Obama truly loves Francis. Why shouldn't he? Francis is so juvenile that he can wonder why the planet is more interested in the Dow Jones than in the death of a homeless. I think he forgot the time when he had to earn a living, or was worried about his pension, or knew – if he ever knew – that the stock exchanges are the best thermometer of the world economy, and people tend to be more interested in them than in the next bum drinking himself to death. This is the usual (very stupid) rhetoric about the individual destinies, according to which we should forbid vehicular traffic, because even one life of a child saved is more important than all the cars in the world.
Not even six years old stoop to such low levels of reasoning. They perfectly well understand that the world is interested in global events and the death of their grandma, devastating in itself, will not make world news. Everyone knows grandmas die at some point; bums tend to drink or drug themselves to death (which is why you must never ever hand them money), car rowdies tend to die of car accidents, & Co. Everyone knows it, only Francis doesn't. Or else in his relentless quest for popularity he has stooped so low one cannot even see him anymore.
In Francis' world, people should wake up in the morning listening to tale of violent deaths in Africa; then move on to the problem of youth unemployment (the biggest problem on earth, remember!) followed by the loneliness of the old people (the second biggest). At 11 on the dot we would have the situation of the favelas in Buenos Aires, where we would be informed that Rosario La Paz, a small-time criminal, has been found in a ditch with a bullet in his head. Rio is on with similar news – but the chap is called Joao Salazar – at 2 PM, Bombay (I still say “Bombay”) at 4 PM, closely followed by Calcutta (names difficult to remember at that point). The world being rather vast, I can't imagine there would be any time for the Dow Jones, but again small things like the world economy do not concern Francis, so everything is fine.
The stunt about the dead bum that should be more important news than the Dow Jones is truly like Francis: populist, Peronist, juvenile, and fit for the stupid. No surprise that Obama's crowd and Barry himself would salute it.
Francis is accused of being a Marxist, but I doubt even Marx would have said something as infantile as that. Francis is worse than Marx. Marx just wasn't the Pope.
In the meantime, Obama rejoices and the liberals have another field day.
Congratulations, Holy Father.
And do you go to school already?
And it came to pass the NSA, in its big-brother madness, decided if you spy on the German Chancellor you might as well spy on the Pope.
Moral considerations aside, it is very clear why the White House would have an interest in bugging not only the Vatican, but the rooms and phones of every Cardinal and Archbishop who are considered key players and able to influence the US electorate.
Let us imagine the – or one – leading US Cardinal had – just talking in abstract here – a pretty young thing on the side. The NSA would soon know everything about it, and at that point the above mentioned Cardinal would be entirely in their hands. The smallest hint from an NSA official – whispered only once to the ear of the Cardinal – would be enough to ensure the man plays for you instead of against you, invites Obama to dinner for the photographs, and in general limits his opposition to homosexual agenda, HHS mandate & Co. To the bare minimum to be halfway believable to the unknowing sheep.
The same game can, of course, be played with the Man in White. Find anything dirty about him – from his Argentinian past at the time of the militar dictatorship, to the cover-up of pedophile activity: the list is very long – and you will have him in front of the choice whether facing the shame in front of the planet or becoming the manageable puppet of BO in pretty much everything, perhaps even downplaying the issues of abortion and homosexuality so that the Obama-voting Mickey-mouse Catholics feel reinforced in their decision to close three eyes in front of reality.
It makes, therefore, perfect sense – from a purely political point of view – for the White House to spy the Pope, Dolan, and every other prelate that might becomr uncomfortable to them. Apparently, Bergoglio himself might have been spied since 2005, when he must have emerged as a man of power after the Conclave, and one able to exert an influence in South American issues.
One could – again, morality aside – construe an even more daring scenario: the NSA spies as many Cardinals as they can, and at the appropriate time tell to the twelve or fourteen of twenty of them who have been found with some corpse of sort in the cellar that it would be very nice – and would guarantee them peaceful years – if they directed their vote toward a pleasant, utterly vapid, rambling candidate the Obama administration knows would be a godsend for them. One they can sell as a man of “progress. An Obama in white. Hope and Change, eh? no?
Mind, I do not say this is what happened, and I discourage everyone from starting to fantasize about an invalid papal election. Searching is one thing; finding, another; manage to use the find a different one again.
Still, let us be realistic here: the NSA does not sniff in the life of Popes and Cardinals to know their favourite ice cream taste, or because they think the Russians and Chinese give them information useful for the US security. No: they do it to monitor how they influence the political discourse in, say, South America, or – next logical step – to try to domesticate one of the most powerful organisations on the planet; one that can influence the political discourse in several dozen countries – and certainly in the US – like no other non-governmental organisation could.
Who knows what might come to light one day. Perhaps the one or other strange dinner invitation or appeasing policy might be explained – if not justified – that way.
Fiction, you think? What if I told you the White House spies the Vatican?
Yes. It’s as bad as this.
The Gay President used to make a good show of his Christian credentials, something absolutely necessary to avoid the nation believing he is a Muslim.
In order to do so, he also staged a TV walk on Easter: look, look at your oh so Christian President going to Church and listen to the über-liberal preaching of the “progressive” proddie pastor!
It appears now, though, that the Gay President feels he does not need the alibi anymore.
He hasn’t been seen in Church for more than five months now . One wonders what excuse will the White House find for him, then five months is a darn long time even for a Proddie.
Security, perhaps? Ehy, by golfing this does not seem to be a problem? Is he afraid to hurt the sensitivity of atheists? This is more probable. Is he atheist himself, and having to choose would he rather pop in in a mosque, for purely cultural and sentimental reasons? Ah, I think we have it here.
In the meantime, “hope ‘n change” appears more and more isolated on Syria. A completely different picture from G.W. Bush, who in 2002 was called “isolated” when a dozen or more countries were ready not only to support the US military effort, but to put their soldiers where their mouth is and directly participate to the military effort after the invasion. I wonder how all those Democrats who called Bush “isolated” then should call Obama now.
The things you have time for clearly show where your priorities lie. The Gay President’s priorities seem to be so ordered that Golf is more important than religion; or golf is his religion; or, most probably, Obama is his religion.
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.