Just Who Is Unfit?

Tuesday, August 2, AD 2016

 

I have long thought that God has a deep and abiding love of irony.  On the same day that Obama proclaims that Trump is unfit to be President, we learn that  he paid a $400 million dollar ranson for four captive Americans held by the Iranian regime:

 

WASHINGTON—The Obama administration secretly organized an airlift of $400 million worth of cash to Iran that coincided with the January release of four Americans detained in Tehran, according to U.S. and European officials and congressional staff briefed on the operation afterward.

Wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies were flown into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane, according to these officials. The U.S. procured the money from the central banks of the Netherlands and Switzerland, they said.

The money represented the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement the Obama administration reached with Iran to resolve a decades-old dispute over a failed arms deal signed just before the 1979 fall of Iran’s last monarch, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Just Who Is Unfit?

  • I figure Trump is no more unfit for office than his opponent, and at least as fit as the current officeholder.

  • Ransom paid and now the number of American citizens taken hostage has increased.

  • AMEN!! And Killary is unfit to hold any office!!

  • From Barbary Pirates to today’s President,Hillary would surely pay,Trump,No Way.

  • The list of this failed community agitator’s/racist racketeer’s scandals and debacles is too long for the media to list. erg o, they omitted each one as it was incurred.
    .
    Happiest man in America: Jimmeh Carter. no longer worst president! yay!
    .
    President Mrs. Bill Clinton will move Carter to third worst. God Help America.

  • And Hildebeast will exceed Obama in unfitness. But she is 13 pts ahead of Trump who simply can’t stop opening his mouth and inserting his foot. People at work who normally would not vote for Hildebeast fear even more Trump’s finger on the nuclear button.

Obama and the Politics of Race

Tuesday, July 12, AD 2016

 

When it comes for seeing the forest through the trees, you can always rely on Brit Hume:

In Dallas, Tuesday, President Obama will be trying to calm racial tensions that his own behavior has done much to aggravate. From his denunciation of the Cambridge, Massachusetts, police as acting, quote, stupidly in the arrest of law professor Henry Louis Gates, to his assertion that the motives of the Dallas cop killer are unclear, they aren’t.

The president has consistently chosen to see things through the eyes of an aggrieved black activist rather than of a president of all the people. He’s not failed to speak out whenever a black is killed by a white police officer, but has said next to nothing about the continued slaughters of blacks by other blacks in the streets of Chicago, Baltimore, and other cities.

He has made his sympathy for the Black Lives Matter movement obvious and never mind that the whole premise of the movement seems to be fallacious. No case has given the movement more impetus than the false claim that Michael Brown was shot down in cold blood while trying to surrender to a cop in Ferguson, Missouri two years ago.

And now a study led by a black Harvard law professor has examined 15 years of crime data from 5 major cities and 2 counties. The study found that while police were more often likely to get physical with black suspects than with white ones, when it came to police shootings, there was no racial bias. Did you hear that, Mr. President? No racial bias.

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Obama and the Politics of Race

  • Obamazilla….the great destroyer.

  • America (red state America) truly is a great nation. It has survived seven-plus years of Obama fundamental transformation – translated total destruction.

  • I think Pres . Obama has no moral authority to address our nation anymore. I wish we could have a new president who does.

  • “Obama has no moral authority to address our nation anymore.”- Anzlyne

    He never held moral authority.
    He is a renegade and imposter-in-chief.
    Moral authority from an immoral source is an oxymoron.
    At best he is Chicago punk. A thug. At worse, he is an Isis sympathizer…a Muslim who claims Christianity and wishes all Americans to be without their firearms as to make it easy for the “gathering of peasants.”
    Lame duck?
    Sure.
    Lame individual. Absolutely.

  • Like it or not, both Obama and Bergoglio – two peas in a pod – were validly elected to their offices. Like it or not, one is validly the President and the other is validly a Pope. Yet both are liberal progressives, both are heretics and neither has any moral authority due to their abandonment of authentic Christian principle (assuming either one had any to begin with). I for one would do much better if I pay as little attention to each man as possible. It is far healthier for my serenity and sanity, and it prevents unnecessary resentments and fits of rage at things I clearly cannot control (nor should I). Let God deal with each of these men, and when He does, there will be hell to pay, of that i assure you.

  • Thank you Pinky for the link.
    Well written President Bush.

  • I was really touched by Bush’s words. There’s a Lincolneque quality to them. Bush – who knew, right? Definitely there’s a decency there that you could almost forget we could have in a president. And I don’t think I’ve heard a better description of our current crisis than this:

    “Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples, while judging ourselves by our best intentions. “

  • Pinky, thank you. President Bush’s address could not have been written and delivered any better. Yes, our values are what makes up a nation; that bind us together. Values that are Judeo-Christian. Nonpartisan. Speaking from the heart as a Texan and a believer in God.

  • Heard a very telling comment on the radio by a Wash. DC police officer who had been on the Anacostia beat for 15 years. He said that the response from black males when pulled over for questioning or arrest is to always resist, to give the cops a hard time. If they don’t, they loose street cred with their “brothers” who are standing by.

  • I often have wondered what Obama and his puppet masters end game is on race when fanning the flames on Ferguson, etc . I’m starting to believe it’s to have an excuse for instituting martial law.

  • Regarding Obama’s “pronouncements” yesterday at the Dallas Police Officers’ Memorial:
    Anyone who listened to it had to find it disturbing, of course self-exaltatory (he used “I” 47 times in the space of the address”), and crackling with electric tension, like the sound you hear when suddenly you look up and find out that you are under high-voltage electrical towers.

    The man, sociopathic and egotistical, is on the edge, now more than ever. His reign, even with HIllary, ends in a few months, and sociopaths DONT TRUST ANYBODY, let alone a Clinton, were Shrillary to ascend the Imperial Throne. And if it is Trump…well, full psychosis is close around the corner—Supreme Injustice Ginsberg has already succumbed.

    I am in the thrall of Dr. Andrew G. Hodges (noted forensic psychiatrist) and his evaluation of Obama. For those who haven’t read his book (“The Obama Confession: Secret Fear, Secret Fury”) or noted his youtube explanations (there are about 7 parts: “The Obama Confession”), Hodges “regresses” Obama to his first 18 or so years to explain the man we have in the White House today.

    It is chilling to listen to Obama in this speech, and then to compare it with Hodges’ predictions for his final months in office: Hodges believes Obama is torn between saving America and destroying it, and now, at the present time, the hate-filled destroying side is obviously winning. Rejected as “not black enough” by his abandoning father, also later abandoned by his “stormchaser” mother and embarrassingly raised by upper-middle-class white grandparents, who yet also abandoned him to the hate-filled anti-American pornographer and communist Frank Marshall Davis, Obama believes that America is a sham and a lie and must be torn down completely. It is one of the reasons that he lies with such facility: “America is a lie, and has always been: my lies are nothing by comparison”. “Black children abandoned on the street (=myself) are owed a reckoning by America, and the time is now.” (of course paraphrases).

    But he is so psychotic now, he cant see the restlessness and disturbance that you could see in the audience that he elicited, in contrast to the hopeful and consoling message of former president GW Bush.

    He cant stop himself at this point: and the next few months are going to come to a climax. Nothing frightens him except the loss of his power—power which did nothing to “heal” his rage and fear—and now it is slipping away.

  • One other thing: Dr. Hodges focuses on the apparent discussion that his radical mom, Stanley Ann Dunham, apparently disclosed to him as a boy, that she had considered having an abortion when she discovered she was pregnant, out of wedlock (he tried to hide that in his autobiography, but was forced later to admit he was illegitimate—you know the street word for that), and abandoned by his father.

    Dr. Hodges believes whatever she told him, namely that he “could have not been”, possibly in his early years (age 6-10), a colossal error by a completely narcissistic mother, was the fulcrum of pushing this man into sociopathy for the rest of his life-time. Dr Hodges makes a convincing examination of several comments Obama has had on fatherhood, and on abortion. He always contradicts himself, showing an enormous hidden conflict.
    It also explains his contradictory desire for total abortion on demand in the country: he feels America should have known better than to “have him”, and now he will “do pay back”. It is very disturbing: and concordant with Obama.

  • “Dr. Hodges believes whatever she told him, namely that he ‘could have not been’, possibly in his early years (age 6-10), a colossal error by a completely narcissistic mother, was the fulcrum of pushing this man into sociopathy for the rest of his life-time. Dr Hodges makes a convincing examination of several comments Obama has had on fatherhood, and on abortion. He always contradicts himself, showing an enormous hidden conflict.
    It also explains his contradictory desire for total abortion on demand in the country: he feels America should have known better than to ‘have him’, and now he will ‘do pay back”. It is very disturbing: and concordant with Obama.”

    Very interesting. One thing that has always stood out to me is his continual expression of self hatred through every mechanism available to him. Because he hates himself, he transfers that hatred into others–including Americans at large.

  • Another matter, regarding Dr Andrew G. Hodges forensic psychoanalysis of Obama is telling on the occasion in the 2008 campaign (3/29/2008, Johnstown PA) — you can see it here, and the self-confession of Obama is arresting:

    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=obama+i+don%27t+want+them+punished+with+a+baby&view=detail&mid=BB2D9CE99DCEB8B3D76EBB2D9CE99DCEB8B3D76E&FORM=VIRE

    Dr. Hodges infers, based on many references to Obama’s childhood reminiscences of his mother, that in his childhood years Stanley Ann Dunham, ever the self-absorbed promiscuous proto-liberal, advised him that she had considered abortion. Can you imagine the impact that had on a boy already abandoned by his father (if his father really was Barack Obama, Sr: she slept with many men—another shock to an innocent child, that was a fertile ground for his bitter cynicism and hatred today).

    He is simply re-telling the story of his own contemplated abortion, and confessing that he doesn’t want his daughters to suffer the way his mother, abandoned by Barack O, Sr., did.
    More reason for him to hate the lies and sham of America, of everything and everyone.

  • “I often have wondered what Obama and his puppet masters end game is on race when fanning the flames on Ferguson, etc . I’m starting to believe it’s to have an excuse for instituting martial law.”
    No, there is no end game CAM. The current situation is meant to be eternal, a sponge that can be squeezed forever for whatever political and legislative gain can be realized,

  • Steve Phoenix, that evidence and more all shows that Obama really turned out better than might have been expected. On a personal level he will always need our prayers.

  • Steve Phoenix, that evidence and more all shows that Obama really turned out better than might have been expected.

    When that evidence is “the terror attacks were not nuclear,” that is NOT praise.

Radical Islam and Obama

Wednesday, June 15, AD 2016

Yesterday President Obama went on a tirade about criticism for his unwillingness to use the term “radical Islam”.  Striking his usual petty snotty brat pose whenever he responds to virtually any criticism, Obama wondered what good it does to use the term “radical Islam”.  It recognizes reality, you churlish dolt, something that your administration has manifestly attempted to ignore throughout your term in office in regard to the Jihadist threat.  Obama’s strategy, if one can dignify an abdication of responsibility with that term, has been to hope that Islamic terrorism would simply go away.  As in so many areas, the administration’s policies came down to wishful thinking surrounded by lies.  That is why the Obama administration described Major Nidal Hassan’s murderous jihad rampage on Novemeber 5, 2009 as “workplace violence”.  Go here to read about it.  That is why the Obama administration in 2012 attempted to blame the Benghazi attack on an anti-Islamic film, and left our men in Benghazi without military support, then lied about it to the families of the two heroes who were slain as a result.  The attack spoiled the Obama re-election theme that the War on Terror had been won and was a thing of the past.

 

A prime duty of any President is to defend the American people from all enemies foreign and domestic, and in regard to that duty, Obama has been, at best, missing in action.  Colonel Austin Bay at Strategy Page puts it well:

 

 

ISIS has claimed responsibility for the June 12 early-morning terror attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Terrorist Omar Mateen murdered at least 49 people and wounded 53. He held hostages for three hours, until a police SWAT team killed him.

Mainstream media have focused on Orlando’s proximity to Disneyland. A war is on, you idiots. Look toward nearby Tampa and MacDill Air Force Base, U.S. Central Command headquarters. U.S. CENTCOM is currently supporting anti-ISIS coalition forces in Iraq that are engaged in combat operations against the Islamic State. Welcome to Battlefield America.

The Orlando attack adds to the deadly list of Islamist militant terror attacks committed since 2009 on targets in U.S. territory. 2009 was the year President Barack Obama dispensed with the Global War on Terror and began describing U.S. counter-terror operations as an Overseas Contingency Operation. He was strategically stupid, but that was the political narrative he simply had to sell. Remember Bush Lied, People Died?

Well, Obama lied and Americans continue to die. At least the president didn’t call this slaughter “work place violence” or some other feckless politically correct euphemism. Though he called Orlando “an act of terror and an act of hate” he still can’t bring himself to name Islamist militant terrorism as the source, much less the cause of the attack. Instead, he insisted we have “no definitive assessment on the motivation” for Orlando’s massacre.

ISIS media arm AMAQ disagreed: “The armed attack that targeted a gay night club in the city of Orlando…which left over 100 people dead or injured was carried out by an Islamic State fighter.” On June 13, an ISIS radio outlet called Mateen “one of the soldiers of the caliphate in America.” ISIS regards Mateen’s nightclub slaughter as an act of war — war as waged by the Islamic State. Remember, Islamic State thugs rape Yazidi women, execute Iraqi soldiers, behead Libyan Christians and burn Jordanian pilots alive.

Moreover, Mateen confirmed he fought for ISIS. Before attacking, he called Orlando’s 911 services and pledged allegiance to the Islamic State and its leader, Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. He also mentioned the Boston Marathon bombers.

It takes narrow, politically blinded minds to believe Mateen perpetrated the Orlando slaughter because he’s suffered micro-aggressions dealt by Islamophobes or the U.S. Constitution gives American citizens the right to bear arms.

Mateen waged war on America. The Caliph was his commander. He was a traitor — use that word. An Orlando nightclub — down the road from CENTCOM headquarters — was his battleground. His premeditated massacre was another Islamist militant terrorist operation against America conducted with the same war aims as the 2013 Boston terror bombing.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to Radical Islam and Obama

  • To just call it what it is, Islam, would be to recognize reality, but for him to say “Radical Islam” would be a step in the right direction.

  • Even if Obama is right in some way, he would still be defending our values at the expense of our lives. He is facilitating the changeling we call constitutional law into a suicide cult.

  • Calling it radical Islam does not reflect reality, it distorts it. Calling it Islam, Pure Islam, or undiluted Islam – now you’d be getting somewhere.

  • I say again, if words don’t matter to him, why is he so insistent on calling ISIS ISIL?

  • I prefer ISIL over ISIS. ISIS covers Iraq and Syria, ISIL covers them plus Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and part of Turkey. Of course IS covers everything, but can be confused with on of Bill Clinton’s favorite words.
    I know of apologists for Islam who refuse to use any of them, since “The Islamic State is really not Islamic” in their fantasy world. These people prefer the acronym Daesh. I suppose we should be happy Obama doesn’t use Daesh.

  • Everything Obama said since early 2008 was a lie. That is everything, all the time. Once you realize this, it all makes sense.

  • The”L” covers Israel.

  • Love this video: what’s with his eyes? The downcast, upside-down smile, the tremblingly pursed lips.

    I have absolutely become convinced now more than ever that this man is a psychotic narcissistic ego-maniac, and someone as “asymmetric” an opponent as Trump has completely has unmasked him and unglued his fragile façade.

  • Obumbler is an Islamist sympathizer, which is cool with the Left. How many Leftists are condemning Islam for the gay club mass murder?

    Bishop Lynch, who has sewer sludge for brains, blamed Christianity. Bergoglio blamed arms merchants.

    Stupidity rules the world.

  • Excellent words Donald: “Striking his usual petty snotty brat pose (the) churlish dolt” and closet Muslim and lying bastard did nothing to allay our fears but only made them worse.
    With Hillary in the wings to take over all we can do is pray and perhaps be packing something.

  • Baby Puppies; Radical Islam; Liar Obama. It is very profitable, like Patton reading Rommel’s book before Patton took on Rommel in North Africa, to read Ibn Khaldun’s The Muqaddimah, An Introduction to History, written by an exceptional Mohammedan scholar and statesman in the Middle Ages. Read all of it. For example: “In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, Caliphate and royal authority are united in Islam . . . there were dissensions among the Christians . . .They split into groups and sects . . .We do not think we should blacken the pages of this book with discussion of their dogmas of unbelief. This is clearly stated in the noble Qur’an. To discuss or argue those things with them is nor for us. It is (for them to choose between) conversion to Islam,payment of the poll tax, or death.” I do not see polite discussion or shared dialogue with the alleged majority of peaceful Mohammedans in that list of choices for Christians. Couple what Ibn Khaldun says with the Mohammedan doctrine of permissible dishonesty with infidels – -“Al-taqiyya” – to achieve world domination, the “universalism,” and it is clear that Obama is a fool, a closet jihadi, or a pawn. What is also clear is that statist totalitarians like Hillarydemon really think they can use Mohammedans as their useful idiots to quash Christianity here, and then dispose of them later. History will let us know if the present “more equal pigs” here are right, or if the USSA will be taken over demographically as Europe has been. Guy McClung, San Antonio TX

Oy Vey!

Wednesday, June 3, AD 2015

Obama the Jew

  “For generations to come, all will be told of the miracle of the immense planes from the United States bringing in the materiel that meant life to our people.”

Golda Meir, Prime Minister of Israel during the Yom Kippur War

 

Well, if Bill Clinton could claim to be our first black president…  Ben Shapiro at Breitbart gives us this latest example of identity politics run amok:

On Tuesday, former Obama advisor David Axelrod informed an Israeli television channel that President Obama considers himself “the closet thing to a Jew that has ever sat in this office.” Obama’s deep and abiding connection to Jewish identity is obviously rooted in his ethnic background, connected to Jews via (?); his ideological ties to Jews, such as (?); and a profound connection with the state of Israel as evidenced by (?).

In actuality, Obama is about as Jewish as George Wallace was black.

But Obama spouted this drivel in order to whine about his treatment at the hands of commentators who, not having undergone full frontal lobotomies, can identify his animus for the Jewish state. “You know,” he allegedly told Axelrod, “I think I am the closest thing to a Jew that has ever sat in this office. For people to say that I am anti-Israel, or, even worse, anti-Semitic, it hurts.”

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Oy Vey!

  • I see no reason why Odumber shouldn’t be called our first “Jewish” president. Most of his advisors and financial backers were Jews, and 60% of the Jews in this country voted for him. It’s a pity he didn’t run for president of Israel, he never would have been elected there!

  • Collateral damage: by analogizing his anti-Americanism and Marxism to Judaism, the zero is giving ammunition to the anti-Semite rabble.

  • I have never understood why Jews in America generally take the suicidal path and vote Democrat. How very odd.

  • Paul: I suspect it is because the “Jews” in the US are in fact socialists, and it has been my observation that socialists are socialists first before they are anything else–be it Jews, or Catholics or Pro-Life Democrats, or whatever.

  • Hm, I start to see why my dad still thinks fairly highly of Nixon, AKA the guy who got caught.
    ****
    Paul– to support DJ’s statement, it’s the same reason that “Catholics” in the US frequently vote pro-abort. We just don’t have as many generations of cultural-Catholics as there are cultural-Jews.

  • Nixon was a true friend of Israel.
    .
    I couldn’t vote for President Nixon in 1968 b/c I was 17 years old. I voted him in in 1972. He opened up China and started détente with Russia. He got us out of Vietnam. The reds and the vietcongress needed him out of office or he would have enforced the Paris Peace Accords and bombed NV back into the stone age in the Spring 1975.
    .
    Watergate was one-tenth as horrid a tyrannical act as was the IRS tea party clampdown, Fast and Furious, and about 50 executive orders that Obama committed. The idiot plumbers thought (I imagine) they could find a “smoking gun” in the commie-sympathizer DNC office. Clinton and Obama and their media protectors would have buried such a third-rate burglary on page D-13, and you’d never have heard of it.
    .
    I was in the military at the time. Nixon was a great man. He had us, including USAF/SAC, up on DEFCON 3 (this is not an exercise) real time alert during the Yom Kippur b/c the Russians threatened to drop a couple divisions of paras into the Sinai to stop the IDF.
    .

  • Such chutzpah.

  • Re: Why Jews vote Democratic

    Among Orthodox Jews, who make up about 10% of the Jewish population in the US, approximately 80% vote Republican. Among non-Orthodox Jews, who make up the other 90%, approximately 75-80% vote Democratic. As a general rule, the more traditional the religious belief, the more likely Jews are to vote Republican. Since these make up a small percentage of the Jewish vote, most Jews vote Democratic. Secularism has a long history among Jews in America; only 15% of Jews say that being Jewish is mainly about religion, rather than culture or ancestry.

    From most likely to vote Democratic to least likely: No denomination (30% of Jews), Reform (35% of Jews), Conservative (18% of Jews) and Orthodox (10% of Jews). The less that religion is considered central to one’s Jewishness, the more likely one is to vote Democratic.

    In 2008, 78% of Jews voted for Obama. In 2012, 69% did.

  • I am a traditional Catholic with an interesting family dynamic: 50% of us are staunch to C&E Catholics, 30% are Jewish (both cultural & religious) 10% are Protestant & 10% are agnostic/atheist/pagan. The liberal Hew often votes for the Dems because of the (false!) “advertising” that Dems are “tolerant” of the minority. However, I believe in using the tools at our disposal and I frequently illustrate to family and friends that the greatest threats to Israel are on liberal college campuses with the bigotry of the divestment movement, the unwarranted sympathy for radical Palestinians, the fraud of the West Bank-is-occupied sentiment, etc. A sister-in-law who WAS a huge Hillionaire supporter, recently became a Republican when I showed her the true Dem colors regarding Israel. Barack Obamba is a petulant little fraud w/ too much power … and it shows. But shining a light on cockroaches makes them run for cover.

If Only All Catholics Thought As Highly of the Church

Sunday, February 8, AD 2015

 

In response to President Obama’s ignorant exercise in moral equivalency in invoking the Crusades and the Inquisition, ( as T.Shaw noted fewer people were turned over for execution by the Inquisition, actually Inquisitions, in all of history than die in American abortion clinics on any week day), go here to read about it, Jonah Goldberg quotes from his book Tyranny of Cliches which explains why such Catholic bashing is ahistoric and unfair:

 

As a fairly secular Jew I cannot and will not speak to the theological questions, in part because I do not want to. But mostly because I do not have to. The core problem with those who glibly invoke one cliché after another about the evils of organized religion and Catholicism is that they betray the progressive tendency to look back on the last two thousand years and see the Catholic Church — and Christianity generally — as holding back humanity from progress, reason, and enlightenment. They fault the Church for not knowing what could not have been known yet and for being too slow to accept new discoveries that only seem obvious to us with the benefit of hindsight. It’s an odd attack from people who boast of their skepticism and yet condemn the Church for being rationally skeptical about scientific breakthroughs.

In short, they look at the tide of secularism and modernity as proof that the Church was an anchor. I put it to you that it was more of sail. Nearly everything we revere about modernity and progress — education, the rule of law, charity, decency, the notion of the universal rights of man, and reason were advanced by the Church for most of the last two thousand years.

Yes, compared to the ideal imagined by atheists and secularists this sounds like madness.

But isn’t the greater madness to make a real force for good the enemy because the forces of self-anointed perfection claim to have some glorious blueprint for a flawless world sitting on a desk somewhere? It is a Whiggish and childish luxury to compare the past — or even the present — to a utopian standard. Of course there was corruption, cruelty, and hypocrisy within the Church — because the Church is a human institution. Its dark hypocrisies are the backdrop that allow us to see the luminance of the standard they have, on occasion, fallen short of. The Catholic Church was a spiritual beacon lighting the way forward compared to the world lit only by fire outside the Church doors.

You know that you live in loony tunes times when a secular Jew like Goldberg has a better appreciation for the role of the Church in History than some Catholic bloggers:  (Ahem, that is your cue Mark:)

Not feeling the hysteria…

…over Obama’s Prayer Breakfast remarks. It’s just today’s Panic du Jour from the Noise Machine. Here’s what he actually said:

“And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ…

“So this is not unique to one group or one religion. There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith. In today’s world, when hate groups have their own Twitter accounts and bigotry can fester in hidden places in cyberspace, it can be even harder to counteract such intolerance. But God compels us to try. And in this mission, I believe there are a few principles that can guide us, particularly those of us who profess to believe.

“And, first, we should start with some basic humility. I believe that the starting point of faith is some doubt — not being so full of yourself and so confident that you are right and that God speaks only to us, and doesn’t speak to others, that God only cares about us and doesn’t care about others, that somehow we alone are in possession of the truth.” (source)

This seems, not merely reasonable, but rather pedestrian.

 

 

Continue reading...

16 Responses to If Only All Catholics Thought As Highly of the Church

  • Sadly I clicked the link more to read the comments. Read only about a quarter so can’t say absolutely. The comments that I did read were pretty sad. It seems the readership over there is fairly leftist in its nature. Not only is America bad but so is Christianity. Little difference between the defensive wars of the Christian Crusades and the Muslims who then, and now, advance by force. Mark has created quite the echo chamber.

  • What about John’s Gospel 15:16 choosing and appointing his own to be fruitful for the Father.
    Are we to throw up our hands and place the (coexist) bumper stickers all over our automobiles? Are we to see the next step in tolerance become a national
    acceptance of bestiality. Then marriage for that pervert so his/her dog horse pig or who knows what has “RIGHTS?”

    OBAMA IS EVIL INCARNATE.

  • I have been struck by the fact that the winners not only get to write history, they get to name history.
    The “Reformation” — yeah, in the same sense that the secessionists were trying to “reform” the Union.
    Likewise the “Age of Reason” portrayed as dawning full-blown as if everyone just decided one day to throw off the shackles of the Church and live by science one day. No mention of the universities founded by the Church nor of the religious orders dedicated to teaching and scientific discovery.
    And, of course, if you try to mention any of this in a discussion of the Church’s role in history you will be laughed at.

  • The only thing that will correct those liberal progressive secularist commenters about about whom Philip talked is what corrected the children of Israel and Judah. In the case of the latter, it was chastisement by the Assyrians and Babylonians. In our case it will be chastisement by Muslims. God never changes. He does the same thing in the same way because He does the right thing in the right way. He is entirely capable and willing to use our enemies to bring us to justice, and that will constitute God’s mercy for the innocent whom these same liberal progressive secularists murder with complete abandon.

  • Tom Collins.
    “…that the winners not only get to write history, they get to name history.”

    I relationship to these so-called winners a short sentence comes to mind from Braveheart; “History was written by those who hung the heroes.”

    The winners will receive a crown of glory that will never tarnish rust or be stolen.

    Unfortunately for the world winners, many will have spent their heaven while on earth. Then they will ponder their existence upon earth. Perplexed at the absurdity they demonstrated while chastising those who believed and lived out the Gospel messages as best they could. Now. All alone in the eternal darkness they unceasingly cry out a hatred towards God. A scream of infinity. A never ending scourge that they themselves created in their enlightened mind and superior thought.

  • The “Reformation” was badly needed when Pope Leo X was Pope. The Church had distorted and warped the gospel so badly that Martin Luther had to speak up about it. In much the same manner that many are speaking out against the Pope today.

    Luther never left the Church. They threw him out and had a death sentence placed upon his head. He stood his ground and at least was able to restore the gospel, in it’s purity, to much of the Christian world.

    If we are speak of ‘history’…we might as well be as honest and objective as possible. And I’m not one of the kooks that believes that the Catholic Church is not Christian. Only that because of our self-centered nature, the gospel needs to be placed back onto the rails from time to time.

  • Folks, stay focused on the topic of the post please. I do not want this becoming a back and forth on Martin Luther, a subject which has zip to do with this post.

  • Was reminded of something recently– do you know how The Inquisition (the instruction from the Church, and later the organization, got its name?

    The Pope put out an instruction that, if they were going to punish people for anything on the list, they had to actually prove the person was guilty.
    *Gasp*
    How horrible!

  • And I can’t help but notice that most talk of the Crusades (or, more flinch worthy, “the medieval crusade”) is sort of like starting a story when the guy who’s been taking a massive beating finally raises a hand.
    As opposed to something like this:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2005/11/the_truth_about_islamic_crusad.html
    long quote:
    630 Two years before Muhammad’s death of a fever, he launches the Tabuk Crusades, in which he led 30,000 jihadists against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a report that a huge army had amassed to attack Arabia, but the report turned out to be a false rumor. The Byzantine army never materialized. He turned around and went home, but not before extracting ‘agreements’ from northern tribes. They could enjoy the ‘privilege’ of living under Islamic ‘protection’ (read: not be attacked by Islam), if they paid a tax (jizya).

    This tax sets the stage for Muhammad’s and the later Caliphs’ policies. If the attacked city or region did not want to convert to Islam, then they paid a jizya tax. If they converted, then they paid a zakat tax. Either way, money flowed back to the Islamic treasury in Arabia or to the local Muslim governor.

  • Goes on to note that the polytheists did not get the option to pay for ‘protection.’

  • Pingback: When Would We Have to Resist Pope Francis? - BigPulpit.com
  • President Obama says that we shouldn’t get on our moral high horse re:
    what Muslims are getting up to these days, since Christians also did some
    bad things a long time ago …

    Which makes me wonder if Democrats will cease demonizing conservatives
    now, since it was Democrats who legislated Jim Crow, progressive Democrat
    Woodrow Wilson who re-segregated the federal workforce, Democrats who
    filled the ranks of the KKK, Democrats who blocked civil rights legislation
    for decades…

  • So this is not unique to one group or one religion. There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith.

    That’s the trillion dollar question, is isn’t it? Is ISIS in fact a distortion of Islam, or a more pure form of it?

  • So this is not unique to one group or one religion. There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith.

    That’s the trillion dollar question, isn’t it? Is ISIS in fact a distortion of Islam, or a more pure form of it?

  • @c matt. Amen that is the trillion dollar question:
    Were the the followers of Christ in doing evil actually following Christ, and are the followers of Mohammad in doing evil actually following Mohammad…?
    Even if the evil committed were the same (and it’s not), there is the question of moral equivalency in the two religions to a relativistic elite. Can a religion at is root be evil? Can judeo-christian thought be a superior culture? Can religion be important in a secularist age?

  • Was reminded of something recently– do you know how The Inquisition (the instruction from the Church, and later the organization, got its name?

    The Pope put out an instruction that, if they were going to punish people for anything on the list, they had to actually prove the person was guilty.
    *Gasp*
    How horrible!
    –Foxfier (10:44am)

     

    Inquisitors didn’t accept anonymous accusations either. This puts them way ahead of today’s US universities with their “rape!” tribunals.

Correlation and Causation

Thursday, February 5, AD 2015

Years of reading through and listening to debates on the internet and in other spaces is enough to make me yearn for mandatory courses in basic logic. In particular, it seems most people do not have even a remedial understanding of the difference between correlation and causation.

Enter President Barack Obama, who delivered remarks today at the National Prayer Breakfast. Meandering and condescending are but two of the words that come to mind after listening to this address. At one point the president lectures the audience on humility. Yes, Barack Obama was prodding his audience to be more humble. I’m just going to let that sink in for a minute and have you pause and reflect. Maybe you’ll even think about another concept: irony.

And no doubt many of you will need to take blood pressure medication after reading this part of the speech:

And this is the loving message of His Holiness, Pope Francis.  And like so many people around the world, I’ve been touched by his call to relieve suffering, and to show justice and mercy and compassion to the most vulnerable; to walk with The Lord and ask “Who am I to judge?”

But that’s not what caught my attention, nor is it the part of the speech that has gotten or will get the most attention. After some discussion of the events taking place in the Middle East and in Paris, and the dangers of theocracy, he intones:

 Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history.  And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.  In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.

Yes, of course he went there, would you expect anything less? Now many will rightfully complain that he is dredging up events that occurred centuries ago in order to morally equivocate, and that is indeed happening. We’ve all heard this song before, and we have naturally become somewhat inured to it.

Without jumping into the Crusades and Inquisition and why using even these centuries-old examples is flawed, let’s look at the more recent American examples, and let’s talk a bit about cause and effect.

President Obama is, essentially, comparing Christians justifying slavery to Islamic terrorists burning people alive. He is saying, “You see, Christians did some terrible things in the name of religion, just like these people.” Again, let’s ignore that we’re talking about something that took place two centuries ago rather than two minutes ago, and explore the inadequacy of this analogy.

The thugs in ISIL, the theocrats in Iran, the butchers in France: all of these groups are comprised of individuals acting in the name of their interpretation of Islam. Granting for the sake of argument that they are all acting in a way that is contrary to the true meaning of Islam, however that is supposed to be defined, they are clearly and unmistakably acting in accordance with their religious dictates. Put more bluntly: their interpretation of their religion is causing them to behave in a specific manner.

Now let’s look at slavery and Jim Crow. Yes, it’s true that some defenders of each would use the Bible to defend these practices; however, did anyone ever pick up a Bible and, “Gee whiz, God is really talking to me, I’m gonna go buy me a slave.” To put it another way, slave holders and, subsequently, practitioners of Jim Crow acted on purely, dare I say, secular reasoning to engage in their behavior. Christianity did not cause them to own slaves, nor did it cause southern politicians to enact Jim Crow laws. The Bible was used as an ex post fact rationalization for what they did.

Some may try to argue that this is a distinction without a difference, and to them I’d suggest that they still do not understand the difference between correlation and causation. Take away the Bible and you’d still have slavery in the southern parts of the United States. Christian beliefs did not inspire slaveholding – economic self-interest did that, and the latter also largely explains Jim Crow (plus a whole lot of irrational racism that didn’t have a whole lot to do with the Bible and Christianity).

Take away the religious motivation and do we have gunmen killing members of the press? Do we have the beheadings? Contra the ramblings of certain atheists, not all or even most violence throughout history has been “inspired” by religion, but the maniacs in ISIL are undoubtedly acting upon religious motivations. It isn’t some ex post fact rationalization for their behavior; no, it is the primary cause of the behavior.

Much of President Obama’s address is an exercise in moral equivalency with some vague platitudes thrown in, so about what one would expect from him. Failures in logic are just a little bit of icing on the cake.

Incidentally, Noah Rothman at Hot Air makes a good point:

It’s strange that so few see the contradiction inherent in this assertion. The president, and many of his allies on the left, frequently trip over themselves to emphasize – correctly, as it happens – that ISIS’s acts of brutality are not archetypical Islamic behavior. The insurgency’s most recent atrocity, the immolation of a captured Jordanian pilot, is apparently a violation of Islamic norms according to even Koranic scholars in the Middle East.

But to assert this and in the same breath suggest that Christianity was also a violent, expansionist religion a mere 800 years ago is a contradiction. Why make this comparison if ISIS is not representative of Islam? Isn’t the concession in this claim that those who commit acts of violence in the name of their religion, regardless of whether those acts are supported by a majority of coreligionists, are representative of their faith? Therefore, by perfunctorily nodding in the direction of a moral equivalency between Christian and Islamic violence, isn’t the president invalidating his own claim that ISIS, Boko Haram, Ansar al-Sharia, al-Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiah, Abu Sayyaf, and a host of other fundamentalist Islamic terror groups are agents of a violent strain of the Islamic faith?

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Correlation and Causation

  • A few years back I discovered that there’s no more polarizing question than: who is more humble, Bush or Obama? People on either side literally can’t comprehend how this could even be a question. I mean, literally. It’s beyond their imagining. If you want to ruin something, try that question.

  • Why would the National Prayer Breakfast have Obumbler there anyway?
    The Crusades and the Inquisition are old and tired anti-Catholic canards.

    Obumbler is a dictionary definition of a jackass.

    Islam is an evil that needs to be wiped off the face of the earth and Obumbler makes excuses for it.

  • I believe Obama comments are a direct attack on Christians. Only a demagogue would use such an illogical comparison. It’s similar to your child arguing … “but all my friends do it!”
    We now have both a President and a Prophet.

    And he learned his theology from St. Reverend Wright.

    Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., took me on another journey,” Obama once said.

    “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” he told his congregation. Rev. Wright 2001

    Obama is more indirect …. “Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place”

    Nothing new here … same old, same old … don’t get upset by massacres, burnings, attacks on America … it’s been done in the past. And we have no moral authority to object to it.

    “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in President’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

  • Brevity is the soul of wit. To wit, the following sentence is to be repeated whenever Obama opens his mouth. “Everything that guy just said is bull#$%^.”

  • Very interesting post Paul.
    There seems to be some correlation between our pope and our president. They seem to espouse some of the same beliefs. There seems to be some correlation between the Troubles of our Church and those of our Country.
    Or — the cause— the events and tides of history that brings them together on the world stage at this time. These two personalities in these two positions just now.
    The president likes our pope- he likes the fact that he said “who am I to judge?” The president might think that comment shows a weakness in our pope, an unwillingness to stand up and demand respect for the Truth of Christ in His Church. An unwillingness to take a line and stand on it. Perhaps that perceived weakness could be seen as an inroad for enemies of the Chruch.
    The president does make and stick by his judgments. No matter the howls and cries and pleas from people to react, to fight the enemies of America, he stands strong in his convictions. He doesn’t try to please everybody, saying one kind of statement one day and another kind another day.
    He is consistent in his denigration of America and of Christianity.
    The military is being weakened, Christian chaplains driven out; those who have attacked us are released from prison for time served, fights among citizens encouraged, as well as drug use encouraged and what they used to call “free love” and birth control for the destruction of the family and society.

    The pope has made strong statements about life and marriage, but we wait to see if he will be strong and defend the faith in this Synod… or if he will take the popular stand.

  • ” in order to morally equivocate, and that is indeed happening. We’ve all heard this song before, and we have naturally become somewhat inured to it. ”

    A touch of psychological warfare at breakfast to push back some of the righteous objectors to the deeds being committed to further blur what is good/bad or right/wrong or lawful/unlawful ?

  • Pingback: Obama's Comparison of ISIS Evil to the Crusades - Big Pulpit
  • The danger inherent to this kind of lazy equivocation is that somebody takes you at your word, and decides that the ends really do justify the means.
    .
    Call it the the Sgt. Jablonski rule.

  • Slavery, in particular, is a really bad example to use as Christian moral equivalence for the simple reason that practically every civilization throughout history engaged in it (ahem, some still do). From the far East, to deepest Africa, to New World Aztecs. Only in a Christian west was it first abolished.

  • What strikes you about Obama is the degree to which every substantive utterance seems to be a restatement of some conventional prejudice you hear in a certain sort of bourgeois subculture. Unlike Messrs. Truman, Nixon, Carter (and perhaps Reagan and Bush the Younger), I doubt he ever did any serious reading outside a classroom setting. You wonder if the man ever had an original observation in his life.

  • Years of reading through and listening to debates on the internet and in other spaces is enough to make me yearn for mandatory courses in basic logic. In particular, it seems most people do not have even a remedial understanding of the difference between correlation and causation.
    When I finally got a basic logic class, it made me wish for it just because it would’ve made math so much easier…. but of course there’s a lack of understanding about it, decades of “science reporting” have made sure of that.
    It’s much more “interesting” to say ‘X causes Y,’ rather than ‘when two students did a class assignment and looked at a group of 50 volunteers recruited by being in the same psychology class that we’re in, according to the 37 self-reporting diaries that were turned in and actually had anything in them, 15 total times X had happened before Y.” Even if the first article says that, by three or four articles later it’s been restated as “study out of X college says X causes Y.” If you’re lucky, it says “X MAY cause Y.”
    ______
    When he talks about “THE inquisition” as an event, it’s pretty clear he hasn’t bothered to do much research. I’ve started using it as a big warning bell that someone isn’t doing their research, and so I really shouldn’t trust anything they say on the topic without verification.
    Please excuse me plugging my own writing: http://www.catholicstand.com/conspiracies-catholicism-inquisition “The Inquisition” is an organization; “the _____ Inquisition” is an event. That I found, folks usually mean the Spanish Inquisition when they say ‘the inquisition,’ and it’s a warning they’re going to be regurgitating really bad pop history and propaganda.
    _______
    Basically, exactly like Art said– he just echoes pop belief.

  • I did have mandatory courses in basic logic. Oh, that’s right . . . 40 years ago at my Catholic Prep School. Silly me.

  • So ironic that this baby killer President has an ally and fellow traveler in our radical Jesuit pope. Chastisement?

  • Pope Francis & Obama to Congress;
    global warming alarmism
    expanded welfare state
    illegal immigration
    submission to UN
    government control of healthcare and education
    anti-capital memes
    help for the ‘poor'(or give me your money – I’ll do good with it)
    cherish homosexual relationships
    muslim outreach
    no mention of abortion
    no mention of the slavery of national debt
    no mention of the destruction of the family by the welfare state
    no mention of US government oppression of Christianity

Chris Johnson Watched the State of the Union Speech So You Didn’t Have To

Wednesday, January 21, AD 2015

State of the Union Condensed

 

Chris Johnson, a non-Catholic who has taken up the cudgels so many times for the Church that I have named him Defender of the Faith, watched the State of the Union speech last night so you didn’t have to:

Got started a little earlier than I thought I would.

2:34 I just got back from Freddie’s Market to lay in booze, er, supplies for tonight’s festivities. The more I think about it, the more I believe that Stephen Green may have had the right idea all along.

7:55 Gettin’ on toward that time so I’d better get the first vodka thing going.

8:02 – Let’s rock and roll.

8:08 – Himself is on the way in.

8:13 “Our combat mission in Afghanistan is over”  Really?

8:15  “Growing economy?”  I don’t have a job, dumbass.

8:18  “We are a strong, tight-knit family who has made it through some very hard times.”  Of course that’s never happened before.

8:20 “America is number one in oil and gas.”  No thanks to your opposition to Keystone or fracking, thank you very much.

8:22 Dude’s just making crap up now.

8:23 My way or the highway, bitches.

8:25 Rebecca just isn’t asking for a handout.  Except that she wants “affordable child care” at someone else’s expense.

8:27 You’re not just going to be paying for Sandra Fluke’s birth control.  You’re going to be paying for Sandra Fluke’s birth control AND paid her affordable maternity leave.

8:29 “That’s why this Congress needs to make sure that women are paid the same as men.”  Since they basically are right now.

8:30  Strengthen unions.  Saw that one coming a million light years away.

8:32 Free community college.  ‘Kay.  Who’s paying for it, O?

8:34 Apprenticeships?  You mean like going back to reading law again?  Produced Lincoln, after all.

8:36 This is starting to sound something like a Nuremberg rally.

8:37 “Let’s set our sights higher than a pipeline.”  See you, Keystone.  And get used to paying $3.00 or more a gallon again.

8:40 “And where we too often run under the rocks is how we pay for all this”  Here we go.

8:43 The top one percent.  Saw that one coming a light year away.

8:44 He’s on to foreign policy now.

8:45 Barry thinks his “foreign policy” is making a difference.

8:47 America’s foreign policy has been forceful?  Obama wants a Congressional resolution authorizing force against the “Islamic” State.

8:52  G0 ahead and take “credit” for Cuba, O.  “Stands up for democratic values and extends the hands of friendship to Cuba?”  Care to reconcile those two mutually-exclusive ideas, Barry?

8:53  Computer hackers now?  This have something to do with the IRS scandal?

8:55 Climate change.  Last year was the warmest year of climate change of record, Barry.  Do you have any idea how old the universe is, dimwit?

8:56 Barry wants to go Luddite.

8:57 Dude had to work duh gaze in there.  Pretty much de riguer these days.

8:58 O wants to close Gitmo.

9:00 “I still believe that we are one people.”  Glad you do.

Sorry that things stopped early.  Some kind of technical problem; I’m not quite sure what happened there.  I’ll keep comments open a little while longer.

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Chris Johnson Watched the State of the Union Speech So You Didn’t Have To

  • I yelled and screamed as I watched it. I should not have watched it. I must go to Confession. But Joni Ernst was well worth watching. Unlike that godless, iniquitous man of sin and depravity, she served and is still serving in the military. She has real courage. He has pink progressivism.

  • I watched the Wisconsin/Iowa college BB game, and for it I am the better: hard work; intelligent, unselfish play; game plan execution; teamwork; etc.
    .
    Money quote from the movie, “My Cousin Vinnie,” “Everything that guy just said is bu!!$hi+.”

  • I was compelled to listen to it. I’m not sure I’ve heard a full State of the Union address since the one delivered by Gerald Ford during which the Speaker of the House fell asleep (or so I was told by the babysitter; I fell asleep too). You listen to him and it hits you that it’s a reasonable wager the man has not had an original observation in the last 25 or 30 years. At any one time, he just manifests whatever is conventional opinion among a certain sort of professional-managerial bourgeois. And, of course, there was one deceptive statement after another; there is no truth or falsehood to this man, merely what is useful for his purposes at that moment. His mode of delivery makes the Little Rock Lounge Lizard seem pleasant by comparison.
    ==
    I guess politicians know their audience and what constitutes good rhetoric for their purposes, but I have to say I gagged on Jodi Ernst. Her talk was gratuitously self-referential, she’s given to embarrassing gushing, and she looked like a mannequin. Curiously, the greybeards on MacNeil-Lehrer liked it.

  • Well, as one of the ‘folks’ who could not bear the metabolic disturbance, I turned to the cable offering called something like -on demand- to find an old movie. The screen said it wasn’t available due to a high amount of usage, to try again later. Hmm, after initial moment of amusement that maybe many others were checking alternatives, I concluded that there might be another reason less amusing. (Saw a picture of the cable head golfing with the speaker during one of the vacations.)

  • Obama inherited a broken nation and he refuses to fix it, kind of like a pimp.

  • I couldn’t watch it any more than I can now not read about Pope Francis’ off-the-cuff remarks.
    Both of those men have some deep mommy issues.

    I now believe, Obama by his obsession with aborting as many of the the very young as possible, coupled with undermining the family and replacing it with the government; and Pope Francis’ “breeding like rabbits” statement (even when taken in context, no lecture needed please, I am extremely well catechized, and have read the entire airplane speech, in fact someday maybe a compilation of his airplane speeches might surely displace Leslie Nielson’s legendary comedic place) –that statement had to come from some core disgust for women and/or the marital act.

    Lordy I miss Bush and Benedict.

  • Both of those men have some deep mommy issues.

    There just does not seem to be any there there; I’m not sure what Michelle Robinson ever saw in him. I do not know quite where his mother fits into that. Given that he was attending the Million Man March while she was dying of cancer in Honolulu, I tend to think he did not care much about her. Given that both she and his sire were nothing if not self-centered, I cannot say as I blame him. However, he was also willing to sell out his conscientious grandmother to get out from under Jeremiah Wright, so maybe I should blame him.

    I’ve never been able to make sense of the man. I’ve seen a couple of judgments offered in different connections which remind me of Obama. One was from the psychologist Joseph Nicolosi, who said his clientele was largely composed of men who go through their life playing somebody else. The other was from Camille Paglia, who said compulsive talking is an indicator of a truncated inner life (her assessment of John McCain).

  • “We can disagree on abortion…”

    Mary De Voe. Obama is worse than a pimp. To say he would veto the 20 week ban on abortion is to say to hell with the innocents. Obama is as sick an individual ever could be that walked this earth.
    http://www.lifenews/obamaveto20weekbanonabortion.

  • Link incorrect.

    http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/20/Obama-says-we-can-disagree-on-abortion-as-he-backs-killing-babies-in-late-term-abortions/

    What a noble man Obama. This disagreement doesn’t cost him or his daughters life. What a noble man…NOT.

  • This is amazing to me! Our civilization is being tested and found wanting. The response to the non state of the union speech should be outrage at the BS the fluff, the lack of meaning in the multiplication of words. Yes we know Obama is wrong inept inadequate false– what about us. Do we get and keep the leadership we deserve? What a mockery for him to get up their and carry one as if he were giving a serious state of the union speech. And the band played on.

  • For the record, Obama is not only in favor of late term abortions, Obama is in favor of letting the victim of a botched abortion die in a garbage can. That’s out and out infaticide.

  • Ernst Schreiber.

    Agreed.

    In the course of History I will wager that this (p)resident will be known infamously because of his position on Life issues. It won’t matter the slightest, obamacare or other programs he’s instituted, because in the end LIFE will win.

    Years from now children of all colors will say; “oh I know…the first black president…he hated life for the innocents”.

    What a shame.

  • Philip: ““We can disagree on abortion…””. Who is “We”? “We, the people”? Speak for yourself. Only you are afraid to use “”I” disagree on abortion.”
    .
    The taking of a human life with the sanction of the state. Our nation is possessed by the devil. Obama is possessed by the devil..

  • Mary De Voe.

    He must be including the millions of supporters of genocide in the “We”.
    Regardless, they and lil’ king, are possessed by the devil. No doubt about it.

  • Philip, I must disagree. A criminal separates himself from “We, the people” by his very deed. Therefore only law abiding citizens may participate at all levels of government in “We, the people”.
    .
    Honestly, Philip, I am not so sure that Obama and these secularist progressives have not separated themselves from the human race, from, as it were, humanity as they deny the rational human soul, the divinity of Jesus and our brotherhood with the Son of God. While they demand that “We, the people” acknowledge them as little gods, they actually deny themselves divinity as the adopted sons of God.
    .
    And that under their skin, if it were scratched, there is the unspeakable and unviewable face of the MURDERER, himself, Satan.

  • Mary De Voe.
    Thank you for helping me to distinguish between the criminal and the citizens in the “We the people..” Good point.

    As for your insight on trading the sonship of God for the false notion of being God, amen. They are following a light that was banished from Heaven for the same reason. “Who is like unto God”? Saint Michael pray for us.

  • Philip: As I go on. How much sovereign personhood does a woman employ to murder her child? Even the Supreme Court would not have allowed Roe v. Wade if the personhood of the child were to have been proved.
    .
    Abortion has been human sacrifice for all time. Roe v. Wade was brought to court to make all taxpayers pay for Kermit Gosnell. Women drank turpentine and went blind or insane or used “the hangar” or jumped off tables. If human sacrifice is the worship of the devil and it is, then Roe v. Wade is the Supreme Court imposing a worship of the devil on every citizen. I mean, if abortionists choose to go to hell, I do not. To force me to attend by money or legalization of abortion, as one judge put it; “the price of citizenship”, the devil and his demons have free reign in the United States of America. Abortionist are high priests in the worship of the devil.

  • My heartfelt thanks to Chris Johnson for watching the speech for me. I haven’t the heart to tell him I wasn’t going to watch it anyway. Sssshhhhhhh! 😉 It does not matter what Obama says. Watch what he does. We don’t know his enigmatic intentions. We observe the effects. His domestic policies are like the tunes played by a Pied Piper leading the country to oblivion. His foreign policies are like a Third Column leaving the country openly vulnerable to her enemies.

Compare and Contrast

Tuesday, September 23, AD 2014

Reagan saluting

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We did not pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

                                         Ronald Reagan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coffee Cup Salute

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Compare and Contrast

  • Mr. Reagan was born in 1911 to a mother and father who were married from 1904 until the latter’s death in 1941, who lived in small midwestern towns the whole time, who lived for the most part on sales commissions and proprietor’s income, and of whom the mother was a pillar of one of the local protestant congregations. He lived all of his formative years in the sort of milieux where people adhered to a certain formality and had a regard for appearances and ‘the decent drapery of life’ and spent years in the Army Reserve. BO was born in 1961 consequent to a shag session of two people who demonstrated all their lives a talent for being self-centered. He spent the bulk of his upbringing in Honolulu, a town which was nothing if not informal. His time spent in the military approximated that of Madonna.

  • Exactly why do Presidents return the Marines’ salutes? It’s quite recent, I suspect it started with Pres. Reagan. I couldn’t find any vids of previous presidents boarding AF1 but it would be interesting to check old newsreel/broadcast footage to see if Eisenhower, JFK, Nixon, &c saluted.

    As for Obama saluting with a coffee cup — please, there are plenty of other reasons to dislike him.

  • It shows a self-absorption Thomas unworthy of his office. He is a small, petty man and this is a symbol of it. Reagan always returned salutes which makes sense due to the President being commander-in-chief. Earlier Presidents did also, including George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

  • “Reagan always returned salutes which makes sense due to the President being commander-in-chief “…of the Armed Forces making the Commander-in-Chief an officer in the armed forces. and Obama needs to discipline himself in the salute to the American Flag or get out of the American White House.

  • What another example of the petty little man in the White House.

  • A salute is a courtesy,

    Yes, the president in civilian clothes (like any one) may return a salute, on the general proposition that courtesies should be returned. But if you return it one should do so with courtesy.

    A marine who saluted like that would be doing push-ups until a year after his enlistment expired.

  • “the petty little man in the White House”…is a disgrace.

  • There are tens of millions of Americans that are baser: each fleck of human flotsam that voted for the no-account, Alinsky-ite racial racketeer.

    They haven’t a clue but they are getting what they deserve.

  • In the British armed services, one does not salute when not in full uniform. That includes officers in mess-dress (i.e. without headgear)

    The only time we see the sovereign returning a salute is at Trooping the Colour – the only occasion when HM wears military uniform.

  • MPS: HM is always at attention. A coffee cup? Obama does not have two hands? It was not a sight insult, it may have been planned.

  • Slight insults become treason when planned.

  • Mary De Voe wrote, “HM is always at attention”
    Absolutely!

  • I do not usually comment on things of a political nature in here, but this is appalling

  • T Shaw asked “HM Who?”

    Her Majesty the Queen, referring back to the sovereign in the first part of the sentence.

So Impeach Him

Wednesday, July 2, AD 2014

If the Legislature shall fail to pass legislation that the President deems essential, the President shall have the authority to unilaterally pass such legislation via Executive Order. – US Constitution, Article II, Section 5, as envisioned by Barack Obama.

One would think that, having unanimously been rebuffed by the Supreme Court yet again for executive overreach, President Obama would be somewhat chastened. Of course the person who thinks that obviously doesn’t know Barack Obama.

President Barack Obama appeared equally annoyed and frustrated with House Republicans on Tuesday, dismissing their recent threat of a lawsuit and promising to continue with the executive actions that have so bothered the GOP.

“Middle-class families can’t wait for Republicans in Congress to do stuff,” Mr. Obama during a speech along the Georgetown waterfront. “So sue me. As long as they’re doing nothing, I’m not going to apologize for trying to do something.”

Since there is no imaginary codicil in the Constitution that permits the President to act unilaterally, even if “middle-class families” can’t wait, President Obama is technically quite wrong. Leaving aside the dubious analysis that middle-class families are anxiously awaiting some kind of immigration reform, the President’s self-congratulatory statement about trying to do “something” is constitutionally and politically noxious.

The constitutional problem is obvious. We still liver under a republican form of government, one that is largely built upon the foundation of checks and balances and separation of powers. To concentrate powers into one hand is to set a course for tyranny. As our constitutional scholar of a President has no doubt read:

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

Reading a little further down, Madison writes, “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” Yes, the legislature is to be dominant, with the president afforded necessary checks to make sure that the legislature doesn’t get out of control. But that check on the legislatures comes in the form of a veto pen. The president’s power is essentially a negative one, ensuring that the Congress does not abuse its constitutional authority. Notice, however, that Madison does not prescribe an affirmative check to the presidency. He does not advocate  – nor would almost any of the Framers – presidential ability to act outside of Congressional authority (save in times of rebellion) on his own initiative. The president’s job is to restrain Congress, not for him to get out hand himself when he doesn’t like legislative inaction.

The policy aspect of Obama’s arrogant message is that at least he is doing something. It doesn’t really matter what he is doing or whether what he’s doing actually works, but the main thing is he’s doing something. And that sums up the progressive movement in a nutshell. “Don’t just stand there, do something” has been the official motto of the progressive movement for the past century. The details are of niggling importance. That the proposal might, at best, be unhelpful and, at worst, deprive citizens of their liberty, is not given much consideration.

Of course Obama is merely treading in the same path as progressive presidents that have preceded him. Woodrow Wilson (aka the reason we shouldn’t allow Ph. Ds in the White House, says this Ph. D) wanted to radically re-orient the American polity towards a Prime Minister model. FDR threatened to expand the size of the Supreme Court until he got what he wanted. President Obama is simply acting out the aspirations of Wilson, FDR and their many progressive boosters. Congress? Bah, unhelpful. The Supreme Court? Bah, we’ll just ignore those old codgers.

Unfortunately the president’s arrogance is justified. After all, what is Congress going to do? Speaker Boehner’s going nowhere lawsuit is a futile and pathetic attempt to reign in Obama. Republicans may very well sweep the midterm elections, but we all know that this president is not going to be impeached, and assuredly will not be removed from office. No, President Obama will certainly still be in office until noon on January 20, 2017. So he can taunt Congress all he wants knowing full well that they can’t and won’t do anything to him, and that a large chunk of the public doesn’t even care that this is happening.

Please don’t take this as yet another criticism of those feckless Republicans. Admittedly their options are narrow, and they are narrow because of the reckless fecklessness of Congressional Democrats. There was a time in this country when it was thought that we had in essence four parties: Congressional Democrats and Republicans, and then the Presidential Democrat and Republican parties. All members of Congress jealously guarded their own powers and protected the institution, even when presidents of the same party were sitting in the Oval Office. Those days are gone. There is really nothing short of premeditated homicide caught on film that would spur Congressional Democrats to join in any impeachment proceedings, and even then it might only be a 50/50 vote in that caucus. This is a bipartisan problem to some extent, though the progressive left is even more invested in the idea of a single, centralized authority benevolently guiding us towards utopia.

That is why I think Jonah Goldberg’s criticism of Charles Murray’s piece, in which Murray tries to distinguish between the liberal left and the progressive left, hits the mark. Murray is somewhat right that there is a distinction to be made between “liberals” on the left who, while they agree with the favored policy choices of the progressive left, nonetheless deplore the tactics employed, especially as regards to the stifling of dissent. Yet these liberals don’t kick up too much of a fuss when those tactics achieve their preferred policy outcomes. I don’t see too many liberals complaining about executive overreach – well, not when the overreach is coming from the hands of Barack Obama.

And so here we are, with a president openly thumbing his nose at the republican form of government, and roughly half of the country is yawning at or cheering on this development.

Mr. Franklin’s sage wisdom echoes through the ages.

Continue reading...

38 Responses to So Impeach Him

  • I think the distinction Murray is trying to make is generational. George McGovern is dead and Nat Hentoff is real old. As for the succeeding cohorts, fuhgeddaboutit.

    As for the President, do you detect a note of petulant rage that there are people and impersonal forces that thwart him? Do not most of us get over that by age 53? Is there not a clinical name for that?

    ‘Roughly half the country’ would be about 41% thereof with a declining secular trend. Truman, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush – it never really got any better for them from this point forward (quite the contrary in the case of three of the five). It did for Eisenhower, but this point in his tenure was just after the end of a sharp recession and his party still got shellacked in the 1958 federal elections. Wagers when BO is at the end of the line, 2/3 of the public will have had quite enough of him.

  • do you detect a note of petulant rage that there are people and impersonal forces that thwart him?

    No doubt, Art. The man has got to be one of the most thin-skinned people to ever hold that office. He is not somebody who likes to be challenged, as is evidenced by the way he has constructed his cabinet and network of advisers. For all the grief that GWB received from the left, he was clearly someone who not only only tolerated but even seemed to promote some level of dissension among his advisers. This president – not so much.

  • The legislature can bring any executive to heel through the power of the purse-strings.
    If the executive can neither raise nor spend money, it is reduced to impotence. Many a British monarch was brought to heel by parliament threatening to refuse supply.

    Perhaps, they could start with a motion to reduce the President’s salary and expenses to, say, $100 a year.

  • Congratulations on writing “reckless fecklessness”. It was a truly honorable act. I feel elevated simply by cutting and pasting it.

  • Sometimes I’m a poet, and I don’t even know it.

  • Obama is calling their immigration bluff, isn’t he? The establishment Republicans want “comprehensive” immigration “reform” too, and so have no words with which to tell him why doing nothing is better than doing something. No principled position they hold as a party. Jeff Sessions has been trying to feed them their lines, but…

  • Perhaps, they could start with a motion to reduce the President’s salary and expenses to, say, $100 a year.

    We have a bicameral legislature, with the upper house run by a man who has managed to accumulate a net worth of $6.7 million after nine years of small-city law practice and forty years of public employment. Among his more choice interventions in public discussion was to accuse the Republican presidential candidate of being a tax cheat sans details (though we can now guess the DNC has operatives in the IRS) and to accuse Koch Industries of being nefarious agents of influence.

    (This last is the partisan Democratic meme d’annee. Of the top 16 contributors over the last generation to campaigns and political parties, 12 favor the Democratic Party and 4 regard politicians as fungible. The top Republican contributor is number 17, which shells out 1/3 of what the top Democratic contributor does. The Democratic intertubez are obsessed with the contributor ranked 60, Koch Industries. As Alinsky said, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. ” Sad to say, the political opposition has turned into a hate group. Not happy we over here).

  • “Sometimes I’m a poet, and I don’t even know it.”

    You could have employed alliteration. But, it would be unacceptable in this forum.

    The zero can’t be impeached. He enjoys a 99% approval rating from the lying, liberal media and owns 100 million government dependents/employees that he feeds and clothes.

  • I like the idea of reducing the salary. Donald answered my question a few weeks ago about why impeachment won’t work. I also think we could let him know we are cutting the money to ex presidents…. and other benefits too, like special security forces once they are no longer in office. Presidents need to realize their is real life with the rest of us once they are out of office. They really think they are special. 🙂 and, especially for Obama, that “I am special” seems to be the root of the defiance problem he exhibits when it comes to following the rules.
    It irks me that he went to MN to stump for Al Franken for some of the sound bites we were treated to a few days ago, like a campaigner. Going to MN is sweet and easy for him…I think we should redirect Air Force One to Brownsville or Tucson and ask him to get out and stump there.

  • A president’s salary and expense budget can’t be reduced during his term. Any change in compensation could only apply to the next administration.

  • I also think we could let him know we are cutting the money to ex presidents…. and other benefits too, like special security forces once they are no longer in office. Presidents need to realize their is real life with the rest of us once they are out of office.

    1. Build a records center in Kansas City and move the archival material there. Then deed the physical plant and the gew gaws of those presidential libraries over to the county government in question and never build another one.

    2. Remove the grandfather clause which requires perpetual security details for presidents serving prior to 2001 (the Bushes get 10 years). Richard Nixon lived the last 6 years of his life without a security detail and if it worked for Nixon, it works for the rest of them. IIRC, Harry Truman went round without one in spite of the assassination attempt against him which killed a member of his detail. We could have paid for home health aides for Ronald Reagan. He did not need cops looking after him. Was Lady Bird Johnson’s life ever in danger? Why did she have 37 hours of 24/7 protection, and why did Henry Kissinger and Stansfield Turner receive none?

    3. Pay for some secretaries to answer the mail they get.

    4. Withhold from them some of their pay as retirement savings. No need to have an actuarially unsound pension. Few of them were bad earners and all but two recent occupants were in late middle age, old, or wealthy when they took office. Maybe Clinton have behaved better if he needed that law license of which he was stripped.

  • Obumbler does not care what opinion polls say about him. He will do what he wants to do. He has his backers and they will support him no matter what.

  • Thank you, Paul Zummo.
    .
    When a president acts outside of the U.S. Constitution, he violates his oath of office.
    Obama has promised us everything and forgets to keep his promises.
    .
    Obama blatantly announces that he will violate his oath of office and act outside of the Constitution
    Let the Executive Orders Obama writes be the grounds for impeachment. In them, Obama has arrogated to himself powers that are not constitutionally his. It is past time.

  • Impeach him? Maybe necessary.
    As you say though, good luck with that one.

  • “The legislature can bring any executive to heel through the power of the purse-strings.”

    They can, but they won’t. Remember last year’s “government shutdown”?
    Obama knows very well that all he need do is wait for the media to make a laughing stock of the Republicans, then they’ll capitulate.

  • The house republicans need to be “impeached” at the ballot box this Nov. Through their obstruction they have caused more damage to this country then any executive order. They have not done the job they were elected to do and they deserve to be removed.

  • “Through their obstruction they have caused more damage to this country then any executive order.”

    Utter rubbish on stilts. The House of Representatives have sent many bills to the Senate with needed reforms and Harry Reid has made certain each and every one dies in the Senate to prevent Obama having the political risk of vetoing common sense legislation.

  • The house republicans need to be “impeached” at the ballot box this Nov. Through their obstruction they have caused more damage to this country then any executive order. They have not done the job they were elected to do and they deserve to be removed.

    Obstruction of what? What’s so urgent, John?

  • Everything that that Siegmun guy just wrote is bu!!$#!+.

  • Obama’s progressive agenda is a tragic fiasco. Sorrowfully, the oversupply of resentful/wrathful and ignorant/unintelligent people, like Siegmun, continues to expand.

  • We talk disdainfully of sound bites, but it is obvious that they work! Too many people by into the bite-size bits I’ misdirection that are fed to them daily

  • “Buy in” to sound bites

  • “The zero can’t be impeached. He enjoys a 99% approval rating from the lying, liberal media and owns 100 million government dependents/employees that he feeds and clothes.”
    .
    100 million government dependents/employees whom he feeds and clothes are fed and clothed by “We, the people…”. Obama does nothing. The feeding and the clothing will go on in the next election cycle because the taxpayers feed and clothe the government dependents/employees…and Obama and more than some other criminal takers, like Obama. Perhaps some people buy into Obama’s lies about he, himself, doing these wonderful acts of charity, but Obama’s lies come with the threat of, the constant threat of, this charity ending, so reelect Obama for more lies and threats, especially if Obama institutes euthanasia. Then it will surely end…abruptly.
    .
    Abortion and euthanasia are the foundation of Obamacare. Someone will never need surgery, if he is dead.
    .
    Our Constitutional Republic will go on, long after Obama and Hillary and their lies about Benghazi, “you can keep your doctor, your insurance and have a 30% decrease in premiums.
    .
    “We,” the taxpayers need to rid ourselves of liars, manipulators and Chief Executive Executive Orders.
    .
    God created all things and keeps them in existence. “We, the people” made our government and keeps it in existence.
    .
    “…governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” fromThe Declaration of Independence

  • Everything that that Siegmun guy just wrote is bu!!$#!+.

    If you begin with the assumption that ‘the job they were expected to do’ was to be an extension of Mr. Siegmun’s will or BO’s will, I guess it makes a sort of sense. Of course, few of their voting constituents actually think that. Given past experience, I suspect Mr. Siegmun will be quite disappointed this November.

  • Legislation enacted by Congress during the period running from 2009 to 2011 included the stimulus (a waste), Obamacare (fiasco) and Dodd-Frank (latent fiasco). Maybe we are better off if they are on vacation.

  • “Legislation enacted by Congress during the period running from 2009 to 2011 included the stimulus (a waste), Obamacare (fiasco) and Dodd-Frank (latent fiasco). Maybe we are better off if they are on vacation.”
    .
    The stimulus was a carefully ochestrated giveaway to those who would support Obama. Nancy Pelosi’s husband, who owns Star Kissed tuna, was given a stimulus. Solyndra was a payback in vengeance for the solar industry.
    .
    You are correct Art Deco, the stimulus was a waste for the people, but it was a boon for Obama.

  • Has anyone found my “r” from orchestrated?

  • Siegmund,

    The truth about the source of legislative obstructionism. (A quick hint, its not Republicans.):

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368369/harry-reids-obstructionism-andrew-stiles

  • It’s rright here, Mary.

  • Pingback: Thoughts on Impeaching President Obama | Mr. Christopher Smith, OP
  • Oh, Thank You, Mike. I was afraid that I would have to become a Chinaman.

  • “But can’t he borrow the power to do these things?”
    .
    Of the 923 Executive Orders written by Obama, this one, 11921 actually disables Congress. Who will enable Congress once Obama has shut Copngress down?
    .
    -EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.
    .
    In six months Obama can run this country into his bank account. If the people are all dead, the country will belong to Obama.

  • In addition, June 9, 201, Executive Order 13575 Rural Councils allows the government agents to come onto private farms and confiscate them if the agent does not like the way the farm is being run, or the government may not like the owner of the farm.
    .
    The Fifth Amendment, the takings clause allows eminent domain, the taking of private property for public use with just compensation. Public use became public purposes without the change having been ratified by three quarters of the states. Public purposes has now become complete usurpation of private property at the whim of government without just compensation. Very few people knew of this because of Weinergate
    .
    Obama also took control of all other executive orders, Clinton’s taking of all public lands and waterways. Very few people knew because of Monicagate. It was adultery stratigically placed to allay the people’s fear of totalitarianism.
    .
    And so it goes. Very few people knew or learned of this because of all the promises of benefits to look the other way. “We, the people” have lost our country to a very small man’s opinion and greed for power to rule the world.
    .
    Clinton was reelcted by the million illegals he made legal. Perhaps the 500,000 illegals made legal by Obama might just make him emperor, but in effect, Obama already did that in EO 11921. Just saying.

  • “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”
    – See more at: http://the-american-catholic.com/2014/07/04/the-declaration-of-independence-4/#sthash.T2w5x3VQ.dpuf

    So, impeach him.

  • 1 Kings 8 Then Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who had desired a king of him.
    “And he will take your fields and your vineyards, and your best olive-yards, and give them to his servants.” Rural Councils Executive Order 13575
    .
    “Moreover, he will take the tenth of your corn, and of the revenues of your vineyards, to give his eunuchs and servants.” The stimulus
    .
    “Your servants also and handmaids, and your goodliest young men, and your asses he will take away, and put them to his work.” Executive Order 11921
    .
    “Your flocks also he will tithe, and you shall be his servants.” Taxation without representation, constituency denied, religious liberty denied, freedom of conscience denied. (10- 22)
    .
    So, Impeach Him.

  • In the bush, witch doctors wear hideous masks, do violent contortions and shriek incantations to ward off evil spirits.
    .
    In Washington D.C , the only incantation a citizen has to permantently ward off evil spirits is impeachment.
    .
    Obama, Clinton, Bill and Hillary, have impeached themselves. It is up to “We, the people” to make it permanent, document it in the public domain, so that their Executive Orders to denude the people of their sovereign rights and others of their real estate, become empty words, so that these unauthorized, usurped authorities have no validity in and out of the Constitution.
    .
    So that the oaths that they have taken and violated impeach them. Murder of the Constitution has no statute of limitations.
    .
    So Impeach Him.

Poll: Obama Is the Worst President Since World War II

Wednesday, July 2, AD 2014

8 Responses to Poll: Obama Is the Worst President Since World War II

  • In assessing the ‘worst president’, you have to have a set of goals in mind (some of which will be nearly consensual and others not) and a sense of how presidential decisions affected certain contingencies. Admirers of Clinton neglect that he inherited a more agreeable economic and international situation than any of his 10 or 11 immediate predecessors and that some of his salient successes were a function of his tangles with the political opposition. Politicians are also wont to take credit for the economic situation that prevailed during their term of office, as if there were no business cycles and as if long-term trends in joint-factor productivity were readily manipulable and highly responsive to policies enacted within four-year time scales.

    So far, Obama has yet to generate or give succor to misbegotten enterprises on the scale of World War I, the economic implosion of the early 1930s, or the VietNam War. We have not yet seen social disasters to which federal officials have a more tenuous connection (e.g. the riot cycle of 1964-71). Given time, little doubt we’ll see messes on the order of the monetary policy debacle of 1977-81 and the national humiliation in Iran registered in 1978-81. We’re seeing the latter sort now.

    What’s gets you about Obama is the great smallness of the man. He cannot bargain with the opposition and even his allies find him tedious. He knows nothing to speak of about any area of policy. It is nearly impossible to recall a discrete decision he’s made (and certainly not a decision in a crisis) that led demonstrably to an improved (or even agreeable) outcome. He relies heavily for counsel on Valerie Jarrett of all people. He accepts responsibility for nothing and throws chaff in everyone’s face when something goes wrong. He has no demonstrable comprehension of wide swaths of the social landscape, much less an appreciation of it. It is difficult to imagine Walter Mondale ginning up something as suffused with petty malice as the HHS mandate. It is difficult to imagine any post-war president other than Kennedy or Johnson generating the IRS scandal. (Richard Nixon wanted about two-dozen parties audited; most of them were not). Then there’s the brazen lying by the president an a cavalcade of his subordinates (H. Clinton, Douglas Shulman, John Koskinen, &c) and the flagrant silliness (Jen Psaki).

    He may not be the ‘worst’ President of the post-Reconstruction era, but he’s certainly the most embarrassing.

  • I don’t doubt that so many people have a low opinion of this president (count me
    in there too), but where were they when he was being re-elected in 2012?

  • The narcissist, self-absorbed President reflects a narcissist, self-absorbed people, addicted to selfies on Facebook, internet games of violence and gambling, reality TV, American Idol and Dancing with the Stars. This generation fully merits the evil that is Barack Hussein Obama and his wife Jezebel.

  • Bryan Preston asks, “Which product was more dishonestly marketed: Amazing Live Sea Monkeys or Barack Obama?

    In other news: one-in-four Americans (including two-in-four Dem voters) unaware that the Earth circles the Sun.

  • “What’s gets you about Obama is the great smallness of the man.”
    .
    Well said.

  • This generation fully merits the evil that is Barack Hussein Obama and his wife Jezebel.

    Give it a rest. The dame spends money hand-over-fist, has a considerable history as a grafteuse (which, of course implicates him), and by what accounts have appeared in the papers is given to being moody and difficult; she’s not a butcher. He’s hollow and truncated in various ways as one might guess of a man who got a great deal of positive feedback detached from actual accomplishment atop a foundation of being borne of a woman who was nothing if not self-centered. Their marriage has social utility – they spend their lives irritating two people instead of four.

  • “…they spend their lives irritating two people instead of four.”

    They spend their lives despoiling the morals of an entire nation. They support abortion which makes them both butchers. They support homosexual marriage which makes them both perverts. Giving evil a rest allows evil to win.

Top Ten Reasons Why Obama is Not the Anti-Christ

Friday, February 28, AD 2014

Obama and Cross

At a recent event, President Obama was called the anti-Christ by a heckler.   This is so unfair!  Here are the top ten reasons why Obama is not the anti-Christ.

 

10. Obama can’t be the anti-Christ because he is a Christian…O.K., make that the top nine reasons why Obama isn’t the anti-Christ.

9.  Obama fears that 666 is the number of daily calories that Michele will allow him on his next diet.

8.  Satan has not taken possession of Obama, although some sort of lease arrangement is a possibility.

7.  Elijah and Enoch haven’t been killed by drones. Yet.

6.  The anti-Christ would never vote present.

5.  Putin doesn’t fit into his Gog costume.

Continue reading...

21 Responses to Top Ten Reasons Why Obama is Not the Anti-Christ

15 Responses to Yep

  • The Almighty will one day shove Hussein’s words straight down his throat and throw him to where he belongs.

  • He also said that promoting religious freedom was a key objective of his foreign policy.

    The Obamas trot their religion out for display like Chreasters. Their “faith” appears to amount to no more than “well, if everyone else is…” I’ll take a surface level fear of God over that any day.

    The hard part of my faith isn’t the public display. I can wear my ashes and look attentive in Mass, even when my mind is on reports and kids, vacations and fence repar. The hard part of my faith is when everyone is in bed and i should shut off the computer and TV, put down the guitar, and pray.

    I get the distinct impression that the President doesn’t struggle with that.

  • And you wonder why many people, including myself, call him a LIAR.

    Yes. He was created in the image and likeness of God, but this is what happens when you listen to the un-holy spirit to long. You believe your own lies.

    God have Mercy on the unborn and those who perpetuate their demise.

  • “It’s mystery it’s magic it’s divinity.”
    Mathematician-

    Incredible presentation.

  • “He also said that promoting religious freedom was a key objective of his foreign policy.”
    .
    Religious freedom is what Lenin promised the 79 men and women who promulgated the Bolshevik revolt and assassinated the Czar.
    Obama has taken the power through executive order to do the same.
    The following is posted at “The Dark Enlightenment is Upon Us”.
    .
    The Supreme Court decision of Roe versus Wade made property of the sovereign individual substance of a rational nature carried in a woman’s womb. The finite court took possession of the newly begotten sovereign soul as chattel. The legal and moral innocence of the human soul at conception impacted Justice as less than nothing and imposed atheism on America’s moral law.
    The Supreme Court decision of Roe versus Wade emasculated every man and father in America as well as every woman and mother in America. The constitutional posterity brought forth in fertilization as a son or daughter ordains a woman as a mother and a man as a father.
    .
    The innocent sovereignty of our constitutional posterity constitutes our nation from the very first moment of his existence. His virtue and purity is the standard of Justice for the nation and the Supreme Court.
    .
    Roe versus Wade is Justice aborted.

  • They call this ‘spin’. Some speech writer came up with this; sounds nice for a Prayer Breakfast. It probably was the President’s first time even to see the words, but that does not matter. This shows not only his own inconsistency on ‘abortion’ but also with Ben Ghazi. Remember it was Obama and Hilary who claimed that the attack which killed our ambassador and three other Americans were due not to Islamicists but some all but unknown video put together by a Christian nutjob almost six months before.

    He is all about spin, and does not care otherwise, especially now that he is not up for reelection. I just wonder if any in his Administration realize how out of touch ‘he’ is and how much harm he is doing to the soul and culture of America.

  • “Roe vs. Wade is Justice aborted.”

    If it’s possible I’d like to nominate your quote for quote of the week Mary.

    Perfectly worded. 🙂 Perfectly placed.

    Have a great weekend.

  • Botolph: “I just wonder if any in his Administration realize how out of touch ‘he’ is and how much harm he is doing to the soul and culture of America.”
    .
    Obama is a handpuppet for government against the people.

    Philip: “Have a great weekend.” and to you.

  • I pray that he will contemplate upon that statement.

  • Charlie.

    Other contemplation this morning has brought peace. I pray these words bring peace to all who feel bitterness regarding Barry.

    #314 of the C.C.C. : “We firmly believe that God is master of the world and of it’s history. But the ways of his providence are often unknown to us. Only at the end, when our partial knowledge ceases, when we see God “face to face,” will we fully know the ways by which – even through the dramas of evil and sin – God has guided his creation to that definitive sabbath rest for which he created heaven and earth.”

  • Philip,
    I am drawn closer to Jesus after I realize I have sinned much like the prodigal son. I dislike Barry O.,but hope he will realize his sins and do likewise. Mankind, born & unborn, will be better for it.

  • Charlie.
    Amen.
    We are all a work in progress.

  • My public utterances are more pleasing to Him than are my private thoughts towards the Church’s enemies of which B H O’Bama is a mortal one.

  • I wish he would spare the world his pathetic sermons.

    Anti-gay is like Islamic terrorism? Oh my, how full of s$&@ this man is.

    “Killing the innocent is never fulfilling Gods will”- oh really now, what would he know about Gods will.

    Arrogant hypocrite. His type makes me so mad.

  • Pingback: Are You Struggling with Your Prayer Life? - BigPulpit.com

PopeWatch: A Suggested Topic for Conversation

Thursday, January 23, AD 2014

22 Responses to PopeWatch: A Suggested Topic for Conversation

  • Just speaking for myself, I have no doubts about Pope Francis’s commitment to a full spectrum of pro-life issues. I do have serious doubts about how the media will portray those views, and there are several scenarios in which the pope’s views will be called into question.
    In one scenario, the conversations with Obama are private, and selective leaks are publicized by someone looking to put the pope on the defensive.
    In another scenario, the pope makes numerous unambiguous remarks affirming his pro-life stances, plus one highly-publicized, ambiguous remark that requires bloggers (once again) to explain away our doubts.
    In another scenario, the pope publically condemns Obama’s record only to be portrayed as “undiplomatic”, “strident”, or even “gaffe-prone” by the international media.
    The chance that the pope will express strong pro-life views and those views will be reported accurately and fairly by the media is pretty small, in my view (but I hope to be wrong).

  • No grandchildren for Michelle or Barry!
    Wishing to glorify themselves as elites the daughters of the impeachable (p)resident followed in the Lib way of life. Harvard pot and sex. After their abortions they found out that natural pregnancy was not possible. 🙁

    Pope Francis could tell a fairytale.
    Call it “In the wake of disaster.”

  • Where is the father and the man’s responsibility in providing for the woman, his wife or the mother of his progeny, his child. Read Susan B. Anthony’s speeches on the absent and irresponsible father who gets a girl pregnant and then abandons her. Obama speech reinforces the criminality of such behavior not found anywhere else in nature. A nation of scalywags endorsed and encouraged by the devil himself. Well, what about the father, the begetter, the one with manhood?
    Roe v. Wade 41 years ago disenfranchised the father of his offspring, his constitutional posterity, his future. and enabled the woman to destroy the male seed after it had begun life. Only half of the population are represented by our president. The great black father in Washington isn’t.

  • The Pope needs to tell Obama what happened to King Manasseh for murdering babies.

  • “The great black father in Washington isn’t.”

    Perfectly said!

  • “Continue to build safe and healthy communities for our children”- really?

    “Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfil their dreams”- except of course if you happen to fall in the category of an”unintended pregnancy”.

    Half the time, I don’t think Obama realises the crap that comes out of his mouth. When you know his ideology, you realise how fickle his words are- so uninspiring, so depressing.

    Pope Francis- I pray you hold nothing back.

  • Well, based on his prior chats, I bet Francis is going to try to land a punch. It’s interesting, though; Francis must know precisely that Obama defends abortion all the way up to birth. Obama must know precisely that Francis defends life all the way back to conception. Everybody’s on record, loud and clear. I doubt Obama fears losing any segment of the fear-based single female vote. So, what’s in it for either of them? I fear that Obama expects to get the better part of the deal: a photo opportunity that helps him sell his “decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income”. All for taking one punch. How will Francis use that opportunity? What words will he choose? Hmm. Time for Jesuits to put up or shut up.

  • Half of the children aborted are daughters, daughters of half of the population, who are fathers of these daughters. Obama was elected to represent all of us, equal Justice under the law, as constituents to Obama’s presidency.
    If one listens carefully to the plaints of the left, and the liberals, one hears the cry for equal Justice under the law. The gay unnatural marriage agenda is voicing a very real zeitgeist, the unlawful and unjust denial of the human soul, the real emasculation and sexual prejudice against the manhood of fathers, the obliterating of the sovereign personhood endowed by our Creator to the newly conceived human being of our species, and the preemption of all the innocence and justice brought into the family of man by their innocence and Justice. This is truly a cry for the emasculation of manhood to be eradicated, and the oppression of the feminist movement be aleviated. Equal Justice for all under the law would reinstate the proper authentic authority of the father over his children.
    Equality must be equal Justice for all in a court of law.
    Pope Francis must ask Obama:”Where is your brother?”

  • Here is the question Pope Francis needs to ask of the elusive, transparent, non-existent great black father in Washington.
    Those two girls who live with Barack, Roe v. Wade says that they are not his. The girls belong to Michelle and he has nothing further to say about them, the fruit of his loins. Pope Francis ought to ask Barack how he feels about that. Andrew Cuomo, too, does not own the fatherhood of his children. Any and all of these children escaped being aborted by their mother. These children are not survivors. They are the joyless, brainwashed refugees from a Moloch, Sodom and Lesbos gulag.

  • Pingback: PopeWatch: A Suggested Topic for Conversation | The American Catholic | microbudgetproductions
  • I get the sense that Obama wouldn’t flinch at the thought of Michelle having “ownership” of their two girls. Because I think his views on pro-choice womens “rights” are actually his wife’s views.

    I think this is true for most politicians.

    If they say and do whatever it takes to win public approval, they will say and do anything their wives want them to…and only God know why these wives of pro-abortion politicians are so adamant about women’s access to abortion…if you get what I mean…

    Besides, the Obamas seem so out of touch with the black community and the tragedy that plagues too many- absent fathers. From my point of view, not being an American, It appears as though he has done nothing to address the problems of the black community, absent fathers being just the tip of the iceberg.

    All he does is nod his head to those that are willing to fill his pockets and those that will guarantee him power.

    He has done more for the gay man, using the same race issues, as common cliches to advance the gay “rights” agenda.

  • Lies. Lies everywhere.

    Everybody has the right to prvacy. If you leave no witness and no detectable evidence you may kill another person and live “happily” ever after.

    However, you will answer for it to God Almighty. Your soul will be destroyed in the eternal fire of hell.

    Fear not that which can only destroy your physical life but cannot kill the soul. Fear God who can destroy both body and soul in hell. See Matt. 10:28; Luke 12:2-7.

    When was the last time you heard a sermon on the rewards of eternal life which Christ jesus has purchased for us with his life, death, and resurrection?

  • T Shaw, my parish hears about the rewards heaven and the pains hell all the time; but then our pastor is Father Robert Sirico.

  • Good suggestions, Mary! “So, Barack, why is the black abortion rate so high? Do you think that is a good thing or a bad thing?” Aren’t Jesuits supposed to be good at asking questions? “So, Barack, if we see the unborn child as Other…”
    But as folks point out, Obama does not behave as though he has a conscience; it has been subsumed fully by class consciousness. I fully believe that he has a conscience… it’s just buried under so many layers (thank you, Stanley Ann!) it cannot be pricked.

  • El: Alleluia!!!

  • El: Allelujia !!!
    “All he does is nod his head to those that are willing to fill his pockets and those that (WHO) will guarantee him power.”
    Obama is a fake Ken doll to go with Wendy Davis’ fake Barbie doll. Ambition, ambition, ambition.

  • tamsin, “But as folks point out, Obama does not behave as though he has a conscience; it has been subsumed fully by class consciousness.”
    tamsin, you have just defined communism with “class consciousness”

  • “I join the March for Life in Washington with my prayers. May God help us respect all life, especially the most vulnerable. ”

    Why do Church leaders draw attention away from the purpose of the “March for Life in Washington” by encompassing it with “all life?” 57,000,000 American babies have been murdered because of Roe v. Wade and the Democratic Party. This could not have happened without Catholic Democrats giving their party the electoral power to keep the murder of unborn babies legal. Catholics elected Obama President, twice, the first time with 54% of their vote; the second time with 50%. And Catholic Hispanic citizens gave him 75% of their vote. Catholics, you want to end legal abort? Remove your names from endorsing the pro-abortion party, and stop voting for all Democrats until that party changes its position.

  • i looked back at images of the Obamas meeting with B16 in 2009, remembering that I had a yucky feeling watching the coverage on TV. Michelle looked beuatiful in her long mantilla.
    Jay Carney: the president hopes to talk about poverty and income inequality — (Fox News)

  • “I get the sense that Obama wouldn’t flinch at the thought of Michelle having “ownership” of their two girls. Because I think his views on pro-choice womens “rights” are actually his wife’s views.
    I think this is true for most politicians”.
    EZ: The fatherhood of the American male has been annihilated by the Supreme Court in Roe v.Wade. Roe legally castrated every American male of his manhood, his fatherhood, his offspring. “You don’t own that”, the pregnant woman and her doctor own that. Obama does not own the fatherhood of his children, Roe versus Wade does. Blackmun, Brennan, do not own the fatherhood of their children either. Sadly, our Constitution no longer owns the fatherhood of the American male either. The devil took it to progress to the abortion of the unborn soul.

  • I agree Mary something has happened to fatherhood and to men. Virtuous and virile men are needed! Strong men who will protect and provide. People talk about the feminization of the church, even of the US military. That only happens because nature abhors a vacuum and fake Ken dolls.

  • Anzlyne: Fatherhood must be restored to our culture. God bless.

If We Only Had a King

Thursday, January 16, AD 2014

I guess leftists were right – we truly lived under a tyranny during the presidency of George Bush. After all, just look at how contemptuously he treated the legislative branch of government. In his first cabinet meeting after the Democrats took control of the House, Bush told his top deputies that his “agenda will move forward whether Congress votes for it or not.” Then he added:

“One of the things I’ll be emphasizing in this meeting,” he said, “is the fact that we are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need.”

“I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” the president asserted, “and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.”

“And I’ve got a phone,” he continued, “that allows me to convene Americans from every walk of life — nonprofits, businesses, the private sector, universities — to try to bring more and more Americans together around what I think is a unifying theme, making sure that this is a country where if you work hard, you can make it.”

It was a common lament during the Bush presidency that we were living under something resembling an imperial presidency. We were told that Bush’s advocacy of a unitary executive, as well as his penchant for issuing signing statements that added his gloss to duly enacted legislation, as well as his mere existence on planet Earth all signaled the end of democracy as we know it. Never mind that the executive branch was specifically designed to be unitary in nature, the Framers having decided against all alternative arrangements. And never mind that the signing statements were nothing more than inocuous expressions of how the executive bureaucracy would carry out legislation passed by Congress. No, we were truly living in Stalin’s Russia.

Thankfully Americans came to their senses and elected the wise and beneficent Barack Obama. Truly he was the change we were looking for. He promised us all a return to a more open administration that didn’t keep secrets, would restore competency to the White House, would be completely honest, and most importantly, wouldn’t disregard the other branches of government.

Alas, if wishes were trees, the trees would be falling.

You see, the above of course was not spoken by George W. Bush, but rather by President Obama on Tuesday.

Checks? Balances? Looks like the constitutional scholar residing in the White House is unfamiliar with such terms.

Continue reading...

42 Responses to If We Only Had a King

  • “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” the president asserted, “and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions ”

    This administration has squandered one of the greatest assets that any government can have: a general respect for the rule of law by the population. It is hard for people to keep respect for the law when it is obvious that those charged with enforcing it have nothing but contempt for the law if it gets in their way. A spreading belief that obedience to law is for chumps is perhaps the greatest long term harm that the Obama administration is doing to the country.

  • This just in: Mass treason! About 53% of subjects disapprove of the king’s efforts to ensalve America. A shocking 39% approve.

  • That line from Kipling’s poem, City of Brass, keeps running through my mind,
    For the hate they had taught through the State brought the State no defender…

  • Please saith not, you want more of King Mitch McConnell from KY? He and his party have never met a sensible piece of legislation they couldn’t have conjured up one excuse or another to kill it by their favorite means of plugging the works of representative governance: The Chickencrap Fillibuster. The recent long speeches by Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Rand Paul, R-KY, were not “filibusters” in the good old-fashioned sense. Sanders used the floor to describe what King McConnell and his cohorts refuse at nearly all calls to reason, not to mention, compassion for our growing number of people tossed under the proverbial bus of libertarian economics. At least Paul was addressing a security issue that had appeal to people in all corners. Big Ted’s classic, truly a “classic,” and memorable for his reading of Dr. Seuss’ book “Green Eggs n’ Ham” to his daughters actually managed to “accomplish something,” if you consider gumming up the works of the greatest nation and representative democracy in world history. Oh yes, his delaying act damn near took us to the precipice of economic disaster. But that’s okay in today’s GOP idealized legislature where until every smidgen of ideological truths and falsehoods concerning every scrap of legislation put into either chamber’s hopper, that’s when the real business of governance ought to begin.
    Poor John Adams, who never gets the full credit he deserves for his role in the construction of our national constitution, was rumored to have “monarchial intentions.”
    If he were alive today, he’d turn any offer down in a heartbeat. Just think of the parliamentarians he’d have to put up with today.
    Let’s all be thankful we don’t have a monarchy; and at least we have a Democratic Senate Leader with more actual final say than King Mitch and his party of Neoretrograde Tories. I just wish he’d use it more often to remind “king mitch” where he and his party belongs in a nation where the people are supposed to have the final ultimate say. Even Presidents … all of ’em, have had to admit this, and we know what other kinds of (actual) powers they can rely on.

  • Mr. Barrett,

    You lost me when your rant went on about Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz. I consider McConnell to be a weasel who feasts on pork in the same manner, if not in volume, as the ex Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd. Your rant, however, goes on and on like a program caller who managed to get on the Rush Limbaugh show.

    You praise the snide, corrupt, despicable Dingy Harry Reid. If this were my blog, and it isn’t, you would be gone forever just for that.

    FDR cared nothing about the law. He ruled as a dictator whenever he could get away with it.

  • “obedience to law is for chumps”
    and federal to the state is trump

  • “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” the president asserted, “and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.”

    So, the White House, which has about 600 employees (or at least did in normal times) will now be dictating to local school boards, local banks, and community colleges to boot.

  • Steven Barrett, no one here is a psychoanalyst paid to listen to you while you free associate.

  • Pingback: Why Men Don't Wear Mantillas in Church - BigPulpit.com
  • “as the ex Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd”

    Jesse Helms is one of the most prominent conservatives of modern history. The selective tarring of one side with the segregationist era is beyond retarded, though convenient.

  • McConnell has led Republican bloc voting against Obama initiatives on several occasions. How he got tagged as a RINO I have no clue, other than he isn’t a firebreather and doesn’t engineer pointless, grandstanding legislative maneuvers like Senator Cruz.

  • “Steven Barrett, no one here is a psychoanalyst paid to listen to you while you free associate.”

    No, but I could prescribe some good meds for him. 😉

  • Jesse Helms is one of the most prominent conservatives of modern history. The selective tarring of one side with the segregationist era is beyond retarded, though convenient.

    Jesse Helms wrote speeches for Willis Smith, a politician from Raleigh who a common-and-garden segregationist of the era. Some people also contend that he offered rude radio commentaries on the Tobacco Network, but no recordings of these are around to demonstrate that.

    I have to say I am fascinated by your impulse to equate the main body of Southern opinion with the Klan. The 2d incarnation of the Klan (extant from 1915-44) was a fad organization that grew very large very quickly and then evaporated, going from a seven digit membership in 1922 to a five digit membership less than a decade later. Even so, the bulk of Southern men declined to join. One odd little curio about that era was that the frequency of lynching continued its monotonic decline even as klaverns were being set up all around the country.

    The third incarnation of the Klan was always fragmented amongst a mess of rival and localized organizations and likely never topped 30,000 in membership.

    Robert Byrd was working as a Klan organizer in 1942 in West Virginia of all places. West Virginia has a small black population (currently about 3.5% of the total) as is the norm in the upland South. The Klan was utterly passe at that time and, in fact, on the verge of dissolution. His activities were so out-of-place and time that an analogy might be hawking war bonds in New Zealand ca. 1963. The Congress-shnooks who said he did it to get elected neglect that his stated views on segregation over the period running from 1952 to 1970 were pretty singular in the West Virginia congressional delegation and contradicted by Jennings Randolph (who served along side him) and Chapman Revercomb (who preceded him in office). You gotta wonder if Ted Kennedy told is son to join a skin-head circle in 1982 to further a future political career, because that’s what Byrd’s activities amounted to.

  • Why do you feel the need to respond to representatives of the 17% minority that identifies itself as liberal/obama-worshiping imbcile?

  • It was a common lament during the Bush presidency that we were living under something resembling an imperial presidency. We were told that Bush’s advocacy of a unitary executive, as well as his penchant for issuing signing statements that added his gloss to duly enacted legislation, as well as his mere existence on planet Earth all signaled the end of democracy as we know it.

    You may hate me, Paul but… I gotta quote it. 😉

    http://flamingdumbass.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/jonah-goldberg-progressives-and-power/

    When the public was on their side the progressives relied on the public. That’s why we have the direct election of senators. That’s why women got the franchise. Etc. In his early years as an academic Woodrow Wilson wanted Congress to run the country — the way parliament runs England — and relegate the president to a glorified clerk. When the public became unreliable and Congress was no longer a viable vehicle, progressives suddenly fell in love with a Caesarian presidency. Indeed, Wilson himself, the former champion of Congress, became an unapologetic voluptuary of presidential power the moment it suited him — and nary a progressive complained (save poor Randolph Bourne, of course). The progressives rode the presidency like it was a horse they never expected to return to a stable. And when that started to hit the point of diminishing returns, they moved on to the courts (even as they bleated and caterwauled about Nixon’s “abuses” of powers that were created and exploited by Wilson, FDR, and Johnson). After the courts, they relied on the bureaucracy. Like water seeking the shortest path, progressives have always championed the shortest route to social-justice victories.

    As they say, behind every confessed double standard there is an unconfessed single standard. And for progressives, the single enduring standard is “whatever works for us.”

  • Can’t hate someone quoting Jonah Goldberg, especially when he is on the mark.

  • “will now be dictating to local school boards, local banks, and community colleges to boot.”
    My husband’s school board experience , even when we lived in nebraska showed the long arm of federal govt enforcing a “mass culture” . …local boards already have to reflect the “King Washington” image because they are mandated to do xyz and also depend on federal money to do xyz. But it was congress and the faceless bureaucracy. Now the executive branch rears it’s head.

  • Can’t resist saying: as Paul and Nate both know– it is not water that seeks the shortest path – that would be electricity. Water seeks its own low level. Which might be the better metaphor for Jonah’s assessment of the progressive movement they think they are electricity which can go up and quick but really more like water which only moves lower and then stays at the lowest common level. 😉

  • Why do you feel the need to respond to representatives of the 17% minority that identifies itself as liberal/obama-worshiping imbcile?

    He’s hawking falsehoods, that’s why. (Such as the notion the Republican and Democratic parties are equally responsible for segregation).

  • You gotta love a pro wrestler that could tweet out this:

    “Democrats are the antithesis of the “Progressive” label they brand themselves with. Creating dependence, class warfare and race baiting…” Eric Bischoff

  • As an Irish American I learned at my grandfathers house that the law is the Queens way to keep the Irish in their proper place,the rule of law is a joke today and yesterday.

  • FDR had a pen and a phone, and……”Japanese-Americans were interned as a result of an executive order (see Executive Order No. 9066) by President Roosevelt in 1942. About 77,000 American citizens and 43,000 legal and illegal resident aliens were affected by the order. The last camp was closed in January 1946, five months after World War II ended. It would not be until 1988 that the U.S. government formally apologized, provided compensation to those who were interned, and created an education fund to preserve the history and to teach the lessons of this shameful episode.”

  • ”Japanese-Americans were interned as a result of an executive order (see Executive Order No. 9066) by President Roosevelt in 1942. About 77,000 American citizens and 43,000 legal and illegal resident aliens were affected by the order. ”
    After Pearl Harbor, interning Japanese Americans became a security measure, and sometimes protective custody. During the War, Marshal Law could be used to defend the country. When the war ended, the internment ended and so did the responsibility of the United States to compensate victims of internment.

  • Mary. I referred to the interning of the Japanese to support my looking askance at Obama’s excessive resort to executive orders. I cannot entirely refute your observations but there are historical perspectives that describe a great deal of injustice entailed in the event. A majority were citizens and very many suffered losses never recovered. However, I do not wish to take the discussion off-topic. Perhaps Mr. McClarey may discuss it in a future article. Pax Vobiscum.

  • William P. Walsh: It was wartime and martial law was in effect. Executive orders during war are different from executive orders during peacetime. America was answering an aggressive assault by the Japanese. Is there any reason America ought to have trusted the cousins, aunts and uncles brothers and sisters of those who were assaulting American soldiers? Otherwise, Mr. Walsh, I do agree with you.

  • Mary, we are in substantial agreement. The subject of executive orders is complex and a detailed study of them could consume much time and more than I wish to spend. The problem remains that the current President has given us many reasons to distrust him. The man is an enigma. Is he a Marxist, a socialist, a corporatist, or a species of fascist? All of these are different flavors of a progressive collectivism that has sought to dismantle not only our Constitution but also the Judeo-Christian heritage from which it sprang.

  • Is he a Marxist, a socialist, a corporatist, or a species of fascist?

    None of the above. He is merely a manifestation of a certain sort of bourgeois mindset.

  • Executive Order 13575 Rural Councils allows the government agents to come onto private farms and confiscate them if the agent does not like the way the farm is being run.
    I am from New Jersey where the government confiscated the Otken Farm, in North Brunswick, the Cornell Dairy Farm and forty acres of Michael Smith’s farm, several years ago. What makes anyone think it won’t happen here?
    Bill Clinton made Executive Orders that made all free lands and waterways the property of the Chief Executive. He tried to give the Statue of Liberty to the United Nations.
    Obama just confiscated all private enterprise and all private property. Obama just subsumed all private persons’ possessions into the state. Obama did this in one or more of his 923 Executive Orders. Obama is only telling the people, so that when he confiscates all private business and property to balance the budget or take another vacation or fund one world government under the world bank you will never be able to say that you were not informed.
    OBAMA said: “Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

  • that quote about the price of liberty being eternal vigilance (Maybe T Jefferson) is so important for us, We need to stay constantly apprised of our situation– but How should we respond to the knowledge we have about all these threats of trespasses and actual trespasses?

  • The American Catholic blog educates the uninformed as do other Catholic blogs, keeping the truth before the public, calling out and clarifying such transgression of our unalienable civil rights.

  • Mary, I read E.O. 13575 and found it to be a verbose bag of blather that could be construed to mean just about anything Obama wants to do.
    Art, “He is merely a manifestation of a certain sort of bourgeois mindset”. Really, a middle-class mindset, such as whose? Perhaps a Robespierre? He reminds me of Red Diaper Babies I have known, and they usually deride middle-class values.

  • David Horowitz is a red diaper baby, as is Ronald Radosh. Both of these men have spent much of their lives cogitating about current affairs and American history. Obama is very unlike them. You go into some social circles, and everyone who talks thinks a certain way. No one whose opinions they have to listen to disputes them. That’s the President. I doubt he has a viewpoint on any matter which is not derivative.

  • Executive Order 13575 Rural Councils allows the government agents to come onto private farms and confiscate them if the agent does not like the way the farm is being run.

    No, it doesn’t. It sets up a wheel-spinning inter-agency committee.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/09/executive-order-establishment-white-house-rural-council

    Heck knows why they want this, but Obama’s camarilla have a history of coughing up nonsense to fill the dead air at pseudo-events.

  • Thank you Art, for “camarilla”. Oh how I miss Bill Buckley, may he rest in peace. I rarely read him without adding to my vocabulary. Of course, if one knows Spanish, a little room is obvious but the connotation applied to Obama is apt. He has a tight little knot of people about him and they all think alike. I think their common characteristic is a commitment to central planning. Thus they crank out things like E.O. 13575. Obama, if Dinesh D’Souza and others are credible, may be more a red diaper baby than a typical limousine liberal who lunch only with their kind and never confront a contrary opinion. Such is speculation akin to sleeping in the jungle, wondering what kind of tiger is out there seeking to eat me and how many spots does it have.

  • William, that would be 0 as tigers have stripes, not spots.

  • Stripes! But spots when the imagination runs wild. Should I substitute stripes for spots or leopards for tigers? Since I am worthy of many stripes, I’ll have to keep the tiger. 🙂

  • Anzlene wrote, “that quote about the price of liberty being eternal vigilance (Maybe T Jefferson)…”

    I once tried to trace the origins of this quotation. The nearest I could find was the Irish barrister, John Philpot Curren, “”It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.” (1790)

    If Jefferson used it, I fancy he may have been inspired by Montesquieu (whose De l’esprit des lois, published in 1748 was vastly popular in America), It was Montesquieu who wrote, « La servitude commence toujours par le sommeil » [Servitude always begins with sleep]

  • “I am from New Jersey where the government confiscated the Otken Farm, in North Brunswick, the Cornell Dairy Farm and forty acres of Michael Smith’s farm, several years ago.”
    These farms were taken at eminent domain but were not compensated for at market value, nor were they used for public purposes but were promised to and sold to housing developers to fatten the coffers of the townships, that is, so the politicians could keep their vacations and pay raises. Michael Smith’s forty acres were a cranberry bog which he flooded to harvest the cranberries. They took it as wet land preservation because they could.
    Anzlyne: “but How should we respond to the knowledge we have about all these threats of trespasses and actual trespasses?
    I have noticed that when an issue becomes public knowledge and the tar and feathers come out the government backs off. It is the most we, as citizens, can expect.
    Thank you, Art Deco for the clarification. Obama writes orders and sets up commissions with such vagueness that anything could be interpreted. Obamacare is a good example. The HHS Mandate was added AFTER the bill was passed by Congress bypassing informed consent by the people and a vote, taxation without representation. ALL, and I say all bills have a clause in them that says that the government can do whatever it wants to do after the bill is passed. a blank check. In Obamacare Obama can change anything at anytime he so chooses. FREEDOM, accountability, transparency. no.

  • William P. Walsh: “I think their common characteristic is a commitment to central planning.”
    That is what the title of this post is : “If we only had a king”

  • The Fifth Amendment “the takings clause” used to read “for public use”, ratified by ALL of the states. The Court changed it to “public purposes” without public knowledge and without ratification by the states, which allows the criminal stealing of private property.

  • I was just thinking…

    I’ve seen some Catholics seriously argue for monarchy (principally on Shea’s blog so if any of them want to come here and talk…) with such arguments like their power was “more” limited and there was greater freedom back then… etc etc.

    Though upon consideration I wonder… if it wasn’t the monarchs that were more limited but the technology. Let’s be honest, it’s going to be hard for a megalomaniac to oppress anyone when his closest subject might be a day or two’s ride on horseback. What’s going to keep even a monarchy of old from morphing into North Korea or Cuba or any number of African nations with a king?

    Then again, maybe it all comes down to how Thomas Sowell put it:
    However widespread the desire to be free, that is wholly different from a desire to live in a society where others are free.

    We no longer desire for others to be free…

Obama Hearts the Pope

Thursday, October 3, AD 2013

Pope Francis

 

 

Why am I not surprised?

 

President Obama said in an interview on Wednesday that he had been “hugely impressed” with Pope Francis, “not because of any particular issue” but because he seemed to be “thinking about how to embrace people as opposed to push them away.”

“He seems somebody who lives out the teachings of Christ. Incredible humility, incredible sense of empathy to the least of these, to the poor,” the president said in an interview on CNBC. “He’s also somebody who’s, I think, first and foremost, thinking about how to embrace people as opposed to push them away. How to find what’s good in them as opposed to condemn them.”

Pope Francis has given two interviews that were published in the last two weeks in which he has indicated that he wants to see a truce in the culture wars and that the church should put love and mercy above doctrine and judgment. On the issues of abortion, gay marriage and contraception, Pope Francis said, “It is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time,” adding, “We have to find a new balance.”

These words may offer a ray of hope to Mr. Obama, who has been locked in a standoff with Roman Catholic bishops in the United States. The bishops are suing the Obama administration over a mandate in the president’s health care law that requires Catholic colleges and hospitals to allow their employees access to free birth control, including morning-after pills that the bishops say are abortifacients. Declaring that President Obama is a threat to the church’s religious freedom, the bishops have mounted a major campaign to rally Catholics across the country to oppose the contraception mandate.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Obama Hearts the Pope

  • Baby murderers always love him.

  • Oh brother, we are in trouble. But this Church has survived for 2,000 years, and it will survive Francis. I am just going to hate seeing the good work of JPII and B16 undermined.

  • Does that mean the rest of us “token” Catholics who live in our narrow minded, Beatitude, 10 Commandment, Corporal Works of Mercy, seven Sacraments following fantasy lifestyle have no worth? I am going to write to that Pope!

  • Herod lives in Obama….what a jerk…he twists the words of Pope Francis just as bad as the press….

  • I imagine the Pope returns the hearts.

    Even as the wicked refuse to join in the blessed endeavor, they are to be loved as enemies are loved in Christian charity. Because as long as they live, there is the possibility that they may come to a better mind.

    That possibility is really slim when the Church hearts the wicked.

    Guess from whom I got all that.

  • The secularists love this guy. Now being secularists they love him because they project on him their own graven images. What I haven’t been able to figure out is to what extent he is in fact giving them aid and comfort knowingly.

  • To a large extent we’ve had good Popes for the past several centuries. But we have rebelled against God by thinking in our hubris and arrogance that we can create the Kingdom of God on Earth through our own good works, and then we have the unmitigated gall to call that social justice. Now we have Pope Francis. God gives us the leaders we deserve. It’s 1st Samuel chapter 8 all over again.

  • T Shaw – tell – I can’t guess

  • Anzalyne: That would be St. Augustine.

  • Encyclical? No! Papal Bull? No.
    Interviews given. Pope Francis is being….well himself. He might be stirring it up to say the least…but let’s not forget these are interviews in Italian and then translated with a possible twist.

    Interviews are not Encyclicals.

  • Guilt by association is a lazy and irrational form of criticism, whether it comes from the left or the right. It’s interesting how some conservative Catholics are at pains to deny that Pope Francis is saying anything new, while others seem to fear that Nancy Pelosi has taken over the Papacy. I think philip has the right attitude. A couple of lines in a personal interview does not spell crisis in the Church.

  • “It’s interesting how some conservative Catholics are at pains to deny that Pope Francis is saying anything new, while others seem to fear that Nancy Pelosi has taken over the Papacy.”

    Conservative Catholics do not come from a clone factory with the same views imprinted upon their DNA so naturally there will be a divergence of opinion. The fact that Obama admires the Pope is not guilt by association but rather an assumption by him that this Pope will be better for him politically than the last one. Thus far, judging from the confusion and hits to morale that Pope Francis has, through his interviews, sown among some people who should be his most loyal supporters, I would say that Obama is dead on accurate in that assessment.

  • …let’s not forget these are interviews in Italian and then translated with a possible twist.

    Sure. Well then. Let’s check in with an Italian atheist to see what he thinks the Pope said (per Sandro Magister):

    One passage of the article of August 7 in which Scalfari posed questions to him was already indicative of the positive idea that the founder of “la Repubblica” had formed of the current pope:

    “His mission contains two scandalous innovations: the poor Church of Francis, the horizontal Church of Martini. And a third: a God who does not judge, but forgives. There is no damnation, there is no hell.”

    Scalfari is pretty clear on what he understood the Pope to say.

    No hell. No heaven. Just people, striving to love, or to conquer, each other on earth.

  • Let’s pray for truth to prevail and that the guidance of the Holy Spirit will lead our Holy Father to Sheppard Gods people, self-rightious and humble alike.
    Room for atheists…..always welcomed home in Gods timing.

  • The man first was a Catholic, then a Jesuit. Does that say anything?

Back When We Had a Real President

Thursday, May 16, AD 2013

The speech in the video is a section of Reagan’s Time For Choosing speech in 1964 that led to the beginning of his political career which culminated 16 years later in him being elected president.  Reagan said of the Marines:

Some people work an entire lifetime and wonder if they ever made a difference to the world. But the Marines don’t have that problem.

This is what we are saddled with today:

Obama Marine

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Back When We Had a Real President

  • That photo is one big dog whistle, let me tell you

  • There is an article about a situation in Dearborn, MI which can be read at Abyssum Blog. (Speaking of appeasement.) The title follows, cannot figure out the way to show a link.

    THE U.S. CONSTITUTION NOW PROTECTS MUSLIMS BUT NOT CHRISTIANS

    May 16, 2013

    !!!!

    Judge Says It’s Ok for Muslim Violence Against Christians

    Posted 12 hours ago by Dave Jolly Filed under Christianity, Crime, Islam, Law, Religion

  • Pat, I’m not sure how the comment relates to the post but, lest TAC get on the wrong train about the incident you describe, I offer this piece from Patheos which goes into more detail about this complicated incident:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christandpopculture/2013/05/muslims-stoning-christians-in-michigan-not-quite-updated

  • Thread is going badly off track. Stay on the subject of the post please.

  • I cannot help but think Obama is doing this to deliberately demean and belittle the Marines and all of the US Military. His whole campaign of uninhibited sodomy and lesbianism in the military seems also geared towards that, as well as his elevation of cowardly leaders and his refusal to come to the aid this in peril (Benghazi shows what he would do we’re a military squadron in a similar situation). Mistreating the legions is always a bad thing to do.

  • I hope there might be some liberals that will be outraged by this treatment of the Marines, and they will turn on him. There are all sorts of pictures going on Facebook now showing other presidents holding their own umbrellas. Someone said that the Marines are only allowed to hold umbrellas for ladies…

  • Molly Marines, female Marines, can use umbrellas, but male Marines are forbidden to. The same rule was in force in the Green Machine back in the seventies.

  • I was under the impression that Navy guys could carry umbrellas.

  • Stop living in a dream and how soon we forget. Reagan did some good things but: Guys there hasn’t been a conservative serve as President since Harry Truman.

    Reagan signed the Gun Control Act of 1986 which was worse than anything, short of confiscation, recently debated in the US Senate.

    Reagan supported the Brady Bill/Law.

    Reagan granted amnesty to how many millions of illegal aliens?

  • “Guys there hasn’t been a conservative serve as President since Harry Truman.”

    I admire Truman because of his foreign policy, but economically only Obama has been farther to the left than Harry Truman who used to routinely refer to Republicans as fascists.

    “Reagan signed the Gun Control Act of 1986 which was worse than anything, short of confiscation, recently debated in the US Senate.”
    Rubbish. The legislation was supported by the National Rifle Association.

    “Reagan supported the Brady Bill/Law.”
    This was after his presidency and when he was suffering from Alzheimer’s. It is more accurate to say that Nancy Reagan supported the legislation.

    “Reagan granted amnesty to how many millions of illegal aliens?”

    Reagan regreted the 1986 immigration deal. He thought he had an agreement to close the border to illegal immigration and Congress reneged.

  • Reagan regreted the 1986 immigration deal. He thought he had an agreement to close the border to illegal immigration and Congress reneged.

    Did Mr. Reagan have plans to restructure the Immigration and Naturalization Service and increase the manpower and equipment it had to do its work? Did Congress scotch the appropriations necessary to implement this plan? Unless the answer to these two questions is ‘yes’, the executive (Mr. Reagan, among others) has to accept the major share of the responsibility for the post-1986 mess.

    Some years ago, I had occasion to read an interview with a dismissed INS agent. Two things he had to say. 1.) the INS had in 1990 seven (7) agents assigned to hunt down people in metropolitan New York who had over-stayed their visas; they were making only the faintest attempt to enforce the law. 2.) the agency’s executives, having received an improved appropriation, allocated the funds to the hiring of naturalization examiners.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_zNR53k5Lg

    After Iran-Contra Art Reagan lacked the political power to do anything about Congress reneging on the agreement. Even before Iran Contra broke, after the 86 election the Democrats had a 258-177 seat majority in the House and a 10 seat majority in the Senate. Reagan was a great President, but no President could do anything with Congress so firmly in the grasp of the opposing party.

  • Kind of evades my questions. Oh well…

    In other news:

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/bipartisan-house-group-reaches-preliminary-immigration-deal/?hp

    I tend to think that the Republican congressional caucus is just execrably led.

  • “Kind of evades my questions. Oh well…”

    It did not unless you believe that Reagan had a magic wand he could wave and compel solid Democrat majorities in Congress to do what they had no intention of ever doing.

  • No, I do not believe Mr. Reagan had a magic wand.

    1. Did he appoint the equivalent of Wm. Bratton to run the INS? and

    2. Did they have a plan that needed funding turned down? We can check his messages to Congress over the period running from 1986 to 1989, but I do not think the answer to either question is ‘yes’.

    Some of Mr. Reagan’s appointees had satisfactory reputations for improving agency performance or administering important policy changes (Mark Fowler and Clarence Thomas to name two). I do not recall whoever ran the INS was one. All the public attention at that time was fixed on the enforcement of drug laws, as far as I can recall.