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.
As everyone, I remember that terrible afternoon of now ten years ago. I followed the events closely, and a sense of impotence and rage, as I had never experienced before, has remained with me to this day.
I remember that going to bed I reflected that the worst was to think that once again, there would be no adequate answer and the West would be content with the usual barking and meowing. A sense of decay, of twilight of a civilisation, was how I remember that terrible 11 September 2001.I was absolutely sure that the events would be repeated, that other aeroplanes would go down, if perhaps only every now and then; that we all would have to become accustomed to living with the fear of terror from the skies.
Ten years later, it turns out that I was wrong. Never could the terrorists repeat the actions of the 11 September but most importantly, the attempt to intimidate the West failed miserably as the untested Bush proved, by the grace of God, no Clinton. The reaction of the West came, though not with the speed that I would have wished, and by Christmas 2001 the Western bombs had already helped to take down the Taliban regime, and this alone would have been a message for all those hoping that the West could be cowed into submission by terrorist acts.
But the best was yet to come, with the attacks of 11 September opening the door for an entirely different ways to relate to our Arab, as the word goes, “friends”; in the new post 11 September world, playing stupid would not work anymore: ask Saddam Hussein, whose regime had survived sixteen UN resolutions but did not survive one terrorist attack and the new, no-bullshit world created by it.
But the best was yet to come. The establishment of slow, corrupt, infiltrated, utterly inefficient democracies was still something new and wonderful for most people in the Arab world. Slowly, this new world got them thinking. Once again, a President that the world loved to make fun of – for reasons unknown to me, as he has never been known only to open his mouth in the presence of a teleprompter; astonishingly it is the moron who does so whom people think intelligent – had seen everything right and had correctly understood that once the impenetrable Arab system would be unhinged by the planting of a democracy in its middle, it would be only a matter of time before the entire Arab world would start to understand that democracy is sexy, and it is fully OK to want a piece of it.
Like Reagan, Bush didn’t see his vision realised during his Presidency; but like Reagan, he still had the pleasure of seeing the fruits of his brilliant vision come to fruition shortly thereafter. Only eight years after Iraq’s invasion, it is clear that Iraq was, as we were told at the time among the liberal laughter, the pry used to unhinge the entire Arab world. The situation over there is certainly still fluid, but it will be very difficult to suffocate a once awakened desire for freedom; the courage of the people in Syria, continuing their extremely brave fight without even the hope of a Western military intervention, is a clear sign of what energies can be freed.
Ten years later, the perpetrator of the attacks lies at the bottom of the sea, the object of countless jokes; most of his nearest followers have met the same destiny; two Arab countries have been invaded, showing to the meanest intelligence who is boss, and what happens when the insects bite the giants; from these invasions – making, of course, concessions for the local situations – two democracies have been born, of which at least one seems destined to a somewhat stable future; from these two democracies, a desire for freedom has been engendered all over the Arab world, very possibly leading to the creation of another couple of stable democracies, perhaps more; and from these democracies, the inevitable consequence of parliamentary rule will follow: peace. Democracies don’t wage war against each other, and in a democracy it becomes extremely difficult to inflate anti-Israeli hate to keep people from thinking about the shit they find themselves in, in their own country.
Summa summarum: the old Al Qaeda front almost completely annihilated, never again able to repeat the feat of that day, and in general reduced to try to make bombs out of strange liquids. The Arab world massively and repeatedly humiliated, and two countries invaded outright. Two democracies born of it. Several other democracies on their way to be born because of those two. Israel very probably the biggest beneficiary in the region, particularly if the Syrian regime ends up crumbling. Air traffic undisturbed.
Ten years later, one stops and thinks of the ways of the Lord, and of how out of such evil who affected so many such a hope would be, in time, be born, affecting so many. The scale of the devastation within the US and the shock were unprecedented, but the scale of change in the following ten years has been much, much bigger.
Congratulations Osama, you dumb f*ck. In your own way, you helped achieve something really spectacular.
It was merely the exact contrary of what you wanted.
The American Papist has an interesting article about the NYT’s prediction of the Catholic vote in the coming Mid-Term elections. It would appear that – among the electorate generically defining itself as “Catholic” – the swing from the Democrats to the Republican is a barely believable 34 percent.
Beside reading such forecasts cum grano salis (it’s only a forecast; Obama was an oh so fashionable candidate two years ago; Catholics have already rather liked Republicans in the past, with George W Bush being the most recent example), we must consider that such a swing is unprecedented. Might it well be that the decline in popularity of Obama has few precedents, too, the fact still remain that when it has become clear and it has been insistently repeated that this President is nothing to do with Christian values, Christians have begun abandoning him in drove. Which drives me nicely to my point.
It is undeniable that the American Bishops, as a body, do not do enough to protect Catholic values among their sheep. Still, there are a handful of courageous Bishops who are never afraid of an “unpopular” headline and the general climate is much, much more Catholic than in the UK.
Take Archbishop Chaput for example, or the future Cardinal Burke before he moved to Rome, or the sadly soon-to-retire Bruskewitz. They are/were all people who can make national headlines; people willing to stir the placid waters of political correctness and rampant secularism by throwing the one or other Catholic stone in the stinking pond of secularist anti-Christian values.
I cannot imagine that this hasn’t made a difference. Not a 34-point difference for sure, but a difference in the cultural climate in which Catholic are called to operate and, importantly, vote. In two words, people are starting to open their eyes and in time, even a handful of brave Bishops will not fail to awaken a growing number of up to now not properly informed or soundly asleep Catholics.
This is, clearly, not what is happening in England and Wales, where the Bishops are the best allies of the secular leftist society and they either actively helped Labour to push its secular agenda (say: “sex education” for children; so-called “homo marriages”; neglect of proper Catholic teaching in Catholic schools; nice jobs given to Labour MPs in need of a perk) or gave an opposition which was not strong enough and determined not to offend anyone (say: adoption agencies). All this whilst Summorum Pontificum is eagerly boycotted, and Anglicanorum Coetibus at best ignored.
The situation in the US shows us that when good shepherds start doing their job, sheep start following them. It must be so, then once the Catholic message is insistently repeated, there is no way Catholics can – giving them sufficient space to come to term with uneasy truths never told to them before – avoid being affected by it. The beauty of Catholicism is that by its very nature every sustained, repeated call to orthodoxy will always fall on attentive ears, then in Catholicism’s case there is no need to define what “orthodoxy” is, merely to know that it exists and that it demands observance. This is a much easier exercise than to, say, define “Tea Party ideals” or “Republican values”.
If our Bishops started doing their job instead of limiting themselves to be automatic distributors of platitudes and convenient soundbites, things would start changing in Blighty too. Not today and not tomorrow of course; but in time, the effect would be felt.
Today, Cameron is scared senseless from a couple of hundred thousand homosexuals who don’t even vote for him. Let him confront, say, one million angry Catholics and see how he’ll react. Methinks, he’ll become a fan of the Tridentine Mass and tell us that he has always felt that way.
The Hierarchy of E&W betrays his sheep every day. None of them, not one, is worthy of his office. What is happening in the US exposes once more all their inadequacy, incompetence, corruption or very simply loss of faith.
Let us hope that this disgraceful generation of bad shepherds will soon be reformed or, rather less unrealistically, removed. Up to that point, we can only look at the US and sigh.
In just a few days, the autobiography of George W Bush will hit the bookshelves. From the parts already given to the public as appetizers it would appear that Bush was moved from the firm stance of the Pope about embryonic stem cell research to severely (if not completely) restrict research activities which would lead to the killing of embryonic lives.
This piece of information is important for several reasons. The first is to show that Bush (a great president if you ask me; not as great as Reagan for sure, but infinitely better than Al Gore would have ever been, every day of the week) was, ever after becoming the most powerful man on the planet, humble and perceptive enough to change his mind about important moral issues. One compares with Obama, and stuns.
The second is the fact that the separation of Church and state doesn’t mean that a President can’t think Christian, let alone that he shouldn’t be guided in his actions by Christian motives. Again, the comparison with a President who comes to the point of expunging references to God when mentioning the Declaration of Independence is evident. Bush’s life rests on his faith, Obama’s on his absence of it.
The third is – and it is sad to have to say it here, but say it we must – that when the two men were obviously disagreeing, it was – if you ask me; but you are reading this, so you are – the President who was right.
The widely publicised personal opinion of the Pope, that the war in Iraq was wrong, has been too often manipulated and misconstrued as a kind of “Catholic doctrine of pacifism”, which would be open heresy but which has been eagerly seized by pacifists, cathocommies and assorted lefties the world over. The parallel affirmation of Joseph Ratzinger – that it be perfectly legitimate for Catholics to disagree whether the Iraq war is opportune, or not – is on the other hand ignored with beautiful regularity and when it was first uttered did not fail to shock honest but misinformed Catholics confusing JP II’s protopacifism with Catholic teaching.
The truth is that John Paul II – whether because of sincere desire for peace or because less and less able to think clearly, or more probably for both reasons together – abandoned himself, particularly in his last years, to a sort of “kindergarten Catholicism” never short of a trite banality and of a common place but very palatable for the masses, particularly the non-Catholic ones. He drove things to the point of giving a completely distorted perception of Catholic Doctrine on a series of issues: on the legitimacy of war, where the ultima ratio criterium was pushed to absurd consequences, just two millimetres away from open heresy; on the Crusades, where carefully worded anodyne declarations spread the impression (make no mistake: wanted) that he had asked for forgiveness for them; on ecumenism, where to the much-publicised Assisi madness the effrontery of the kissing of a Koran was added; on the prestige and dignity of the Papacy, where he went to the point of participating to a rock concert and being publicly scolded as a result; or on the death penalty, where two thousand years of Christian teaching were conveniently re-interpreted as to give the impression that nothing short of Holocaust would ever justify the capital punishment.
Thankfully, our Dubya was rapid in following the Pope when he was right but equally as prompt in disappointing him when he (the Pope) was wrong. Granted, Bush is not a Catholic (for now at least: rumours of his conversions have made the round of the blogosphere already), but he certainly has that kind of solid common sense thinking, deep felt religious feeling, and ability to act with courage when necessary which have been the stuff of many an excellent Catholic converts before him.
I am in no doubt that he would make a much better convert than Tony Blair, although like the latter he’d have to fight the negative influence of his spouse. On the occcasion of the publishing of his book, I’d be glad if you would join me in a short prayer for his health and serenity, and for his conversion.