EAJara

RC wife-unit and mom always; also veteran, educator, lover of lit and the Constitution.

[Bishop Robert Barron @BishopBarron]

There is a way past the absurd and deeply divisive “war” between the President and the Pope, which has been enthusiastically ginned up by the press. And it is indicated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2309 to be precise. After laying out the various criteria for determining a just war—proportionality, last resort, declaration by a competent authority, reasonable hope of success, etc.—the Catechism points out that “the evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.” The assumption is that the just war principles function, to use the technical term, as heuristic devices, designed to guide the practical decision-making of those civil authorities who have to adjudicate matters of war and peace.

The role of the Church, therefore, is to call for peace and to urge that any conflict be strictly circumscribed by the moral constraints of the just war criteria. But it is not the role of the Church to evaluate whether a particular war is just or unjust. That appraisal belongs to the civil authorities, who, one presumes, have requisite knowledge of conditions on the ground. So, is the war in question truly the last resort? Is there really a balance between the good to be attained and the destruction caused by the war? Are combatants and non-combatants being properly distinguished in the waging of the conflict? Do the belligerents have right intention? Is there a reasonable hope of success? The posing of those questions—indeed the insistence upon their moral relevance—belongs rightly to the Church, but the answering of them belongs to the civil authorities.

The Pope has said, on numerous occasions, that he is not a politician and that his role is not the determination of any nation's foreign policy. But he has just as clearly said that he will continue to speak for peace and for moral constraint. In making both of these claims, he is operating perfectly within the framework of paragraph 2309 of the Catechism. If we understand that the Pope and the President have qualitatively different roles to play in the determination of moral action in regard to war, we can, I hope, extricate ourselves from the completely unhelpful narrative of “Pope vs. President.”

[EAJara @jara_ea]

@Pontifex Maybe step up and try the diplomatic avenue yourself, then. We’ve been trying it for decades to no avail.

[Robert P. George @McCormickProf]

Many things divide American conservatives and progressives. We can and should be united, though, in supporting the people of Iran as they bravely struggle against oppression and tyranny.

[EAJara @jara_ea]

If your congressional reps voted against this act, vote them out next election.

[Rick Scott @SenRickScott]

Democrats blocked my No Budget, No Pay Act, because they're happy to collect their own paycheck while they vote to shut down the federal government & keep federal workers from getting theirs.  

Their excuse? They have bills to pay. WELL, @SenateDems, SO DO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

[Robert P. George @McCormickProf]

Each time we think the horrific virus of anti-Semitism has been extirpated, it reappears. A plea to my fellow Catholics--especially Catholic young people: Stay a million miles from this evil. Do not let it infect your thinking. The Church has utterly repudiated it. Do the same.

[Robert P. George @McCormickProf]

A few days ago, I posted a brief statement of what I, as a conservative, seek to conserve. The first item on the list was what I regard as the foundational principle of all sound morality: the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of each and every member of the human family. Everything else I believe about ethics and politics in one way or another stands upon or presupposes that principle. Any form of “conservatism” (or “liberalism”) that denies it in principle or transgresses it in practice is alien to me.

That is why I believe that the conservative movement, though it can and should be a broad tent, simply cannot include or accommodate white supremacists or racists of any type, antisemites, eugenicists, or others whose ideologies are incompatible with belief in the inherent and equal dignity of all. As a conservative, I say that there is no place for such people in our movement.

So, while I understand and appreciate that politics is about “adding and multiplying, not subtracting and dividing,” and though I welcome conservatives representing a range of viewpoints on a wide swath of issues, I will not—I cannot—accept the idea that we have “no enemies to the right.” The white supremacists, the antisemites, the eugenicists, the bigots, must not be welcomed into our movement or treated as normal or acceptable.

Is this a call for “cancelation”? No. It’s a reminder that we conservatives stand for something—or should stand for something. We have core principles that are not negotiable.

I am—notoriously, for some of my fellow conservatives—committed to the principle of free speech for everybody, including people with whom I profoundly disagree even on the most important issues, indeed, including racists and other bigots. But defending their rights does not mean allying with them, welcoming them into our movement, or treating them as representing legitimate forms of conservatism.

I am also—again, notoriously, for some of my fellow conservatives—willing to engage people with whom I deeply disagree, so long as they are honest and are willing to do business in the proper currency of intellectual discourse, a currency consisting of reasons, evidence, and arguments. (It is pointless to engage bad faith actors, charlatans, and con men.) But, again, engaging and forcefully arguing against people who deny the inherent and equal dignity of all is one thing, welcoming them into the movement or treating their ideas and ideologies as representing legitimate forms of conservatism is something entirely different.

Let me be plain. American conservatism today faces a challenge. That challenge comes from those who reject our commitment to inherent and equal human dignity. They are seeking acceptance in the conservative movement and its institutions, and they do so with the ultimate objective of transforming them by undermining that commitment. They openly preach white supremacy and the hatred of Jews, among other noxious ideas. They no longer feel the need even to try to hide their bigotry.

It is incumbent upon those of us who maintain the “ancient faith” (to borrow a phrase from Lincoln) to make clear to friend and foe alike that we will not permit the integrity of our movement and its institutions to be compromised. We will not treat its foundational principle of inherent and equal human dignity as optional. On the contrary, we will insist on it, defending and advancing it with renewed dedication.

[EAJara @jara_ea]

@JDVance Technicians in the National Guard are NOT.

[Robert P. George @McCormickProf]

I'd like to say something to my fellow conservatives. It's something that I hope will speak to old-school liberals as well.

We must be people of principle--unwaveringly so. We must be so most fundamentally because it is right. It is morally required. And we are not relieved of that moral obligation when our political adversaries behave in unprincipled and hypocritical ways.

Secondarily, we would do well to consider that our side will not always have control of institutions in which power can be abused. Sometimes, people whose beliefs are antithetical to ours on very important questions will hold the levers of power. We must not authorize the abuse of power by abusing it ourselves or going silent when officials on our side abuse it.

Some people will say, "Well, they'll abuse power whether we do it or not, so we should fight fire with fire, lest we be played as saps and suckers." But this is to give up on the Constitution and our commitment to the rule of law.

It's also a half-truth. Yes, there will be some abuse, and we'll have to call it out and push back forcefully against it. But it will be easier, and we will be more credible, if we are not hypocrites. What's more, there will be less of it if we do not, in effect, authorize it.

[ZUBY: @ZubyMusic]

The world was better when we didn't know what everybody was thinking.

[EAJara @jara_ea]

@DeAngelisCorey This is going to set a precedent that will have unintended consequences.

[Ark National Guard @arkansasguard]

Happy Military Spouse Appreciation Day! We're proud to serve beside you.

[Robert P. George @McCormickProf]

Every single one of us has a profound interest in government at every level strictly observing due process of law. All of us should be deeply concerned by any violation of anyone's due process rights, whether in criminal or administrative matters. We might like what government can more efficiently accomplish by disregarding proper legal procedures today. But we will rue the day we licensed such governmental misconduct when, tomorrow, a different government disregards legal procedures to achieve quickly results we abhor. The government in power, whatever it is, will not always be in power. There will "arise a pharaoh who remembereded not Joseph." If we want due process for ourselves and in defense of things we cherish and believe in, we must insist on due process for everyone.

[Florida's Favorite Conservative Teacher @FavoriteTeach11]

A correspondent told their audience that Donald Trump was canceling Black History Month, and everyone believed them. Well, I guess that correspondent hadn't read the President's message today... 👇

I might be in the minority among some of my Black and White peers, but I enjoy celebrating Black American History. I am currently in charge of Black History Month at my school, introducing teachers to unsung heroes in American history. I’m planning a fun Spirit Week, bringing in a guest speaker to inspire students to unlock their potential, and organizing lessons on Black innovators for after-school students. We’ll wrap up with a big feast to celebrate.

[EAJara @jara_ea]

@McCormickProf The impetus is to protect the individuals from attacks of a politically weaponized DOJ which draws to mind the parallel that a cheating spouse always assumes the other is a cheater because that’s how they themselves behave.

[Air National Guard @AirNatlGuard]

Protecting Our Communities — In and Out of Uniform

Staff Sgt. Sarah Hudson exemplifies the versatility of #CitizenAirmen by seamlessly transitioning between her roles as @thecalguard aircraft ground equipment specialist and a @forestservice helitack squad leader.

[Ark National Guard @arkansasguard]

Arkansas National Guard Airmen from the 189th Airlift Wing Arkansas Air National Guard have patrolled central Arkansas in support of Troop A of the Arkansas State Police since Jan. 9th, 2025. They will continue to do so until the mission is complete.

[Ark National Guard @arkansasguard]

Arkansas National Guard Soldiers from the 142nd Field Artillery Brigade are patrolling from the Bobby Hopper Tunnel to the Missouri state line, supporting the Arkansas State Police and lending a hand to motorists in need.

[KARK 4 News @KARK4News]

'We're just folks helping other folks' Arkansas National Guardsmen helping drivers stuck in the snow https://t.co/JqlWGo9CBL

[Sarah Huckabee Sanders @SarahHuckabee]

Thank you to the @arkansasguard for helping our neighbors and making sure everyone is getting home safely.

“Always ready, always there!”

[Ark National Guard @arkansasguard]

Soldiers from the 39th Infantry Brigade Combat Team stationed in Hot Springs provided emergency winter weather response and support to the Arkansas State Police, Troop K, throughout their assigned patrol area of responsibility.