Stauffenberg: lines of descent and divine destiny...

The ancestry and lineage of Colonel Claus Schenk, Count von Stauffenberg, show him to have been seemingly ordained by heaven for his dangerous and courageous task.

His family are amongst the most eminent and noble families of Bavaria, with close connections to the Royal House of Wittelsbach, which family is, for Jacobite Legitimists, the senior legitimate line of succession of British royalty.

Two nieces of the Duke of Bavaria are married to two brothers, first cousins twice removed both of Count Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg and of his wife Baroness Elisabeth Magdalena von Lerchenfeld, Countess Monika von Waldburg zu Zeil und Trauchburg to Count Christoph Schenk von Stauffenberg and Countess Maria-Anna von Quadt zu Wykradt und Isny to Count Alexander Schenk von Stauffenberg.

Another niece of the Duke of Bavaria, Countess Walburga von Waldburg zu Zeil und Trauchburg is married to Baron Carl von Lerchenfeld, first cousin of the aforementioned brothers Counts Christoph and Alexander Schenk von Stauffenberg.

The Lerchenfelds are direct descendants of Lord Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk, son of Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk, by his second marriage.

St Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel was the only son of the latter's first marriage.

St Philip Howard,
Earl of Arundel and martyr for the Catholic Faith.
Countess von Stauffenberg (born von Lerchenfeld) was a kinswoman of the great English saint.

Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk, though a Protestant, was executed for his alleged involvement in the Ridolfi plot, for proposing marriage to Mary I, Queen of Scots (and de jure II of England and Ireland). The Royal Pedigree of the Duke of Norfolk is well attested.

The Lerchenfelds also have impeccable Scottish pedigree, from the Royal Stewarts (via King Robert II of Scotland and his wife, Euphemia, daughter of the Earl of Ross) and from very many Scottish noble families.

Biography and portrait of Nina, Countess von Stauffenberg,
born Baroness von Lerchenfeld

Count Claus Stauffenberg's granddaughter, Countess Sophie Schenk von Stauffenberg is married to Baron Marcus Berchtolsheim, the Chancellor of the Duke of Bavaria and himself a descendant of the Royal Stuarts, through the brother of the Royal nephews, and Cavaliers during the English Civil War, "Prince Rupert" and "Prince Maurice of the Rhine", Edward, Count Palatine (Pfalzgraf) of Simmern, who became a Catholic on his marriage to Anna Gonzaga, heiress of the Gonzaga Dukes of Mantua.

His grandson, Count Hans Caspar Schenk von Stauffenberg is married to Gräfin Josefa von Waldburg-Zeil-Hohenems, a Habsburg, Bourbon and Royal Stuart (Charles I) descendant.

It is as if the hand of God were on Stauffenberg ordaining him to make the attempt on the life of the Nazi Antichrist.

The wedding day of Count and Countess von Stauffenberg, the union of too great and ancient Bavarian families with many ancient connections and roots with the greatest Catholic families of Europe.
On this happy day doubtless the newly-weds could hardly have foreseen then that he would be the one man in Germany who would get closest to ridding the world of the leading Nazi Antichrist.

...

George Weigel writes an unhelpful article in Newsweek

Here it is:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/181721

This article is very far from good, alas.

It directly undermines the Pope's reconciliation efforts and is disloyal to the Pope, accordingly.

That is doubly shameful given that George attacks Lefebvre precisely for disloyalty!

I'm sorry to see this article from George since he has hereby chosen to undermine the Pope's work of peace-making and let us not forget "blessed are the peace-makers".

Some of the very things that he accuses Bishop Fellay and others of doing, he does himself - distorting the facts, arrogance, impeding the healing process, raising the stakes, attacking the Church's self-understanding, pick-and-choose cafeteria Catholicism.

As I know from the late Cardinal Gagnon, Lefebvre and he DID agree a settlement during the 1987-8 negotiations.

It was the Secretariat of State that rejected the agreement, in the first instance, not Lefebvre.

Gagnon had been given plenipotentiary powers but when he used them to reach agreement the Secretariat simply vetoed the arrangement.

To say that John Paul II "got nowhere" with Lefebvre is thus simply untrue and George should be ashamed for uttering it - especially at a time when the Pope is trying to build bridges.

The truth is that just as Lefebvre was formed through the political and religious disputes of his culture, so has George been formed in the disputes of his culture.

These include the "bitter hatred" that defined American society and culture in its war against the old world and - let us admit it - the Church, from the time of the American revolution through to the revolutions of the 1960s which gave America the likes of Clinton and now the most anti-life President that America has ever seen.

If George could point to a long line of holy, orthodox, Catholic Presidents, political leaders and US governments, just as the Catholic kingdoms of Europe can with their holy kings and governments, or even if he could point to a line of Presidents who adopted mainstream historic Christianity then he might have something to dwell on - but he cannot.

The only Catholic President was chiefly notorious for his marital infidelity. He also secured the vote of Protestant ministers by assuring them that he did not support the Catholic Church's teaching on Church and State.

Neither, it is clear from this article, does George.

The end result of revolution - violence, hatred and death

That, together with his clear undermining of the Pope's pacific and reconciliatory objectives, is perhaps the most serious mistake that George makes in this rather sad, angry and disloyal little article.

Paragraph #55 of Blessed Pius IX's Syllabus condemns the doctrine of universal separation of Church and State.

It is clear that George disagrees with Blessed Pius IX's teaching and, instead, thinks the State should always and everywhere be neutral on matters of the truth-claims of the Church.

He has also clearly never read the letter of St Pius X entitled Our Apostolic Mandate in which that saintly pope condemns the principles of the French Revolution, as did all his predecessors, including the Pope of the time, Pius VI. St Pius X even states:

"all that is needed is to take up again, with the help of the true workers for a social restoration, the organisms which the Revolution shattered, and to adapt them, in the same Christian spirit that inspired them, to the new environment arising from the material development of today’s society".

and this:

"Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists".

George, spuriously calling up the name of Vatican II as if it supported his separation of Church and State error, defies the teaching of Pius VI, Pius VII, Leo XII, Pius VIII, Gregory XVI, Bl Pius IX, Leo XIII, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII and Bl John XXIII on the subject and pretends that Paul VI and John Paul II support his error when they never taught it.

Now he is directly undermining the peace efforts of Pope Benedict XVI to reconcile with SSPX.

George is even doing so in the frankly shameful way of trying to lump Bishops Fellay and Williamson together as if Fellay were really supporting Williamson's shameful remarks when Fellay has expressly distanced himself from them.

That directly undermines the Pope's objective of reconciliation by trying to paint Bishop Fellay in the worst possible light, ally him with Williamson's odious comments and so put a wedge between Fellay and the Pope.

That directly undermines the papal peace-making.

Shame on you, George!

Where is your charity? Where is your love of souls? Where is your outreach to your fellow man?

Even the French and German bishops have given a better example on this issue.

No - this article is a shame and a pity.

I had expected better so much more wisdom and charity from George Weigel.

How sad that he has so missed the mark.

And for the avoidance of any doubt...

...and for the record, I think Bishop Williamson has made some exceedingly foolish and harmful comments and he should either stop or more reasonable people in SSPX should ask him to leave.

Equally for the record, the fact that the Pope has lifted the excommunications does not (repeat not - oh ye mendacious secular media) mean that he has in any way approved any of Bishop Williamson's highly unhelpful comments.

But, of course, that will not stop the media attacking our Pope, grossly unfairly.

They will go on doing that because they have another agenda than the truth and that agenda is to attack the Catholic Church and the Catholic faith and that includes vilifying the Pope.

However, as to Bishop Williamson, I say no more since I do not think the bishop should be given any more publicity.

I prefer to speak about our great father in the Faith, the Supreme Pontiff, the Pontifex Maximus, the Supreme Pastor of God's Church, the Patriarch of the West and the Bishop of the Holy City of Rome, the one and only...

POPE BENEDICT XVI

...

SSPX: the excommunications lifted by Pope Benedict XVI

And so the news has finally come.

I am not a member of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) and I particularly would distance myself from some of the sillier comments made by Bishop Richard Williamson but I do think the Society has been rather shabbily mistreated for the last 20 years or more.

It has become the soft target for every pusillanimous soul who thinks he can gain a few worldly "brownie points" with the fashionable modern pundits by joining in the general frenzy of vilification and venom against the Society, so reminiscent of a pack of bullies kicking a man when he is down.

Defending the underdog somehow doesn't apply when the underdog is the SSPX.

Such are the strange values of some modern liberal Catholics who have joined the unseemly rush to be first to kick those whose principal crime was to continue to worship and believe as did their Fathers in the Faith.

Many simply did not bother to take the time to find out what the SSPX actually taught and held.

Time and again falsehoods were spoken of them - they were sedevacantists (false), they rejected all of Vatican II (false), they were crypto-Protestants (false), they considered the Novus Ordo Missae invalid (false), they rejected the authority of the Pope (false), and even that they were Fascists or Nazis (false). And so on, and so on. It was as if no-one really wanted to find out what they taught and believed but rather just wanted to use them as a useful kick-butt to vent one's spleen upon.

Now read the new decree and you will see that our beloved Holy Father has a rather different, much more pastoral, charitable and compassionate view.

See also that no legal reasons are given for the lifting of the excommunications. That may, however, have been carefully planned.

Is this an act of clemency? Could be.

Is this an act of justice? Could be.

It is (deliberately?) left vague. That way no "side" can claim a victory and all must exercise caution, care and charity. Not a bad solution, that!

The Society of St Pius X long ago appealed the excommunications but it has taken 20 years to hear their appeal - a grave injustice toward anyone, let alone fellow Catholics, regardless of what they may have done or what one may think of them. Everyone should be equal before the law - not just those currently in favour.

Now the appeal has finally been heard and, mirabile dictu, upheld.

The decree of 1 July 1988 was not a decision to excommunicate but rather a declaration of a penalty automatically imposed latae sententiae. Moreover the decree was not signed and for a long time did not appear in the Acta of the Holy See.

The Society appealed the decree which, under the 1983 code, meant that the penalty was suspended until the appeal was heard (Can. 1353) but one never hears this part of the story.

The Most Rev Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre CSSSp

Archbishop Lefebvre argued that his actions had been necessary because the traditional form of the Catholic faith and sacraments might be in danger of extinction without a traditionalist clergy to pass them on to the next generation.

He called the ordinations "opération survie" - "Operation Survival", citing in his defence Can. 1323 and 1324 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

Can. 1323 provides that a canonical penalty is not binding when a person has acted "by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls".

Can. 1324 states that, if the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls, the penalty must be diminished or replaced by a penance if the offence was committed by a person who was coerced by grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience.

In all these circumstances, Can. 1324(3) concludes, automatic penalties do not apply.

Accordingly this was an appeal with a reasonable prospect of success. But it was simply not heard. Scandalously, it seems that it was simply ignored. Justice delayed - especially for 20 years! - is justice denied, even if the final result would have been a refusal.

But now we have a new pope. And the final result has not been a refusal. On the contrary, the result has been, in effect, that the appeal of SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre, made all those years ago, has been allowed and the excommunication lifted.

The Assisi debacle in which the Blessed Sacrament was removed from the Tabernacle and the crucifix replaced by a small statue of the Buddha: one of a number of apparent scandals that the SSPX felt moved to criticise

It is rather a shame that the Holy See allowed Archbishop Lefebvre to die with the apparent penalty of excommunication lying upon him - seemingly unjustly, as it now turns out - but at least the matter has now finally been addressed.

No retraction, nor contrition, nor apology, nor recantation has been required by the Holy See of any member of SSPX, it seems.

Indeed, in recent times the Ecclesia Dei Commission has apparently stated that members of the Faithful may fulfil their Sunday obligation by attendance at SSPX masses.

Yet this would not normally be permitted if the celebrant priest was suspended a divinis from administering the Sacrament - still less if he was excommunicate.

Catholics were therefore seemingly permitted to consider that SSPX members and priests were neither excommunicate, nor suspended, or at least that the excommunications were suspended, presumably in in accordance with Can. 1353.

Some, of course, will reject that analysis, but, either way, the precise canonical position is by no means clear, save that they are not excommunicate. That being so, why have not more people given SSPX the benefit of the doubt?

The late Michael Davies who wrote Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre at a time when the Archbishop was being most widely vilified

In any event, it is now quite clear that the policy of the present Pontiff is toward rapprochement and toward lifting penalties (if any) that exist or prevent SSPX priests from administering the Sacraments.

Even though this would seem to call into question the whole policy of purported sanctions in the first place, our holy Pope has had both the courage and the humility to lift the sanctions.

The stuff of martyrdom consists in keeping one's integrity, one's Faith and one's conscience, even in the face of the most overwhelming persecution, even if abandoned by father, mother, son, daughter, friends and superiors and still more so if unjustly attacked by them.

Is it martyrdom to attack the man whom everyone else is attacking and that unjustly? No - of course not.

But what of that man unjustly attacked? Well now, there you do indeed have a possible candidate for martyrdom.

Perhaps now some shoddy-thinking, liberal Catholics with little compassion and less sense of justice may begin to see that their all too hasty jumping onto the bandwagon of vilification of the SSPX may perhaps not have been a matter for such self-congratulation.

Perhaps they may even see the unfairness and uneven-handedness of crying out against the religious vilification of Jews, Moslems and non-Catholics whilst, at the same time, themselves religiously vilifying the SSPX and its members. They might also see that he who calls for justice - as liberal Catholics constantly are - ought to make an attempt to practice that virtue himself.

Even if I may have reservations about certain members of SSPX (and I certainly do!), I seem to hear from some of their more vociferous liberal antagonists the words of the Pharisee: "O God, I give Thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this [SSPX?] publican" (Luke 18:11).

Well, let us follow the lead of our Holy Father, hope for better things and for a spirit of reconciliation, fraternal charity and forgiveness.

Here, then is the decree and Bishop Fellay's rather moving response:

http://www.cfnews.org/SSPX-Exc-Nullified.htm

Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior of SSPX

Gloria Olivetae:
our wonderfully humble and compassionate Pope, gloriously reigning!
God grant that he may do so for many years to come!

...

Valkyrie: Stauffenberg and the sacred Germany against the profane Germany...

"Es lebt unser heiliges Deutschland!"

"Long live our sacred Germany!"

These are reputedly the last words of 37-year-old Bavarian Catholic aristocrat and cavalry officer, Colonel Claus, Count Schenk von Stauffenberg, before he was summarily shot in the courtyard of German Army Headquarters in Bendlerstrasse, Berlin, for his attempt upon the life of murderous Nazi dictator, Adolf Hitler.

Accurately, the film released yesterday in Britain, and titled Valkyrie, includes this memorable and dramatic scene, played well by American actor, Tom Cruise, as Colonel Count Stauffenberg.

The film is, in my humble view, an excellent portrayal of this true story of patriotic German officers, civilians, politicians, aristocrats and commoners alike, who opposed the Hitler regime and took courageous action to overthrow it from within, risking their lives so to do.

I have followed the Stauffenberg story for decades and got to know his son, Major-General Berthold von Stauffenberg, when he was German military attaché in London.

It is my belief that the film is an accurate portrayal, well handled and well presented. It is also a gripping story presented with all the excitement and drama that it so well deserves.

A clip from the film Valkyrie

Hollywood's homage to the men who risked - and lost - their lives in this courageous attempt is long overdue but now it has come and it will, I am sure, have a considerable impact on the way many cynical moderns view the story of Germany and its people who found themselves governed by a brutal tyranny.

Numerous famous actors play the parts of the key figures in the plot (from left standing) Carl Goerdeler, the Mayor of Leipzig, Stauffenberg, Colonel-General Ludwig Beck (who had resigned in 1938), Major-General Henning von Treskow, (seated) Colonel Albrecht Mertz von Quirnheim, Lieutenant-General Friedrich Olbricht and one other.

What was the "sacred" or "holy" Germany which Stauffenberg cried allegiance to?

Quite simply it was the holy empire which had placed Germany and Germans at the centre of a Christian, Catholic Europe for 1,000 years and which had built up, lead, governed, protected and enhanced European Christian civilisation for most of its history.

We are apt to forget this when we lump the thousands of years of German history into those very few short years when, after a period of anarchy, the political elite turned its back on the past and installed a new and diabolical ideology in place of the Christian past.

That ideology was a materialist, Socialist, racist, secular, anti-monarchist and anti-Catholic creed called National Socialism.

Goering surveys the bomb damage

As is crystal clear from his early autobiography, Mein Kampf ("My Struggle"), its devilish leader hated all that was associated with the Catholic and Habsburg empire of the past whilst he - schizophrenically and contradictorily - claimed to be restoring the ancient, thousand-year old, empire of the past, albeit in a new and "modern" guise.

The real, thousand-year old, empire of the past was, in truth, the Holy Roman Empire, a Catholic, not a Socialist, empire sometimes called Das heilige römische Reich der deutschen Völker or "The Holy Roman Empire of the German People".

This empire was begun in what later became France by the Emperor Charlemagne, a Frank, a race of people who were ancestors of both French and German people.

Later the Empire was restored to glory by the Emperor Otto the Great and gradually became centred upon what is now Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Northern Italy and parts of France, Poland, Ukraine and Hungary.

This Empire was Roman and Catholic. Its Emperor - successor to the Roman emperors of old - was the first Catholic layman of Christian Europe and recognised as such by all Christian countries and political leaders. This Empire and its rulers recognised their duty of allegiance to the Roman Pontiff as their spiritual superior.

And for this reason it was called "holy" or "sacred". It was titled Sacrum Romanum Imperium and recognised as such by all the popes who ever ruled.

This was the "sacred" or "holy" Germany to which Stauffenberg referred and which he had come to realise was - and must always be - implacably opposed to the dirty little Social Darwinist, secularist tyranny that Hitler and the National Socialists had imposed upon a once noble Germany.

Stauffenberg (left) with Colonel Albrecht, Ritter (Knight) Mertz von Quirnheim, a fellow army officer and co-conspirator in the 20 July 1944 plot against Hitler. He was shot with Stauffenberg outside Army HQ.

The decline and fall of religion in Germany, partly a by-product of the Protestant Reformation, had finally sapped all the life out of the true Germany and the vacuum had been filled with a legion of devils from Hell who inspired this new and grotesque National Socialist ideology, said to be based upon science but actually based upon the spurious findings of a entirely perverse, modern science, based upon Darwinism, among other ideas.

Many were opposed to Hitler - Social Democrats, liberals, Jews, Communists, Evangelicals, conservatives - but only one man summoned up the skill, courage, tenacity, perserverance and commanding personality to hatch a plan to deliver Germany and the world from the tyrant and, moreover, was willing to carry it out himself.

That man was Claus von Stauffenberg.

Stauffenberg with 2 of his children

He came from a noble family of a line 700 years old. That gave him a certain upbringing, education, moral formation and self-possession as well as a sense of responsibility arising from his family background.

His father was the last Oberhofmarschall of the Kingdom of Württemberg and Claus, from an early age, had had impressed upon him that his family heritage was not merely a social status but imposed a solemn duty to serve God, nation and conscience above self.

Interestingly, it was the aristocrats who really showed determination and courage to stand up to the tyrant.

Above all, however, let it not ever be forgotten what most went to make up the core beliefs of Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg and what was his source of strength, discernment and loyalty, as well as courage, and to which he turned for counsel before making his final decision to carry out his plans.

Before deciding to take part in the plot and lay the bomb, Stauffenberg went to confession.

It was his religion, first and foremost, that gave him the tools for reason, emotion and decisive action. His religion was one truly worthy of the name.

And that was because Colonel Claus, Count Schenk von Stauffenberg was a traditional Roman Catholic.

Banner of the Holy Roman Empire



...

Whoops! Spoke too soon. Obama re-opens international abortion funding...

Look left folks.

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Is it a "blob of jelly"?

None of the above.

It's a defenceless, baby human being who has no civil, human or legal rights.

Obama's nasty side came out yesterday when he over-turned the pro-life policy on US funding to family planning groups abroad that counsel abortion.

With the full range of anti-life fatuity, he said that the policy was "unnecessarily broad and unwarranted" and had become too politicized an issue.

Too politicised? What? And just who did the politicising, eh? The anti-lifers, that's who.

Is the "ban" on eliminating adults "unnecessarily broad and unwarranted"? No? Then why is it so when the victim is a human baby?

Obama said in a statement that the policy had "undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning in developing countries. For these reasons, it is right for us to rescind this policy and restore critical efforts to protect and empower women and promote global economic development."

What priceless tripe.

What's safe about killing?

And how does it "empower" women or "promote global development"?

"I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate" says the new President. Really? And will he be saying that to NARAL? Or is this newspeak for "I am only against such debates if I disagree with the view expressed"?

The fatuity gets more and more bizarre.

By resuming funding to the UN Population Fund, he said, "the US will be joining 180 other donor nations working collaboratively to reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance to women in 154 countries."

So abortion prevents HIV now, does it? And improves the health of children?

Yeah, right.

And what sort of "family planning assistance"? This means condoms instead of food and medicines, contraceptives instead of hospitals, schools and proper care.

But, hey folks, let's not worry because new Secretary of State, representative of America's new foreign policy and Feminist loony, Hillary "Marry your man and get a top job" Clinton, welcomed the step.

So that's OK, then.

Anyone seen my broomstick?

"This policy has made it more difficult for women around the world to gain access to essential information and healthcare services," Clinton said. Sure, Hillary. For "healthcare services" read "abortion services". If this is the newspeak for "healthcare services" then God help the Third World countries that place any reliance on US aid!

Clinton said she was looking forward to working with "the NGO (non-governmental organization) community to promote programs and policies that ensure women and girls have full access to health information and services".

That is, "abortion services".

After all, Hillary dear, we can't have all those poor, foreign people with different coloured skins and foreign, non-American cultures, having children, now, can we?

Come back Margaret Sanger and all her racist fellow-travellers - all is forgiven. At least by Hillary and other phoney humanitarians.

Remember the Feminist legacy, folks. Here it is, again, just in case you forgot what Feminism has done to the world and to humanity. Figures are from the notoriously and odiously pro-abortion and anti-life Alan Guttmacher Institute:

Approximately 46 Million abortions per year worldwide
Approximately 126,000 abortions per day worldwide.

© Copyright 1999-2000, The Alan Guttmacher Institute.

So, if these figures are right, when it comes to the killing business, Feminism dwarfs both Communism and Nazism put together!

Inaugural: Mr President says...

Well, it was a barnstorming speech. You have to admit it.

But does he mean it?

And what did he leave out?

Barack Obama has made it clear, in his very short period as a US Senator, that he is one of the least pro-life members of Congress.

Will he be the least pro-life US President ever?

Does he really think that nurses should kill babies that managed to survive the abortion process alive?

Does he really think that Catholic and other hospitals should be forced to do abortions against the consciences of doctors, nurses, managers and donors?

If so, how is that in any way "liberal"?

A US TV show compared the words of President Obama with those of President Bush and much was expressed in similar terms - war on terror, strength of America will not be defeated by terrorists, supporting the troops, defending freedom, the importance of markets in the economy and so on. Nothing Socialist there.

Does he meant it?

We shall see.

Here are a few extracts:

"...In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labour, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.
For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

...Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favours only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defence, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

...We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort — even greater cooperation and understanding between nations.

...We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defence, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honour them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment — a moment that will define a generation — it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends — honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism — these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence — the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny..."

Great stuff - but does he mean it?