This, my dear readers, is the problem when a President tries to polish his image by honouring and being photographed with fags: fags are perverts, and they are going to get themselves into trouble, and the President with them.
The young fag in question, a Caleb Laieski, was managing to build a rather precocious political career as “fag liaison”, or “youth and diversity liaison”, for the mayor pf Phoenix, who obviously considers it extremely important to know first hand what young faggots think and, it is to be supposed, how they act. Clearly, Obama could not let such a photo-op go to waste. Unfortunately for all parties involved, the “think” part may make them look beautiful among Libtards, but the “act” part led to statutory rape.
Alas, it turns out the young fag was even completely aware he was committing statutory rape and resisted at first; but in the end his perversion got the better of even his political ambition. One horny fag, this one.
Lesson for everyone past kindergarten age: a pervert is a pervert is a pervert. Scratch the veneer of White House respectability, and the truth will come out.
Notice that the fag doesn’t write to his young victim “this is wrong”. He writes to him, in so many words, “this could damage my career”.
So selfless. I am moved to tears.
Also notice that – as some of the commenters have pointed out – there seem to have been no fathers around, and it is alleged the mother of the youngest was in agreement with the sodomitical activity of her child. This is the liberal society at its best; that is, its worst. No father figure around, mommy thinks with her liberal v@gin@, and allows her son to be thoroughly perverted so she can continue herself to do what she pleases in an utterly non-judgmental environment. Unnatural parents begetting unnatural sons. The sins of the… mothers, and all that.
I know, I know: dyed-in-the-wool Liberals can cope with Roman Polanski sleeping with a thirteen-years-old child, so they will not have for this fag anything else than sugary understanding. To them a fag is more worthy of protection than a Panda cub, or the Polar Bear.
Still, many other people, who are not so blind, might begin to see behind the thin veil of liberal progressivism, and discover the ugly truth of satanical perverted behaviour.
Well done, Barry Boy.
You deserve the photo with the statutory rapist fag, for future memory.
I have been reading and hearing several commentaries – even from the likes of Michael Voris – saying that the controversy about contraception mandate was “a cunning plan” from President Adolf Hussein Obama to divide Catholics: bishops against liberal nuns, orthodox Catholics against cafeteria ones, and the like.
I must disagree on this and have the impression that very often, journalists and commentators try to give some reasoned meaning to something that has initially happened only due to political myopia and complacency, and later became too big to just say “forget it”.
Put in simple words, Obama already has a good chance of getting the majority of the cafeteria Catholic vote. He doesn’t have to do anything to get it than to…. avoid being openly anti-Catholic. The orthodox Catholics will not vote for him anyway, so I do not see what the game should be here. Also, the idea that to get some of the people’s vote you must attack their religion is a rather novel one.
More likely, I think what has happened is B.O. & the gang thought they would please the liberal crowd at virtually no cost for their own Catholic vote, as no cafeteria Catholic was expected to change his mind anyway. “I please my friends here, without losing my friends there”; the latter were possibly supposed to not even notice what is happening, at the most after a day or two or middle-intensity row, or a couple of weeks of useful headlines.
We see this happening every day in politics and in the UK, we had the stunning example of the biggest ever MP revolt against a “triple whip” just a matter of months ago: a situation caused by the same myopic complacency, belief in one’s own infallibility and confidence the sheep will follow the shepherd without questions.
In these matters, my impression is rather that a small group of people (generally totally detached from the feelings of their electors; as in the case of Labour scrapping the 10% tax band, a masterpiece of political idiocy conceived by people who have no idea of politics, and life in general) decides they will move a pawn here and a bishop there, and the adversary will proceed to give them a queen to eat, probably because they have decided so.
Only, at times the adversary answers with a brilliant move, and the champagne nazis suddenly have their own king in check. Then, and only then, does the press begin to talk about the complex strategy originally pursued, then they can’t see and don’t want to admit the player has just made a very stupid move, and has noticed it when it was too late.
Now, Voris may complain (as he well should) that the majority of the Catholics continues (for now) to be on Obama’s side. But this is no novelty, no change with the old situation, and nothing which could now risk to further deteriorate. If this controversy continues to roll on (and there’s no reason why it shouldn’t) a mass “conversion” of orthodox Catholics to Nazi liberalism is never in the cards, but the long-term awareness of millions of cafeteria Catholics of what is required from them jolly well is.
Put it in a different way, Obama has ignited under his chair a very long fuse, at the end of which is a rather massive bomb made of some 60 or 70 million people; a bomb – when armed – to find the like of which you should probably look at the Evangelicals or, perhaps, at the Tea Party. This bomb is, as per today, largely made of people who either vote for him, or aren’t disinclined so to do. B.O. is shooting himself in his most delicate parts in very slow motion, but with deadly precision.
If you want another confirmation of the power of the Church (when she has the guts to do what is right) just notice the recent news of Sister “Obama gave me a pen”-Keehan spectacularly backpedaling on the new “compromise” proposals for the contraception mandate. OK, someone probably gave her a slap and informed her even her own organisation is not covered by the “compromise”; but if such a pro-Obama Taliban finds clear words of criticism just imagine what will happen with the millions of lukewarm Catholics once they have been properly instructed.
Seriously, I can’t see B.O.winning this. The only question in my eyes is how much damage will this do to the culture of death.
My answer is: the longer the bishops fight, the bigger the damage will be and Obama can make a triple salto every day after breakfast, he will change nothing in this dynamic.
Beautiful intervention from Bishop Conley, attacking the (aggressive) secular society at a pro-life meeting in Dallas.
“Atheocracy” is the name he chooses to describe
“a society that is actively hostile to religious faith and religious believers. And I might add — the faith that our society is most hostile toward is Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular.”
Such a society is based upon purely synthetic moral values, based on pretty much nothing as far as inviolable principles are concerned.
“Hence, it has no foundation upon which to establish justice, secure true freedom, or to constrain tyrants,”
As an example, he took Roe vs Wade, “atheocracy” in action and “the violence of the strong against the weak”. Still,
“Without God, there is no basis for morality and no necessary protections for man. The strong decide what is right or wrong — even who lives and who dies.”
Abortion anyone? Euthanasia? Why does this ring a bell?
Atheocracy works very well, of course, in matters of sexual perversion, then a society with no place for moral values is a place with no place for condemnation of sexual perversion. This is when atheocracy starts to recognise so-called homosexual marriages, because
“our atheocratic government now deems itself competent to rewrite ‘the laws of Nature’s God’ — the God-given definitions of marriage and the family”
It wasn’t always that way in the old U S of A, though, as
“the Declaration’s expressed belief in the divine origin of the human person is everywhere presumed in the Constitution”,
and one can’t say that it hasn’t served the country well. Whether this will continue, and a country where homo soldiers have the right to shower together with their straight colleagues – what have homos to look for in an army, anyway? I mean, have we all become MAD?! – might discover before too long that being a world power is nothing automatic, or due to one country.
In short, Bishop Conley hits the bull’s-eye on the protracted deterioration of democratic institutions through aggressive secular thinking. Mind, though, that when a democracy betrays Christian values, this democracy has ceased to earn the right to exist, and the time will come when it is not able to withstand the onslaught of other – and hopefully authentically Christian – forces.
The great Ronald Reagan* used to say that freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. The same thinking applies, I believe, to democratic institutions. As long as there are deep and universal values sustaining them, they will thrive and prosper. When, though, these values are substituted by caricatures of Christian values – see the fake “charitee” of the pro-homo lobby, or the fake Hitler-humanitarianism of
Lebensunwertes Leben euthanasia – the basis of democratic consensus will be eroded, up to the point where democracy is not in a position to defend itself anymore and dies; it dies, then, because it has deserved to. And when your democracy goes, be very afraid for your freedom itself.
About freedom again, Reagan – one who would have liked Bishop Conley – said it so beautifully:
How can we survive as a free Nation when some decide that others are not fit to live, and should be done away with.
Food for thoughts…..
*Three Hail Marys from me, and you’re welcome.
I have been, in the past, rather critical of what I perceive as the light foot of Archbishop Dolan, particularly in matters concerning sodomites. It seems to me that if the Church is to conduct a well-fought battle on the matter, the battle should be led from her Numero Uno rather than from other – and be they so prestigious and beloved – archbishops like Chaput.
I must say that the criticism most certainly does not apply to the letter the Archbishop has written to the President. The tones are so strong that I do not recall having heard such a strong rebuke of a President of the United States not only from archbishop Dolan, but from any American bishop in recent times.
It seems to me that this is a very strong warning; nay, an ultimatum. If Obama doesn’t backpedal on his anti-marriage (anti-Christian, anti-decency) policy, what awaits him is nothing less than an all-out confrontation.
Let me examine the most important parts of the letter, a letter I consider even more meaningful because its core message is, after the usual introductory blabla, brutally short and straight to the point.
First, there is the invitation to stop the attack on DOMA.
Mr. President, I respectfully urge you to push the reset button on your Administration‟s approach to DOMA.
Note here the very strong words: push the reset button. What is asked here is not this or that different approach, or this or that consideration for Catholic sensitivities. No, what is demanded here is nothing less than the total abandonment of the White House’s scheming against DOMA. Already this phrase shows a will to open confrontation that, if I were the president, would let me stop and reflect about where this is all going to lead if I continue my actual policy.
Still, it can be that Obama decides not to take the hint. Therefore, archbishop Dolan puts a much heavier foot on the gas pedal (all emphases mine):
Our federal government should not be presuming ill intent or moral blindness on the part of the overwhelming majority of its citizens, millions of whom have gone to the polls to directly support DOMAs in their states and have thereby endorsed marriage as the union of man and woman. Nor should a policy disagreement over the meaning of marriage be treated by federal officials as a federal offense—but this will happen if the Justice Department‟s latest constitutional theory prevails in court.
Two messages are strongly voiced here: a) you can’t treat the overwhelming majority of your country like evil racists, and b) you can’t think of being such a liberal Nazi as to just treat disagreements with your agenda as criminal offences.
Still, it can be that Obama decides not to get the message, even if it is at this point shouted in a manner rather impossible to be overheard. Then, in what is the first direct threat of confrontation to a president of the United States that I can remember from a prelate of the Church, comes what I can only define an open warning and, well, rather clear ultimatum:
The Administration‟s failure to change course on this matter will, as the attached analysis indicates, precipitate a national conflict between Church and State of enormous proportions and to the detriment of both institutions.
National conflict is strong enough, but enormous proportions is already past every diplomatic concern. I can’t imagine any stronger wording for such a message. In fact, I doubt that I myself would have, if put in the position of the writer of this letter – Kudos to him, and a Hail Mary is not out-of-place – suggested to the archbishop the use of such blatantly undiplomatic words.Oh well, perhaps I would have, but then again I wouldn’t be requested to draft such a letter in the first place. The “detriment to both institutions” means, possibly, that no threat of taking the tax exempt status away will stop the Church.
If you follow the link and read the entire letter (very short), you’ll get the idea of what is happening here.
Nor is this the initiative of Dolan alone, rather the letter makes it very clear that the front here is compact, and the tanks ready to roll.
One might opine – as I would – that stronger words in the past would have avoided the necessity of today’s words – or the creation of today’s situation – in the first place, but the past is the past and I can only salute what seems to me a completely new approach to the relationship between political power and Catholic hierarchy in the United States.
With the elections already looming, this is excellent news, and the controversy will be a very interesting one to watch.
Expect the liberal Nazis now starting to demand that the tax privileges of the Church be cancelled. Let them cry. The only way to approach this confrontation is by going head on against the liberals. Let us see who will dare to push the tax agenda then. It seems to me that a decision has been taken already here, and there will be no turning. Alea iacta est. Can’t imagine, otherwise, the reason for such tones.
The giant has started to wake up.
CNA has a story about Dan Avila, an advisor to the US Bishop, calling Catholics to arms with words whose clarity can only be lauded.
“We just can’t simply sit back. Every Catholic and every Catholic institution concerned about marriage and the family will need to be able to step forward and advocate for the Defense of Marriage Act as federal policy,”
“Even if there’s no immediate prospect for this bill to race through Congress, the fact is that the pressure is building and the case is being made for the eventual demise of DOMA. All those concerned about the preservation of marriage simply need to pay attention, stay tuned, and be ready to respond.”
“Marriage is the keystone of the common good. When you erase from a policy on marriage any reference to sexual difference, you will force the government to ignore and to be indifferent to the absence of either the man or the woman in the most fundamental relationship that we know of.”
“I would daresay that Congressman Nadler and others who are advocating the repeal of DOMA are not also advocating for the repeal of the requirement that be limited to people,” he said. Many who argue for same-sex marriage have taken positions against recognizing group marriage, even as polygamists have filed suit charging that polygamy bans are discriminatory.
One can’t say for sure that the US Bishop will respond to this call to arm with half the energy it would require; but one thing seems clear to me: this issue is going to stay with us, and it will grow in public awareness as 2012 approaches. By supporting the (hoped for) move to repeal the DOMA, Adolf Hussein Obama has taken sides and he will have to live with the consequences.
It surprises me that Adolf Hussein would choose the side that has lost 31 times out of 31, but this is such a self-deluded child president that one should never be too surprised at seeing him, once again, piddle out of the potty-chair without even noticing the puddle.
I do hope he’ll have more of these brilliant initiatives in the months to come. More liberal, more socialist, more populist, more “change”, more Obama.
Go on, Adolf Hussein; you saw how good it worked in 2010….