and all manner of typical charges being phobia prejudice, right wing nationalist supremacy and what have you. This became a loud complaint when Selleck announced a couple years ago he wouldn't tarnish the police in accordance to BLM doctrine.  So we thought we would watch it to see. 

After watching a few seasons, I've concluded there is nothing in recent history more self-righteously judgmental, intolerant, or close minded than the modern Left, with a big helping of hypocrisy and mendacity thrown in for yeast.  

I mean, what about Blue Bloods is rightwing?  It openly supports the LGTBQ community and movement.  It is clearly left leaning in terms of America and its history.  One of its uber-storylines is that there was a time when law enforcement (if not the US in general) was everything BLM says - but those were the 'bad old days' (a phrase frequently used).  When the conflict is between men and women, the women win every time, especially if gender is the topic.  It has stories about racist cops, abusive cops, American racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, Western imperialism and its legacy.  It takes for granted that sleeping around outside of marriage is fine - even for a good Irish Catholic family.  It comes out and says that the Church needs to change and get with the times where things like homosexuality and religious tolerance are concerned, and that includes Drag Queens (who had their own episode) and virtually anything not from the historical values of the Christian West. 

Could someone tell me how this is some rightwing conservative show?  My sons had their ideas.  First, the main family is a white, heterosexual, Christian family.  Right there.  As far as Hollywood and Madison Avenue are concerned, white families don't exist in America. Spend a day watching commercials on televisions during the game and take a shot of whisky every time you see a white family.  Stone cold sober would be the result. 

Second, it does follow all of the leftwing narratives about racism, sexism, bigotry, every phobia in existence.  But - and this is crucial - sometimes it shows those aren't true.  Sometimes it isn't sexism, or racism, or bigotry.  And what is more - and this is even more crucial - sometimes those in various leftwing protected groups are the baddies.  And sometimes there are good things in America's history, society, police and institutions - even among white, heterosexual Christians!  

More than that, on rare occasion there is the race hustling black pastor exploiting an incident for his own purposes.  Sometimes the homosexual is the bad guy, though never due to his homosexuality.  Or the admission that at times Muslims can be terrorists, or Hispanic criminals.  With the exception of women as the feminine symbol of perfection, in which case feminism always shines bright, it does admit that the white, Anglo-American Christian White guy can not only be the good guy, but a victim of those in such minority groups. 

And that, likely more than anything, is how it got its 'rightwing racist propaganda show' label.  Not that it is.  In fact, most episodes pander to leftwing narratives and activism, full stop.  If Muslims are the bad guys, the main guest character will be a Muslim who is a good guy, who still shows us racism in America.  If the homosexual is bad, it will only be framed as part of larger homophobic bigotry exploiting such realities because of course gays are the oppressed group.  If the Hispanic immigrant here illegally is the villain, we're reminded that most immigrants are put-upon and oppressed by the racist structures of our society, whether illegal or not.  

Yet that's not good enough.  As the good white man in the above discussion demonstrates to that vile black guy who dares question the leftwing narrative, you will 100% conform to the Left.  Period.  100%.   Not 99.99%. Not 93%.  Not 97.1%.  100% or you're a transphobic bigot full stop.  Period.  Or a racist, period.  Or Nazi, period.  Or sexist, period.  Or whatever, period.  And that includes never, ever pointing out anything negative about what the Left says is good, or good about what the Left says is bad.  Period.  

The good news is that most Americans appear to at least ignore this level of self-deification among the Left. Perhaps they were voting against it in November.  But one thing is for sure, despite this being the dominant view disproportionately held by most of our nation's institutions and leaders, the masses appeared to at least break from the pens and corrals and took their own stand this time around.  Whether it lasts or points to greater trends we'll have to see.  Based on the last few weeks, it looks like the left/press hasn't learned anything, that's for sure.  

Someone fixed it

 Heh:

I think the point was moving 'Board Games' up a few notches.  But I had to chuckle at the other categories.  I especially liked 'Shoving a stick in a crocodile's mouth to wedge it open.'  That made me laugh. 

The Babylon Bee looks deep into the hearts of men

 And learns the truth:

Heh.  I'm not a big BB fan. It sets out to mock and lampoon the modern Left, and that's a pretty tall order.  Most often the absurdity of our World today far exceeds what comedic writers could concoct.  Nonetheless, it tries.  And once in a while, it does kick one through the uprights.  In this case I confess guilty as charged. 

Kudos for it being the old Fortress America game I mentioned here.  When a satirical piece can bring a smile and some memories, I'd call that a win. 

Just don't

 This:

As seen on the Stumbling Toward Heaven blog

The thing hurting the proclamation of the Gospel most, at least in the dying West, is that up and coming youngsters just don't believe it.  Oh, they've heard the story most of their lives.  At least in the vaguest sense, filtered through the opinions and research of critics, skeptics and people hostile to the Faith.  Shocking no one, they just don't believe it.  Our atheist culture has told them the Christian Faith is worth no more than a Grimm's Fairy Tale at best, and the Marxist inspired Liberation Theology tradition can't get enough of pointing out how wretched and evil and racist and phobic sexist those old pages of "Holy" Scripture are.  The constant drumbeat among believers and leaders today of repenting for the first 2000 years of the Faith, and willingness to change on a dime when the World snaps its fingers, only plays into this. 

Plus, as has been said for years, many youngsters just don't believe anyone believes it anymore.  I've quoted many times that youth from ages ago who I first saw mentioned at Catholic and Enjoying It.  Why are youth formally rejecting belief in God and the Gospel and Jesus Christ?  Because they don't see anyone acting like they believe it's true.  Oh, on Sundays you get angels and demons and miracles and God and all.  But come Monday, and light can barely shine through the gap between the Christian and the Atheist in how life in this world is approached.  As someone quipped in a discussion some time back, the big difference between atheists and Christians today is that atheists can sleep in on Sunday. 

So there are few things worse in this hot mess context than admitting our faith and prayers and even God are utterly worthless unless they align with the actual solutions to our problems in the form of our political activism for the real world.  That tells these young people all they need to know to conclude that yes, Virginia, religion is dead.  Or at least pointless.  Politics and the state are all that matter.  The here and now counts, since there is nothing else.  And obviously material solutions are the only ones of consequence.  Why, you have plenty of good churchgoers who admit it.  See Mark's bold claims above.  When the guy who drags himself out of bed to show up to church on Sunday is willing to admit just how useless all this God and prayer garbage is next to our real world solutions, do you really think what goes on in that church is worth anything to our increasingly secularized youth?  I don't think so. 

And it's not just Mark and the godless secularists who claim that the efficacy of our prayers to God is contingent upon their adherence to proper political activism.  A staggering number of Christians and leaders, not just Catholic, have jumped on this 'God as a bad joke' bandwagon, even if they don't realize it.  And not just with gun control.  Sadly, nothing appears to help secular evangelism today more than modern Christianity.  More's the pity. 

Oh, and we won't delve into Mark attributing those turning to prayer's fruitfulness and God's sovereignty to the designs of the devil since it doesn't align with his political opinions.  That makes me think of no other passage in Scripture than this:

But when the Pharisees heard it they said, “It is only by Beel′zebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.” Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand; and if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons by Beel′zebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore, they shall be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house. He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. Therefore, I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

I realize there is a lot of theology in that passage, but sometimes a superficial reading is enough to jar our senses.  Don't attribute appeals to God's providence to Satan. Unless Pope Francis and others are correct when they allude to the possibility that, like almost anything else in the history of the Faith, the whole 'eternal separation from God' is a bunch of bunk, you might want to slow down associating the working of God and his children with the Devil for any reason, much less political ones.  Prayers for his soul being in order in this case.