Let’s just say…we left the leg in the uterus just to dismember it. Well, we’d probably have to dismember it at several different levels because we don’t have firm control over it, so we would attack the lower part of the lower extremity first, remove, you know, possibly a foot, then the lower leg at the knee and then finally we get to the hip. And typically when the abortion procedure is started we typically know that the fetus is still alive because either we can feel it move as we’re making our initial grasps or if we’re using some ultrasound visualization when we actually see a heartbeat as we’re starting the procedure. It’s not unusual at the start of D&E procedures that a limb is acquired first…prior to anything having been done that would have caused the fetal demise.
These blood-chilling words do not describe what Gosnell did, but come from the testimony of another abortionist doctor concerning so-called “later term abortions”.
First, note the language: “just to dismember it”; “you know, possibly a foot”; “acquired” limb; “fetal demise”.
Secondly, note what the abortionist doctors is saying: we know that there is a heart beating, and we typically start to amputate the living creature one limb at a time before even starting to do anything meant to kill him.
Gosnell isn’t in anything more cruel, as far as the mentality and procedure is concerned, than any of these Dr. Mengeles. Gosnell will go to jail on the technicality that the human beings he killed were outside of the very large legal framework within which a baby can be dismembered with utter cruelty, whilst still alive, before he is finished.
But Gosnell isn’t, as the linked article points out, really any worse than Obama himself, and those in favour of “late-term abortions”.
If you really believe that late-term abortion is a victory for women, and if you really believe that laws which ban late-term abortions are a violation of reproductive rights, then you should like Dr. Gosnell. Maybe his clinic was a little too dirty, but aside from these janitorial concerns, he was a hero for freedom and choice.
One wonders how many abortion supporters are members of PETA.
The inauguration of the Evil Bastard is now rapidly approaching, and two elements have emerged which I found particularly noteworthy. The first is the substitution of the already certainly very liberal pastor with another even more liberal. I have already written about this and today I will only add the poor idiot managed to not (as far as I know) officially retract his condemnation of sodomy, but still pointed out he hasn’t preached anything of the sort for the last ten years. He certainly thinks he is saved anyway, so where’s the problem….
The second is the vocal request from the usual suspects to renounce to the use of the Bible in the inauguration, coherently with the party’s view of life and society in which God has no place at all, unless to function as a comfortable alibi for their social engineering agenda. In fact, it seems to me those vocal atheists are, semel in anno, perfectly right. Why should you abuse a Bible for an empty ritual if your entire life goes against everything the Bible stands for? Isn’t it more honest to say “I am an atheist with an atheist agenda, and I do not want to swear on a book whose values I have opposed for my entire life?”
This seems more coherent to me, and it would perhaps serve to open the eyes of some of those who tell themselves Christians but then vote for the Evil Bastard and his associates. Some might say the Evil Bastard could then swear on the Koran; but seriously, Obama is not one bit more Muslim than I am. His often mentioned love for Muslim culture and respect for the Koran are nothing more than easy sentimentalism fed by childhood remembrances. In every orthodox Muslim society, a man like him would get in trouble really fast. Still, this is the way of the liberal. He will “adopt” and at the same time “adapt” whatever suits his way of thinking. He’ll warp Christianity until he can say himself a Christian, and actually many of them will warp every religion on the planet and say that they, actually, belong to all. Therefore, Obama will swear on the book he probably hates most, and will not make anything of it. It serves his purpose, and this is enough for him.
Welcome to the second Obama mandate.
That’s God’s voice. If you want to hear God’s voice, that is his voice to this issue of homosexuality. It is not ambiguous and unclear. It is very clear. If you look at the counsel of the word of God, Old Testament, New Testament, you come quickly to the conclusion that homosexuality is not an alternate lifestyle. . . . homosexuality is not just a sexual preference, homosexuality is not gay, but homosexuality is sin. It is sin in the eyes of God, and it is sin according to the word of God.
[. . .]
The only way out of a homosexual lifestyle, the only way out of a relationship that has been ingrained over years of time, is through the healing power of Jesus. . . . We’ve got to say the homosexuals, the same thing that I say to you and that you would say to me . . . it’s not easy to change, but it is possible to change.
From the Ricochet: these are words pronounced many years ago by a Protestant pastor in Atlanta.
The very same pastor had been selected to give the benediction at President BO’s inauguration.
That is, he was selected before it turned out he had pronounced the words.
Having discovered the pastor is a Christian, the Obama people promptly proceeded to remove him and replace him with, surely, a wimpy heathen.
The White House puts it this way:
Choosing an affirming and fair-minded voice as his replacement would be in keeping with the tone the president wants to set for his inaugural …
As we now work to select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans.
These people can’t stand even a vague smell of Christian thinking. Not even when a pastor is concerned.
They are on their way to obliterate every trace of Christianity from public life and substitute it for their heathenish religion of “inclusiveness” (very popular in Sodom) and “acceptance” (a hit in Gomorrah).
Mala tempora currunt
I will try to make it (rather) snappy.
I don’t like Romney. I don’t like him, I don’t trust him, and I think he is a weak candidate who will be – for a Republican – an even weaker President.
I think that he will, like Cameron, do whatever he can do to shift to the left (socially, rather than in what concerns the economy) from the very day he is elected. I do not think he has a political spine, or morals, going beyond his own electoral interest.
I think that if he wins, we (as in: the Western world) will be stuck with Cameron’s smarter and richer cousin for the next eight years.
Finally, I think that if the conservative voters succumb to the logic of the lesser evil, they will in all eternity be stuck with candidates who are just a tad less evil than their democratic opponent; because if this is the logic, where will it stop? One will apply this reasoning every time and will vote for the candidate just a bit less evil, every time…
Still, if I lived in the United States I would, after a rather tormented reflection, vote for Romney.
The reason for this is that, upon reflection, I think that this 2012 election might, in fact, be rather unique. The unprecedented attack on religious freedom perpetrated by the Obama troops is not likely to be repeated, particularly if he loses, then the unavoidable awakening of the Church would make such a game more dangerous in four and even more in eight years’ time. This is, I think, the moment of greatest emergency, and one which might not be seen again for a long time.
Mind, I have no illusion Romney will make every effort to deliver as little as he can. He’ll start to repeal Obamacare as little as he can get away with, push for economic reforms as little as he can get away with, protect “civil partnerships” (and, if the occasion is given, so-called “gay marriage”) as much as he can, from day one. He will do this and much more than this because, like every flip-flopper, he does not see principles, but votes. If he is elected, his march toward the Democratic electorate will begin on Wednesday. I have seen all this happening with Cameron, and I assure you it is not a pretty sight. Cameron is, admittedly, more liberal than Romney, but so is the country at large: the way of thinking and the art they will operate once in power is, I think, the same.
Still, there is no denying that even a flip-flopping Romney will have great difficulties in getting much nearer to the Democratic positions, and in the end I’d prefer to have one scared of conservatives in power than one not caring two straws, because he does not even have to be reelected.
Also, the advantage with the flip-floppers is that they can, well, “flop” as well as “flip”: scare them enough into a socially conservative politics and this is what they will deliver, as once again our now serially humiliated Prime Minister is slowly trying to do (too late, I am not afraid…). If the election of a tepid centrist in love with electoral consensus like Romney is strengthened and sharpened by a vocally conservative electorate, you’ll see him with his nose on the trail like a good old hound, and like a good hound he won’t miss the trail.
And then, there is all the rest: from the economy to Israel to the defense forces. All things which would not persuade me to vote for him if he actively promoted intrinsic evil; but hey, he doesn’t do it (very vocally) yet, and Obama does it every day, without any shame, and gagging for more when he is free from the pressure of re-election. I have not yet heard Romney take a hard stance against, say, homosexuality; but hey, for a flip-flopper it’s par for the course.
The other one, though, reminds me rather of the Antichrist. At that point, even I would choose the flip-flopping Mormon.
Therefore, my – rather hard – decision is that it does make sense to vote for Romney; that the probable burying of a suitable candidate for the next eight years might be a price worth paying to kick out the rather satanic tool in power now; and that in the end this is one of those occasions where one can at least pick tomorrow’s enemy; and if this is so, he should do it wisely.
This is why, if I were an American Citizen, I would still vote for Romney on Tuesday.
There is in Italian a rather imaginative expression, “strofinarsi alle gonne del Potere”, or “to rub oneself to the Power’s rocks”, which describes the behaviour of those who seek proximity with the powerful in order to gain personal advantages of any sort.
I must think of this expression rather often, as this is exactly the behaviour I see in countless prelates of the Church.
It would be wrong to believe that such behaviour is moved by the desire to obtain truly tangible material advantages: I do mot think Archbishop Nichols prefers to dine out rather than using the services ( I imagine) of his own cook, nor do I think they find the luxury hotels or sumptuous banquets particularly worth eating (ok, in Cardinal Dolan’s case the doubt might be justified; but I digress…). I even exclude that the search for favours for relatives and dear ones will play a major role.
In my opinion, two factors are here heavily at play: loss of faith and vanity.
An archbishop, say, who believes in the Christian God would never even THINK of abetting sodomy under any guise whatever, as in “we are oh so nuanced” (Nichols) or “it’s a commitment so it can’t be so bad” (Woelki & Co.). No, one who is able to say such things has lost his faith a long time ago, perhaps converting to some strange dalai-lamaesk wannabe cult of sort, more likely having lost faith in the supernatural altogether.
Only at this point can, I think, vanity set in, perverting the innate and in a way unavoidable sense of self-esteem and desire of recognition in an utter prostitution to the worldly gods of popularity and mass approval. Everyone has an ego of course, and in some of us this ego will have a rather strong character; but it is when the gratification of the ego comes before everything else – for example the sense of obligation to the habit, even if one has lost the faith – that things become really serious.
When, therefore, loss of faith and vanity meet, the above mentioned episodes happen; or, on an almost equally worrying scale, one insists in being photographed together will the very powerful and very evil, merrily laughing as if the said evil and powerful were not staging the Holocaust every day and even threatening the very freedom of Catholics.
But this does not seem to really matter. What matters is that the one or the other (Brit or German or American; fat or thin; Archbishop or Cardinal) is seen to be at the very top, and very much in “tune” with the “times”.
May God forgive them.
Unless they repent, I don’t bet my pint He will.
Let us examine again the reason brought forward to justify the invitation: it is better to talk than to criticise from far away.
Is it? Really? Are Satanists invited to the dinner? What about militant atheists and rabid “homosexualists”? Will a chosen selection of Church-persecuting Chinese leaders be of the party? Oh well…
You don’t say, Your grace? This is an astonishing, revolutionary thought indeed! What might have occasioned such a profound conclusion?
And so the second Presidential debate is upon us.
I can see from old Blighty Obama sweating, and in fact he might soon do every honour to his initials B.O.
The problem is, the man has to show some semblance of reproductive apparatus tonight, which is not easy for a liberal raised by women. Also, he will have to fight, rather a big problem for someone accustomed to be celebrated because of – and made untouchable by – the colour of his skin, the Endwaffe of the guilt-ridden liberal society. The chap played the race card for all it was worth, arriving in the Senate without having ever really worked, and taking the White House only a few years later in his stride. Not bad for one who would have aborted himself without blinking.
This time, though, it is a bit different, because the shine has gone away from his black skin and he will actually have to put up a real fight rather than simply promising hope, change, peace, and a couple of other cost-free soundbites.
We shall see how he fares, and I am sure he has trained extensively. But the terror that the entire nation may discover he is nothing more than a glorified social worker with a fashionable skin colour certainly will not make things easier.
I will, of course, not watch the debate, as I must confess I do not dislike Romney much less than I do Obama, and do not trust him – in social matters, of course – much more.
I see Romney, and think Cameron. It’s not a compliment. Actually, it’s basically swearing.
Therefore, I will go to sleep and if tomorrow BBC and Classic FM don’t say anything about the outcome I will know who has won, though I do not doubt if Obama does halfway well they will praise him to the sky.
I have not listened to the first presidential debate live (I do not stay up late for a flip-flopper, much less for Hussein Hitler) but this morning, when the ultra-liberal Classic FM* mentioned the debate without saying who was the evening’s winner I understood Hussein Hitler must have had an unpleasant evening.
Reading some article during the day, and looking at some short video during the evening, it became more and more apparent that the President suffered certainly not a complete meltdown, but probably a major accident. Hussein O. made on me the impression of one who still can’t really believe he made it to the White House in 2008, and has no idea what to do in 2012. The parts I have seen show a man so rigid and artificial, so – if you allow me the pun – authentically fake you wouldn’t believe there are people ready to consider him a great orator. I think their opinion of Obama’s teleprompter must have increased a lot in the last 24 hours, though.
The much-celebrated Romney certainly made a better impression and was pleasantly assertive compared to the verbose, hesitant, unconvinced, unconvincing, rigid (Italians say “woody”) Obama; but to this European Romney also looked construed, artificial, and efficacious by rote rather than by heart. You saw this by the pathetic marriage anniversary wannabe “jokes” (embarrassing, on both sides) and by the extreme studiousness of the gestures of both candidates, though Romney was certainly the better actor, and Obama unable to follow the script as he should have.
One could clearly see every gesture and facial expression had been carefully planned and rehearsed infinite times, and this lack of spontaneity is probably what kills the pleasure of many Europeans watching such debates. Still, one could not avoid noticing that Obama still hasn’t learned to avoid saying “er” every two and a half seconds, looked lost sometime and unassertive at all times, talked too much and exuded no statesmanship, and probably was too lazy to apply himself and learn the lesson as Romney did (don’t tell me he has a job; he seems to work from the golf course, when he works; then he goes around says he has killed Ob, oops, Osama).
The most vivid impression the bits of debate I have seen have left on me was, though, the one that Obama without a teleprompter is like a fish out of the water: he is just plain lost, and can’t articulate himself halfway decently ( I believe he never could, and was created by the Democratic marketing machine because his black skin and white background made of him the ultimate liberal weapon), let alone exude that aura of leadership one would expect from a President. The German Chancellor Helmut Kohl defeated several opponents in part because every kg of him (and he had many of those) looked and felt the part. Ditto Blair. Obama seemed as if he were looking on his notes hoping to find a teleprompter, and as if he would have loved to be everywhere else.
Hussein Hitler obviously also has the huge problem that one thing is to blabber on change and hope to the undiscerning masses, another one to explain how his 1-trillion-dollar deficit a year would be, er, Bush’ fault. Tough one to sell, this.
The change wasn’t good and the hope has gone, and what we clearly saw yesterday is a rather mediocre former social worker still unable to cope with a job so much bigger than himself.
He can thank allah (small a; Mundabor’s daily contribute to the culture of insensitivity…) his rival is a flip-flopping Mormon running against him. A man of conviction would have made mincemeat of him, Romney could only show he is smarter and better prepared. I don’t think it will be enough.
I’ve seen David “Chameleon” Cameron running for the leadership of the Conservative party promising to be just a sleeker version of traditional Toryism, and transforming the party in a bunch of liberal poofs in just a few years. That’s what flip-floppers do. They’ll tell you what you want to hear, and change their mind when it’s convenient to do so.
Romney already has a past on this, and I can’t see why he would change. If he is elected, I frankly do not even see why he should.
* alas, not fast enough in changing radio channel before the news
Punctually after a post of mine expressing the quandary in which the American voters find themselves – an atheist enemy of Christianity, or one who would be pretty much like him if he needed to, and makes a decent Christian President impossible through the “just a bit better than Obama” mentality – Father Z publishes a list from a reader about the many ways in which Obama has shown he is an enemy of Christianity and, if he really must choose a religion, is obviously biased toward Islam (I think it’s called “change”, or such like…).
The reading is more than impressive, and if I were an American voter would give me some fuel to at least try to rationalise why I am making it impossible to have another strong Conservative ( answer: because I always end up voting for the RINO the Republican elites pose in front of me) and might still be doing the right thing.
If there is such a thing as a state of Christian emergency in the choice of the President, perhaps we are getting near to that point.
This is weird even for a European accustomed to the American love for shows.
I am curious to know whether you think this is due to:
1) Martini (Not the Cardinal).
2) Coke (not the drink).
As an aside, as I am utterly shocked at the amount of jobs simply kept alive through the indiscriminate injection of taxpayers’ money, and of the fact that this is even seen as a positive thing to get so (questionably) excited about. This would have made an Italian socialist cringe.
(please remember to turn down the volume before you start the video…)
Not without satisfaction I notice that the 2012 Democrats start to resemble the 1984 ones, when Walter Mondale was pitilessly massacred by the Gipper.
Of course, the situation is different today: being the President, Hussein O starts from a position of strenght Mondale never had, and God knows Romney is no Reagan. Still, one can clearly say in both cases the party activists have clearly seized the stage and dictate the agenda, pushing a maximalist program that would be suicidal if they were in the opposition and is still very dangerous now that they are in the White House.
Apart from the u-turn of the “first gay President”, whose opinions have (or so he says) “evolved” in line with the most angry liberals of his party, the ideological implications of “Obamacare” are more and more made explicit by the now advanced campaign, where there is no possibility anymore to hide behind the finger and every party is forced to say – or to have extracted from it – what is the party line in controversial matters.
The Democrats will, apparently, adopt the most extreme abortionist formulation ever used in matters of baby murder:
“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay.”
Note here the unequivocal choice of words: “strongly and unequivocally supports” means no Catholic should even think of voting for them, and “regardless of ability to pay” means the taxpayer must pay for the murderous intent.
This is very far away from even the hypocritical “safe, legal, and rare” of the past. This is an open declaration of war to even basic Christian instincts. Interestingly enough, the position is adopted notwithstanding its seeming unpopularity among the voters; this clearly indicates the party activists have the campaign under control, and this is very much after the liking of a man capable of saying that a woman who remains pregnant is “punished” with a baby.
In Obama’s world, the girl (or boy; of husband and wife come to that) is never “responsible” for anything, as responsibility is something simply non-existent in Obama’s world (ask his mother). Far better, in this perspective, get rid of the nuisance, as you would with a warp.
I never cease of thinking that seeing the circumstances (clearly unwanted pregnancy of a young slut playing liberal activist and a penniless boy utterly disinterested in paternity) Obama would have aborted himself. Fortunately for him, he was born in more Christian times than the present ones. He does not seem to give the same chances to the children of the sluts of the present generation.
After days of pressure, Cardinal Dolan has decided his chances of becoming the next Pope (“how can you say that?!”, I hear you say! Oh well…) are evaporating fast and it is now better to try to limit the damage by going public and spreading some sugary common place around; no doubt, such common places will be echoed by the liberal press, always ready to help a Cardinal if the Cardinal in question rubs oneself against the gowns of the powers that be (ah, the beauty of Italian: how shall I translate strofinarsi alle gonne del potere?), so the downside is very limited. Be the translation more or less accurate, this is exactly what is happening in the case of our dear Cardinal. Increasingly more embarrassed by the public outroar, Dolan has publicly reacted with three alleged “arguments” speaking, so he thinks, in favour of the invitation of Obama. Let us see them one by one.
For one, an invitation to the Al Smith Dinner is not an award, or the provision of a platform to expound views at odds with the Church. It is an occasion of conversation; it is personal, not partisan.
The hypocrisy of such an argument would leave one speechless, if one wouldn’t be accustomed to such breathtaking hypocrisy. Last time I looked, everywhere on this planet an invitation to speak was an honour, and a platform to expound views. The Cardinal must live on a parallel universe. Mind, I do not think cardinal Dolan is stupid; but I do think he thinks you are.
Two, the purpose of the Al Smith Dinner is to show both our country and our Church at their best: people of faith gathered in an evening of friendship, civility, and patriotism, to help those in need, not to endorse either candidate. Those who started the dinner sixty-seven years ago believed that you can accomplish a lot more by inviting folks of different political loyalties to an uplifting evening, rather than in closing the door to them.
Firstly, Cardinal Dolan pretends to believe he is the only one who still thinks that Obama is a person of faith. No he isn’t and again, I will not insult the Cardinal’s intelligence by telling you he didn’t get what a satanic tool the man is. He knows it perfectly well. He just doesn’t care. Secondly, the italics in civility (from the Cardinal himself) are an open offence to all those who think it a sell-off and an outright abomination to invite the public enemy number one of the unborn life – and of Christianity in general; and of Catholicism in particular – to speak at a Catholic fundraising event. You are being uncivil, you see. Tut, tut. You are very naughty. You should do like the Cardinal, who is very adept at keeping all his options open, and has all his bets hedged like he works in the Square Mile. Thirdly, he flatly refuses to acknowledge reality. It is not that “those who started the dinner” so many years ago have a history of inviting the Khmer Rouges, the Black Panthers, and Saddam Hussein to their dinner so that “folks” of “different political loyalties” could get together to an “uplifting evening”. If you’re the enemy you don’t get invited: what’s difficult with that? Unless you’re Judas, of course; in which case you might well come to the idea of inviting the entire Sanhedrin to the Last Supper. “Uplifting evening”, you know; “dialogue”, and all that. In the end, you can accomplish a lot more by talking rather than following those antiquated pre V-II concepts of… fighting against evil men.
Three, the teaching of the Church, so radiant in the Second Vatican Council, is that the posture of the Church towards culture, society, and government is that of engagement and dialogue. In other words, it’s better to invite than to ignore, more effective to talk together than to yell from a distance, more productive to open a door than to shut one.
Here, the Cardinal really throws away the mask (when you hear someone saying V II was “radiant”, prepare yourself for a cargo of bollocks…). With Vatican II, says the Cardinal, the Church’s posture has changed. Before, they preferred to ignore, to yell and to shut doors. In other words, to be real Catholics who say it as it is, and don’t pretend to be your friend when you aren’t. Most of all, they didn’t start to lick your plates whilst pretending to oppose you. When you were the enemy, you were the enemy. Extraordinary concept, isn’t it? Not so now. In the “radiant” world of Vatican II, you hobnob with the enemy because it is more productive to the protection of your own backside, and because it leaves a lot of important doors open. Seriously, the brazenness of this open sell – out is embarrassing. He is not merely hinting, he is shouting that he is not ready to make enemies. Cardinal Dolan has missed a wonderful occasion to shut up, retire himself in prayer, and get the courage to do what he had (and still has) to do. Instead, he has chosen to publicly lift his gown like an old trollop in a Far West saloon, and show to everyone he is to be had at the rather cheap price of not shutting his door to him.
I hope there are no takers.
Particularly at the next conclave.
The edifice is still in place of course, but this is a devastating blow.
In the words of the Alliance Defending Freedom:
Obamacare’s HHS Mandate that forces a Christian family to either comply with the mandate and violate their religion or forfeit their livelihood. The Newlands operate their family-run HVAC equipment business, Hercules, Inc., according to their religious beliefs and object to the government forcing them to fund abortion inducing drugs, contraception and sterilization. They were facing crippling fines of millions of dollars a year if they followed their conscience and not the government’s dictates.
The court granted an injunction and stopped the Mandate in its tracks while the lawsuit continues. The court rightly held that the government failed to show that its goal of providing “health care” would somehow be thwarted by exempting the Newlands because it already exempts “191 million Americans” for various secular reasons. It held that preventing the government from enforcing its regulation, “pales in comparison to the possible infringement upon Plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights.”
Oddly, the government argued that the Newlands forfeited their constitutional rights when they started their family business. But Christians or other people of faith do not lose their God-given right to religious freedom when they earn a living. Fortunately, the court did not accept such an outrageous position.
It truly says it all.
This is just a step of course, but I wouldn’t bet my pint on Body Odour’s success on this.
President Adolf Hussein Great Joke Obama is on record with the following:
“Mr. Romney wants to get rid of funding for Planned Parenthood. I think that’s a bad idea,” Obama said. “I’ve got two daughters. I want them to control their own health care choices.”
How about teaching your daughters to control their legs, Mr. President?
After 2000+ years, Christianity is in need of a remake, our hero must have thought. Why not introduce a Chris 2.0 version then, full of PC applets for the gullible.
Here it is:
I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.” - President Barack Obama
Christianity counts for nothing. What counts in Chris 2.0 is to have an “incredibly committed monogamous same sex relationship”, and one wonders how one can be so confused.
Someone should tell this chap, unbelievably become President thanks to an astonishing episode of reverse racism, that in Christian societies monogamy is a virtue because Christianity says so. An incestuous couple wouldn’t be considered “moral” because it is “incredibly” monogamous. A person sleeping with his dog wouldn’t be considered a fine chap because he is so committed to only commits acts of bestiality with his “lover”.
Logic doesn’t count in Obamaland. Read it again and notice the sugary emotionalism, the hollow fake sentimentalism. O the poor, poor faggot who can’t marry! How sad does the President feel for him after he has been fighting on his behalf! If the american soldiers fighting on his behalf implore him not to allow sodomites among their ranks, will he listen to them?
You would say the man, having been raised a Muslim, simply doesn’t know Christianity. But there are a couple of problems with this reasoning:
a) Muslims aren’t more favourably oriented toward “incredibly monogamous same sex couples” than Christians are, and
b) this man is the sam eon record for saying as follows:
“I’m a Christian. I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”
Look, in 2004 Obama still had some traces of logic: he acknowledged to be a Christian means to consider marriage something sanctified between a man and a woman. If one doesn’t believe this, it follows, one is not a Christian.
This doesn’t count now.
Not even if the Christians fight on his behalf.
It is sad to see the most powerful nation on earth is run by a complete moron. But at the same time it is reassuring to see he has made another mistake (perhaps he didn’t have any choice, after his VP’s gaffe; but it’s still a dangerous step to take) and has decided to take position on this matter on the day it was shown to him it is tantamount to ask not to be reelected.
North Carolina shows this will cost him a part of the black vote. Not a huge one, but one big enough to put him in serious trouble. With the Catholics he is following the same “strategy”: alienate the moderates, and gain the vote of those who would have voted for you anyway. Who does Obama think will re-elect him in November? There aren’t so many perverts after all…
Still, we should be rather satisfied today. The mask is off, Obama will not be trusted anyway as even the left will smell opportunism, and we have another beautiful battleground, one where North Carolina has already shown what happens when the black vote abandons the President.
Surely, the world need change.
The people of North Carolina have spoken.
Nay, they have shouted.
61 to 39 percent in favour of banning so-called gay marriages, these are percentages you won’t see often in the free world.
This is, I think, the more relevant because it comes in the middle of a presidential campaign increasingly more dominated by religious questions: the HHS mandate and now the attitude of a Christian country toward open perversion.
If I were Obama, I would start to think my advisers are a bunch of idiots who will drive me to the wall before I can say “Kathleen Sebelius”; with the first of the idiots being, of course, his VP, who makes everything he can to make Obama look as he deserves.
Also note the direction things are taking: North Carolina already banned so-called gay marriages, but the electorate clearly wanted to slam the door altogether, and twenty-eight other states preceded it. Make no mistake, this confrontation is getting harsher.
I have often expressed the opinion, and repeat it today, that the so-called gay movement has some chances of success until there is no great opposition on the other side and they can hope in a benevolent disinterest from mainstream America.
This dynamic will, I think, entirely change when the conflict erupts and becomes open war. When the average citizen awakens to the perversion of sodomy and the absurdity of giving it legal recognition, homos will have no better cards than paedophiles.
For a while, judicial activism can hope to compensate for the several dozens of defeats in the popular vote, but if the USA are to survive as a democracy, the people will demand that their voice be heard.
Today, once again, the people have spoken. There is no mistaking either the message in North Carolina, or the general climate in the rest of the country.
On this occasion, Obama has tried not to shoot himself in the foot but thankfully, his VP did it for him. North Carolina could be decisive in November, one cannot but feel Biden is doing an excellent job. I wonder how Obama’s opinion on the matter will “evolve”, though.
Kudos to the people of North Carolina. They have reacted in the right way to the attempt to make abomination presentable.
But make no mistake, the only way to let this nonsense end is the reintroduction of sodomy laws. We’ll get there one day, though I doubt I will live to see it.
In a world where one can’t talk about the necessity to put up a fight against the enemies of Catholicism without running the risk of the next wannabe Mother Theresa making (generally) herself beautiful saying that the “we must pray for our enemies”, I found this prayer – courtesy of Father Z – extremely refreshing.
The fact is, we must pray for the salvation of the enemies of the Church. But this doesn’t mean that they aren’t our enemies, nor that they must not be – God willing – crushed. Alas, the good-ism stinking of cheap incense forgets it all too often.
The text is as follows:
Hostium nostrorum, quaesumus, Domine, elide superbiam: et eorum contumaciam dexterae tuae virtute prosterne. Per Dominum.
Crush, O Lord, we beseech Thee, the pride of our enemies: and prostrate their arrogance by the might of Thy right hand. Through our Lord.
It seems to me this is like a “pocket” version of the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel. One can easily learn it by heart and use it whenever the occasion arises; which is, alas, more and more often.
Astonishingly, the Catholic News Service seems to not allow one to tweet their articles, and I wonder whether their offices are lit with candles. But perhaps it’s my mistake.
Be it as it may, they report here the chairman of the US Bishop’s Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty went again in front of the Congress, and did not mince words. In an electoral year, this might not have pleased all the presents.
Bishop Lori said the mandate “has suddenly turned the world upside down” by making commonly understood words mean something entirely different.
“Listening to the public discourse about the mandate, it is easy to get the impression that the Catholic bishops were somehow on the cusp of prohibiting the use of contraceptives nationwide,” he said. “Only in our new world-turned-upside-down does freedom require the denial of freedom; only in the post-mandate world is access to contraceptives somehow prohibited unless government begins forcing religious people and groups to fund and facilitate it.”
He questioned why the Obama administration “will brook no dissent” on including contraceptives, sterilization and some abortion-causing drugs in health plans, while remaining “essentially indifferent” regarding other essential health benefits such as prescription drugs and hospitalization coverage, leaving those decisions to the states.
Other representatives of religious organisations have intervened, and it is interesting to notice that opposition to the mandate is not exclusive to Catholics, nor even to Christians.
I still can’t imagine this was a smart move for the Obama administration. This will hurt them badly unless the US bishops start to relent, and frankly at this point I can’t see how they could, or why they should.
Methinks, Obama’s summer will be rather chilly.
And so after the various religious ones, the first lay Catholic organisation (EWTN) filed a lawsuit to stop the so-called “contraception mandate” (a misnomer, if you ask me: firstly the real issue is clearly the one of religious freedom; secondly “contraception” is extended to abortifacients; that is, to outright abortion). I have more than a vague impression that this is not going to go away very soon, and will make the B.O. administration increasingly more sorry of having undervalued the extent of the problem, and the might of the opponent.
The fact is, Catholicism in the USA is a sleeping giant, and it was rather naive from the B.O.organisation to think the giant would not awaken at all. It is as if those people really thought the likes of Pelosi are representative of the Catholic faithful, let alone bishops. Alas, now it’s too late, and if you ask me in a couple of months at the latest it will become clear the alternative is between a most humiliating backpedaling and a devastating, lacerating battle pitching against each other those who would have voted for B.O. anyway, and those who will not do it anymore. However I look at it, I can’t see this as a smart move.
Of course many will think Catholics do not really care, and those who vehemently oppose the B.O. administration on this wouldn’t have voted for him anyway; but I think they are wrong. With the only exception (to my knowledge) of G. W. Bush, the Democratic party always bagged the majority of the Catholic vote; but will this be the case if the bishop continue to thunder against the government for months to come, with tones and a determination I cannot remember seeing from them before? Methinks, this is going to hurt. Badly.
We have seen the first fruits of the progressive embarrassment of the B.O. administration with the pathetic attempt to “compromise” of the last days. I couldn’t see much of a “compromise” myself, but what I could clearly see is the government sees the need for one, though they’ll try to make the retreat as little and as little humiliating humiliating as possible.
I’d love to be a fly on an Oval Office wall. I think what I’d see is some embarrassed faces and a still unexpressed, but omnipresent thought: why have we started this.
There is no denying if Bishop Jenky of Peoria, Illinois occupied the place of, say, Archbishop Niederauer of San Francisco a couple of things would go differently in the old U S of A.
As things stand, Bishop Jenky cannot excommunicate that walking joke of a soi-disant Catholic answering to the name of Nancy Pelosi; nor can he do the same with Sebelius, though the latter is – if memory serves – excluded from communion anyway.
What Bishop Jenky did do, though, is to clearly warn the two aged witches their behaviour is putting their salvation at risk, the day will come when they have to give account, and it won’t be funny. Considering none of the two ladies is in her first bloom, the warning assumes an even more significant meaning.
With the occasion I must admit I learned only today Sebelius is in the business of “human services”, as the grandiloquent official name of her genocidal state apparatus is now called. Before you can say “late term abortion”, the old girl will consider herself the new Mother Teresa.
Still, I’d prefer Niederauer would wake up and do the right thing, and the pastoral admonition already released against Sebelius would be stepped up to next stage of confrontation without any excessive fear about tax status, and the like. If the Church proves she is serious about such matters, she has nothing to fear both from a financial point of view and from a political one.
B.O. already starts to be afraid of open confrontation as it is; let him wake up one fine morning discovering two of his favourite “Catholics” are excommunicated and see how he shivers. “Change”, I’d call that…
The battle against abortion is not going to go away and is, in fact, going to become increasingly harsher in the US (not in Europe, of course, where we are oh so “nuanced”). I think Obama makes a big mistake if he thinks Catholics will refuse to follow their shepherd in at least such a number as to wound him gravely, perhaps mortally. But this requires, of course, the will to wound the culture of death mortally, which is not (yet) there.
The Internet is ablaze with the last feat of the first Affirmative Action President of the history of the United States.
A man who grew up in a liberal and secular environment firstly, and in a Muslim household – and attending a school for Muslism – later, thinks he can teach us what Jesus would do in matter of taxes. You can read here and in many other places the angry reaction to this pathetic attempt to masquerade Socialism as Christianity, something he might get away with purely because most of his supporters seem not to have more knowledge of Christianity than he does.
His attempt at trying to persuade the Christian electorate of his Christian credentials – or, more probably, his decision to fully embrace the tax and spend gospel irrespective of the consequences and make of this campaign a war of the envious against the hard working – is made even more ridiculous by the other attempt, running in parallel, to force Catholic institutions to pay for contraception and abortion through compulsory medical insurance contributions.
On the always excellent blog domine, da mihi hanc aquam the Adolf Hussein Obama mentality is thus eloquently exposed:
B.O.’s spurious claim that his Big Government grasp at power is somehow akin to “what Jesus would do” is truly beyond ridicule. Does he think that Jesus would also expect us to surgically and chemically render women infertile? Or use scissors and vacuum pumps to remove unborn children from their mother’s womb? Where in scripture does Jesus order his followers to surrender their charitable responsibilities to Caesar’s bureaucrats and tax collectors?
Jesus expects his followers to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and heal the sick (Matt 25). And that is exactly what billions of Catholic dollars and thousands of Catholics do in this country every year through Catholic Charities, Catholic hospitals and hospices, and hundreds of other service organizations operated by the Church. Why is this a problem for statists? Competition. The Church provides free health care to millions but it also operates without the preferred ideological/sexual agenda of the secular Left. With the Church out of the way, those millions join millions more as dependent wards of the state, their liberty as citizens defined and regulated by their Enlightened Betters.
I am not really worried about these pathetic attempts of the President to give himself a varnish of Christianity. Those who care for Christ know he is talking bollocks, and those who don’t or are Christians by hearsay are not going to be shifted on his side by his saying he is the New Messiah (a tendency, by the way, he always had).
Still, I think it fitting to put to my reader’s attention the level of fraud this President is able to perpetrate. This man redefines the concept of “shameless”.
My impression is that he was trained to this since the tenderest age.
I truly hope the choice, come November, will not be between this strange circus article and a flip-flopping Mormon. It might come to this if, as I see it, prudery wins over solid conservative thinking.
If you ask me, it would be a shame.
Dear reader, you may find the Michael Voris video above of interest to you.
There are several interesting point there: about the first (how many Americans still believe Obama a Muslim, or not a Christian) I notice after many years it can’t be said anymore such answers are in the main influenced by ignorance (= not knowing what Obama says on the matter), but largely on reflection (= not believing what Obama says on the matter). I can’t say Obama cares a lot for that, but I think it can fairly be said the nation listened, and drew its conclusions.
The second is that I envy a country where so many still have the guts of wondering whether their President is a Christian. The German have a Kanzler(in) who grew up in a communist country, from an idiot who had already completely confused belief in God and social justice; this woman has no problem whatever with open homosexuality, but she thought the best way to power was to call herself Christian, so the country at large doesn’t even wonder whether she is one (tip: they don’t do it because if they did, they should wonder how Christian they are themselves, a topic they’d rather set aside).
The third is (and I have touched this issue rather often) the progressive deterioration of the definition of “Christian” in the Western world and even – though in clearly lesser measure than in Europe – in the United States. Voris’ quotes of Obama about Jesus being such a wonderful teacher and “mediator” (a definition, by-the-by, with which every Muslim would enthusiastically agree) and at the same time not raising questions among two-thirds of the electorate.
Still, I am very thankful to the other third. I wish such a vast number existed in Europe. At least as far as Northern Europe is concerned, I can’t say this is the case.
We live in a world where a President of the United States (who is clearly far less intelligent than his supporters believe, but not a moron) expresses his “Christianity” is a view compatible with both Islam and the secular society, and two third of the population allow him to get away with it. And where, I must say with great sadness, many leaders of the Western world are not even requested to prove their Christian identity, or do anything at all to upheld Christian values.
Christianity by hearsay.
Among us Catholics, I blame Vatican II.