Daily Archives: April 24, 2012
“The idea that I as a Catholic should have to pay for some woman’s abortion makes me reach for the vomit bag”
This is Bill Donohue, the President of the Catholic League. Whilst this phrase is memorable in itself, more memorable is what may happen next Summer all over the United States.
It would appear the U.S. Bishops are planning an unprecedented two-weeks protest against the HHS mandate and the Anti-Catholic policy of the Obama administration. The time is very well-chosen, with the two weeks preceding the Fourth of July and at the same time the weeks at least part of the legislation could be, erm, retroactively aborted by the Supreme Court (I have written about this).
Note every pretence of “neutrality” is now gone: the Church is going to march against secular and anti-Catholic forces, and I am very curious to see who, during of after the carnage of political careers that will ensue, will have the gut to demand that the Church lose her tax status.
Already as it is now, only the blindness to reality of Adolf Hitler in his most drug-fuelled days can prevent Obama from realising the trouble in which he has put himself. He must now even renounce to the illusion the Church would renounce to further raise the stake (and I can’t imagine Washington has not sent some more or less veiled threats about what will happen if they don’t shut up; which might have persuaded Dolan & Co. they cannot afford in the least to shut up), and must see how the anti-HHS campaign is ramped up during the summer, overshadowing the 4th July and reducing his chance at reelection with every week that passes.
Perhaps would, at this point, be better for Obama if the Supreme Court kills the Unaffordable Care Act and thus spares him the humiliation of having to backpedal to avoid electoral massacre? At this point, even if Obama should be reelected – which might depend more from Romney’s mistakes than from his own merits – what would be the price his party has to pay in terms of congressmen, senators and governors? Romney may not succeed in attracting the widespread opposition to the Obama policies, but there would certainly be no scarcity of suitable candidate on the national level.
Adolf Hussein Obama truly shot himself in the foot and he is now limping along, saying to his supporters all his fine. He might be in serious trouble by July, and he has already gravely damaged every chance of his party of a decent show in November.
I begin to think November will bring to the United States something now so desperately needed:
Alas, we must prepare ourselves for four years with either a secular Muslim or a strange non-Christian at the White House. Unless, of course, Mitt Romney wins and does us the favour of moving for greener pastures before the time, and his appointed Vice President is chosen with some discernment.
Romney has now had the brilliant idea of hiring Richard Grenell, an openly homosexual spokesman (is spokesman appropriate here?), and the hypocrisy of the RINOs is, as widely expected, breathtaking.
The problem with the appointment is not only the fact the man is homosexual, but the fact that he is openly so.
In itself, a homosexual spokesman would be bad enough, once we leave the political correctness aside,because the job of spokesman is politically delicate, and should be not so easily exposed to attack. Of course homosexuals must work too, as must pedophiles, and former convicts. But this does not mean that many people would approve of a pedophile, or a former convict, being hired as a man very near to the possible future President.
The problem becomes, though, much worse because the man is, as they say, “openly gay”, which is modern parlance for an unrepentant sodomite. Therefore, the decision to hire him is a political statement Romney makes; and if you ask me, not a terribly smart one. Through his appointment, Romney chooses to give scandal. This can’t be Christian, and most certainly isn’t Conservative.
Granted, Romney is clearly afraid of not reaching to the mainstream voters, and is anxious of getting rid of his image of “weird” candidate. He has reasons to be worried, because I expect during the campaign we will become all experts of all the most ridiculous aspects of Mormonism, and I doubt he’ll have anywhere to hide when the embarrassing questions start to come. But by all fears, it seems to me indisputable if he loses the conservative electorate he is doomed. A man who should use the time given to him to polish his conservative credentials, pick a clearly conservative candidate to be Vice President and, in general, reassure Conservative America he can halfway deserve their vote is now clearly intent to hunt for support in those political regions he’ll never take away from Obama.
Even if this doesn’t cause great damage to him now – and it might – the obvious effect will be that conservatives of every shade will look at him with greater scepticism; and this is a commodity Romney most certainly doesn’t need.
Even considering the cynicism of a man accustomed to change opinions like you and I change shirts, this seems to me a very dangerous move.
Personally, I think it things go on this way the big game in November will be the elections in the Congress and Senate, as the White House seems destined to be kept by the wrong occupant until 2016.
Reblog of the day
Extremely tragic but at the same time instructive story from EWTN.
In Mexico, several women are processed for killing their own babies after birth. The feminist organisation protecting their interests (“Centro Las Libres”, which unless I am mistaken means “Centre of the Free Ones”, tells you something already…) claims that the mothers should be convicted not for homicide, but for……. illegal abortion.
Now I know that abortion is in itself the killing of a life, but I certainly can say whether he who has been killed was unborn or born. This seems to escape the “free ones” for whom the killing of one’s own baby (born alive and breathing and subsequently deliberately killed) is pretty much the same as, well, an abortion of kind.
The reasoning goes to a great length to explain the logic of the abortionists (as the “free ones” most certainly are), but leaves room…
View original post 429 more words