The First Fag President of the once glorious United States has invited the first so-called “gay” so-called “bishop” of a so-called “church” to give the final so-called blessing at some speech or other some days ago. With the usual class, the “bishop queen” twitted “OMG!”, thinking he is a screaming, stupid, self-centred adolescent girl. Which he is not. Adolescent, I mean. Anagraphically, at least.
On reading this, I reflected on the perversion of modern times, when Christianity has become such a faint remembrance, and perversion so mainstream, that even a POTUS can get away with what Barry just did without being flayed to death.
Today, on Good Friday, we can reflect on how many, in a position of power, crucify Christvevery day not (only) with their private sins, but by openly attacking Christian morality at every level: social, legal, and religious.
And then I thought: what if Barry would, faithful to his “inclusive” creed, suddenly discover a same-sex attraction for the girlish “OMG” “bishop”? Look, Obama is enough of a spineless wimp, to the point that he has even openly admitted he doesn't smoke out of sheer fear of his wife. And then there's Michelle O.: a woman with jaws good for a Spielberg movie, and whose entire demeanour and attitude to life says she would so much have wanted to be born with a willie, but she had to find an emasculated puppet in order to become the President Of The United States By Proxy. Oh, the injustice of modern times…
What if, then, Barry were to embrace his already rather developed inner faggot, and discover a sudden same-sex attraction for the ageing wannabe bishop “OMG!” Robinson? Let's look at it.
The so-called bishop's “lover” would have to recognise that the “Spirit” has led the so-called bishop to this new “experience”. He would have to be “supportive”, of course. That's the first obstacle gone.
Michelle “Jaws” Obama would have to recognise, at least in public, that even her husband – whom she certainly considers a third-class loser, first-class nuisance and utter idiot – has a “right” to his “happiness”, and it would be too late now to start defending traditional roles. The daughters are also, in fact, old enough to be “punished with a baby”, so they should not be shocked too much at something so “normal” like their father undergoing a “new phase”. That's obstacle two (and, as far as they count anything, mini-obstacles three and four) gone.
And then there is the most important obstacle: the voters. But you see, the beauty of being a POTUS at the second mandate is that you don't have to stand for an election ever again. If your name is Barry O. you can just sit and relax, polishing your image for the well-paid speeches to come. Playing more golf, if possible. Things like that. Voters are not your concern anymore. Your wife is, of course. But only if she is near enough to strike.
The voters would be, obviously, severely tested. One thinks of the Black vote, to a good extent not consisting of atheist trannies. But hey, if they plaud the POTUS when he invites the faggot bishop to bless people, why should they criticise him when the President himself practices what he preaches?
And so we are nearing the happy end: in this XXI century of ours the President of the United States could leave his wife and family and run away with an homosexual so-called cleric and the majority of the Country would have no other choice, if they have a shred of coherence left, than to look and applaud.
Then Michelle would be free to go on and have – if technology allows – her own little operation herself.
Happiness all around.
Fox News’ Adam Shaw has a brilliant article about Francisnomics, that strange mixture of kindergarten economics and plain socialist bollocks with which the man has been – or so he thinks – enriching the world these last ten months.
I invite you to follow the link and read the article, and reflect on the message this young but very promising man conveys. In doing so, I would suggest that you focus on the laudable mentality of the man, not on his age; on his willingness to take responsibility for himself rather than whine and wait for income redistribution; on the very fitting observation that it is easy to be a hotel suite socialist.
But then again if you want to insult the man simply because he is young, and the Pope is old, go on. It shows you are looking at the age, not the argument.
I am amazed at how there can be people around still insisting in saying: “what the Pope is continuously saying is not what he is really saying”. Heavens, the message is clear enough, and if one does not understand the Peronist drive of this man I doubt if he has ever understood anything in life, at all.
Obviously, being Francis, he will always say from a small corner of his mouth the contrary – or some small correction – of what he is shouting with the rest of it, but it is truly naive to think Francis does not have the end result in mind; that is: the way he very well knows the entire world will understand his – actually clear enough – slogans.
Can you imagine G.W. Bush announcing he will visit Pope Benedict to “explore inequalities”? Ever wondered why? When was last time Fox News published an article stating Benedict’s “disdain for those who are not content to soak in poverty or to submit to socialism”? A coincidence, do you think?
Francis is a disgrace when he wants to teach Catholicism, and is still an utter disaster – though certainly lees damaging to the faith – when he wants to talk about everything else. Kindergarten populism is his only inspiration, because his own popularity among the crowds of every religion and none – even Catholics, provided they are no fond of Tradition – is his first and last priority.
Perhaps at some level he persuaded himself that what advances his own popularity contributes to the creation of a better world, but this is certainly no excuse. In fact, you can say exactly the same of Hitler, or Pol Pot, or the Italian Red Brigades.
It is very good that a Pope who talks rubbish like almost no other Pope in the past (John XXII comes to mind; but the club is certainly very exclusive) is bashed in public like almost no other Pope of the past. People – and particularly Catholics – must wake up to the reality of a man whose incompetence in whatever he says is only surpassed by his vanity and arrogance in thinking the world needs to know whatever comes to his mind.
The Vatican has apparently announced he is now working on an encyclical about the environment.
Make the popcorn.
No doubt, Obama will be delighted.
I wish I would not read around so often that nothing major has happened after Francis’ election, because “he hash’t changed Church rules”. It just does not make sense.
In essentials, no Pope can “change the rules”, as both what is dogmatically defined and what the Church has always believed could not be changed even by an angel coming down from Heaven.
In all the rest, Francis is changing as much as he can, as fast as he can, as brutally as he can. He has shifted the Papacy from accuracy to improvisation, has introduced a system of uncontrolled, often senseless, not rarely heretical, rambling; an inordinate waffling that, whilst not officially changing any rules, certainly changes the perception of them, and of the need to follow them.
Francis himself leads, in this, by example, with a gross liturgical abuse on Maundy Thursday that clearly shows what respect he himself has for rules. The calls to lio and the huge confusion spread by his heretical rambling are making the rest.
No, he has not changed any dogma. He could never do it. Therefore, this is simply no argument.
I wonder if the neocon followers of a similar line of thought apply the same thinking to Obama. Hey, Obama has not declared himself King or Lord Protector, either; so they should have no reason to complain, should they now?
If you are the conservative oriented chap, it is always fun to observe the left's highjacking of people of the past who would, today, very probably not support them.
Take Martin Luther King, the determined civil rights activist and, strangely enough, Protestant pastor. Whilst MLK's record as a minister (small m) would not stand the most lenient moral standards of today (unless he were homosexual, that is; in which case a “progressive” Presbyterian community would be certainly found for him), it is fair to say he believed in God and in the sanctity of human life.
King was killed before Roe vs Wade, but there can be no doubt he was what we today call “pro life”. I am not even sure the expression existed in those times, and I actually am inclined to think the word was born only after it became necessary to find a way to express the bleeping obvious: that to kill a baby in the womb is murder.
It is, therefore, very apt one of MLK' daughters reminded us, during the celebrations for her father, that MLK was – obviously, I hasten to add – against abortion. I can't imagine the day he died there were many who would call themselves both Christians and “pro-choice”.
Even better is that his descendants hasten to make this point heard, with one of his daughters (apparently “Bernice”, perhaps “Berenice”?) making clear that life begins in the womb, and a niece of him, Alveda, making clear Obama's stance in favour of the genocide of – disproportionately blacks, by the by – babies in the womb is the reason why she would not vote for the Gay President.
I doubt the pro-life stance of MLK got a vast echo in the liberal media during the celebrations; but from the other side of the Pond one notices once again how healthily the pro-life movement is growing. Here in Europe we are very far from either the level of debate or the aggressive legislative measures of many parts of the United States. May they grow stronger in the years to come.
It's a long-term project. The process of de-nazification of a nation can only be carried out by caring for the new generations to grow up denazified; not many of those so horribly brainwashed during the last fifty years will change, at least consciously, their mind during their lifetime. Our best bet is in those, well, not aborted this year, rather than in those who have, well, aborted yesteryear.
You can have dreams only if you were born in the first place. If you are murdered in the womb, the only “change” you'll ever experience is atrocious suffering, following by your death.
“I have a dream”, would the baby in the womb say; “that I am not murdered before seeing the light”.
It's too bad for him that hope and change are in power.
And it came to pass President Obama Bin Laden tried to put pressure on the Egyptian rulers by cutting part of the (substantial) aid the Country receives, and found himself with the face against a solid wall of opposition not only from Israel, but from countries like the UAE and Saudi Arabia, who cannot see with favour incendiary fanatics staying in power in such a key country like Egypt and thereby destabilising the entire region.
It seems like the local governments understand very well where the danger lies; whilst Obama, half a planet away, is more concerned with looking good with his rather cretinous “hope and change” electorate than with promoting stability in the region.
That Obama doesn't care two straws for persecuted Christians was already known; he is, in fact, a cultural Muslim without the faith, forced to frequent a nominally Christian church merely because of his political ambitions. What is interesting, is that in many Middle Eastern Countries the US will now be seen as the enemy of stability, and the helper of Islamist fanatics.
But will the Gay President, at least, succeed? We do not know, but the signs aren't good. I read around that several countries (mainly, I assume, oil rich ones) will step in to integrate the aid loss now announced. This will make the countries that have stepped in double angry, and the Obama administration will have to think twice before they go on with the aid Spiel. In the end, someone will probably tell him that “hope and change” games won't go far in the Middle East, and the open hostility of traditionally allied countries is far more probable. What a sorry mess this marketing – driven foreign policy has put the old US of A in…
Congratulations, Obama Bin.
You manage to surprise us again and again.
I have followed the Zimmerman trial like a well-informed European might do, and what I have seen was shocking. The decision to arrest and prosecute made more than 40 days after the event, basically to appease the mob; the main witness (on whom, as I understand, the entire prosecution was in fact based) unworthy of being taken seriously by a kindergarten audience; an entire deck of race cards played during and after the trial – often by Whites; astonishing country – and a huge pressure put on the jury not to be the “cause” of riots by doing what they think it's right.
All of this is blessedly absent from Continental Europe, and only mildly applicable to Britain. I can't imagine, and in fact am unable to remember, a trial being initiated, ceteris paribus, in any Western European country. Not even Britain.
Why is that? Because in European Countries prosecution is not dependent from the whim of the mob.
As a European, one can only look in disbelief at a trial which, it appears to me, the prosecutors felt at some point obliged to put in motion – well knowing the probability of conviction was very thin – because of mob pressure. One is reminded of the witch trial in the famous Monthy Phyton movie. None of this would have happened in Europe: not the trial, not the shameless racial spectacles applied to every detail of it, not the pressure on the jurors. From our perspective, poor George Zimmerman was the sacrificial lamb of a deeply flawed legal system, which positively encourages senseless prosecutions so that the mob may be appeased, at least for the moment. The widely-drummed possibility of riots in case of a certain decision was also beyond disgusting, and shows not only the willingness of Black activists to use the implied threat, but also the rapacious attitude of the press, not thinking twice before evoking ghosts which must, at some point, become very real.
As I followed the trial, I wondered whether the obvious flaws of the system did not play a role in the priest abuse scandal. When prosecutions are determined from the mood of the mob, what prevents a flood of prosecutions against priests being initiated merely to let the elected prosecutors look good? I have read of people accusing long deceased priests of sexual misconduct, sixty or seventy years after the fact, and found it astonishing anyone coming out with such accusations would be taken seriously for a moment. Heck, in civilised countries like Italy you have statute of limitation (if memory serves, 20 or maximum 25 years) even for murder, and in my time crimes against humanity were the only ones exempted from it.
If a trial like George Zimmerman's could take place, which trial couldn't? If trials are initiated because a certain interest group feels victimised, how many will ride this train in the hope of easy money? If a person can be accused of misconduct thirty years after his death, because a solvent Diocese can be made to pay, what will stop a wave of entirely invented accusations? How is it that in countries with non mob-dependent prosecution offices – and where the employer cannot be made liable for the criminal offence of the employee – like Italy and Germany the scale of the problem is a tiny fraction of what has happened in the US? Do Italians and Germans not care for justice? Are their legal systems deeply flawed? Or is it rather so, that these legal systems are not easily manipulated by those trying to make a quick buck, and completely closed to exploitation by pressure groups?
And by the way, is there another country on earth where the President intervenes in an ongoing trial and says if he had a child, he would be like the deceased? What madness is that? How can this be accepted of anyone with a public office, much less the one with the supreme office? If the deceased and the President had been both Whites, and the accused Black, what would have happened?
Heavens, the most powerful Country on earth has a joke of a justice system. Is it a surprise the rich Catholic dioceses of this country are targeted?
P.s. a word to the wise: this is not about Zimmerman's trial per se. Whinings of one-legged, bleeding heart, “human rights” lesbians will be culled without mercy.
And so it came to pass that so-called same sex marriage was pushed very hard in a certain State of the US. This State is very solidly in the hands of the Democrats, and might have been considered a reasonably safe bet. This State is also the adoptive one of the current President, who has been lovingly nurtured and protected by the local – very corrupted, as even we in Europe know – political and party machine in order to become the poster boy of a brave new world without God or shame, and recently the first honorary “Gay President” in the Land.
This new satanic measure had already made it through the Senate, which – on St Valentine's day, no less – approved the measure amidst the excited screeches of the local perverts. One would have been justified in thinking the measure would have good cards in the lower chamber.
Alas for the perverts, it wasn't to be, at least for now. The measure failed – please read this twice – to even gather enough support for a vote to be called in the first place. This, notwithstanding the intervention of the above-mentioned Gay President, who travelled to Illinois to say please, please go to hell with me.
Now let us reflect on this: the intervention of the Gay President was not even enough to allow for a vote, let alone a victory. Decidedly, Presidents are not what they used to be.
Between the lines, you get even more interesting information: when many Democrat legislators ask for more time to talk to their constituents, it means they are terrified of voting in favour of the measure and be massacred as a result; this, notwithstanding the party pressure, which must have been absolutely massive if even the President intervened. It must also be noted the black religious community has erected a solid wall against the measure, and good luck to the “Black President” on that. Thirdly, the measure had been already amended with the usual fake “protections” only extended to explicitly religious institutions, but this was evidently not nearly enough to avoid its demise.
It is very sad to see the once so celebrated heathen messiah having so little influence on his own people, in his own home turf. Sad for Democrats, I mean. We obviously do not know how this will go on, and one can be sure the minions of Satan will continue their effort against basic decency and Christian morality; but one cannot avoid noticing that, whatever the decision of the Supreme Court, the opposition to heathenism is getting more determined and organised as religious communities continue their work on the ground and oppose the stupid “human rights” mantra of the perverts.
Perversion has no rights. Those who want to see perversion as the founding principle of their community only need to be a little patient, and they will find their wish fulfilled beyond their expectation.
Courtesy of Father Z, this video published from Right Wing Watch, a leftist site aimed at “expossing” the activities of the “extreme Right”. In their innocence, these people must think Bishop Paprocki is “extreme right”, which really says a lot about what them.
Bishop Paprocki’s message is simple: the Democratic party promotes intrinsic evil as a party platform, whilst the Republican party simply doesn’t. There may be – there certainly are: just think of the poof division – bad apples within the GOP, but there are no position on which the Republican has a party policy which constitutes intrinsic evil.
I do not know whether this suffices to make of Bishop Paprocki a representative of the “extreme Right”. But I think this is sufficient to say that Bishop Paprocki takes his job seriously. Note at the end he even dares to touch the unspoken tabu of the years Post-Vatican II, and say it very clear that voting for parties promoting intrinsic evil places the salvation of one’s own soul in serious jeopardy.
How very “extreme Right”….
I am not joking, this is straight and true from Father Z’s Blog.
It goes to show the extent of the de-Christianisation of the Democrats. I can’t wait they ask God to be removed from the banknotes. I actually wonder why they have not done it already.
In the end, though, the move is at least coherent. It would have been even more hypocritical for them to continue to appeal to Christian values. Now the mask is off at least.
We really need to get this election right. A funny non-Christian belonging to a funny sect is still preferable to an enemy of God.
The battle against that particularly perverse consequence of Obamacare called HHS Mandate does not stop after the unfortunate decision of the Supreme Court to allow the law to stand (albeit, I seem to gather, the specific religious freedom aspect of the HHS mandate should be examined separately).
As you read here, a proposal of new legislation has now been launched, meant to avoid the secularist dhimma of having to pay to live according to your religion. With the important difference that whilst the dhimma is meant to be, broadly and generally speaking, affordable – because the money is generally wanted – the HHS tax isn’t – because what is wanted is the destruction of religious values as worthy of protection rather than the use of Catholics as a source of tax revenue -.
You can read the details on the linked article, and persuade yourself ad abundantiam that the scope of such a tax is certainly not the one of having companies to pay it, but to dissuade them from behaving in a way would attract the tax. This kind of punitive tax is what we expect from nannies generally, but this is an extreme example.
I still am unable to see the catastrophe in the refusal of the Supreme Court to, well, abort Obamacare. Whilst it wasn’t the outcome I would have wished, in the end it is now in the hands of the American citizens to liquidate both the law and those who taught it; and as the Congress is very likely, and the Senate not unlikely to be in Republican hands come November whatever the outcome of the Presidential race, I cannot see an easy life for Obamacare anyway; this, without the legal challenges yet to come.
What, I think, must NOT happen, is people refusing to vote against Obama because Romney is a mormon. This would be, I think, a very grave mistake. In my eyes, even a syphilitic drug-addicted drunkard without the anti-Christian ideology would be vastly times preferable to the present occupier.
It can be that this article depicts the reality a bit rosier than it is. It cannot be denied that it will not be an easy, or a rapid task, to awaken the US Catholics to the abomination of the HHS in particular, and Obama in general. But it cannot be denied that the potential for defeat here is huge.
I do not consider this in terms of how long will it take before the US Catholics vote like a man in the way a Catholics is supposed to vote (and before that, to think). What I think is most important, is the shift. With almost one voter in four officially a Catholic, and Catholicism still exercising a grip on many people – at a subtle and profound level, which it might take time to let emerge – Obama is bargaining a short-term doubtful gain: the renewed support of the pervert fraction, most of whom would have voted for him anyway, with the slow but, if the local clergy hold their ground, in time unavoidable erosion of a traditional Democratic power base.
How many Catholics who voted for him in 2008 need to change their mind for his hopes in November to be doomed? Ten percent? Would he survive if only five percent (one in twenty!) would decide to change allegiance or better, to give his allegiance to Catholicism? And how many others is he angering in the meantime? Will all those socially conservative Blacks orderly flock to the polls and give him their vote to ” the first gay president” in 2012 as they did the hyped “change” in 2008?
In my eyes, Obama is surrounded by mad liberals like him, saying to him what he would like to hear. He listens to them, and thinks that they represent the country out there. Being an inflexible, ideologised hardliner, he refuses to learn the lesson of the mid-term election and thinks instead that if he only insists on his line, the world will in the end recognise his supreme wisdom.
What is his weapon to gain the confidence of his Catholic voters? That not to force an employer to pay for an abortion is “unfair”? “Unfair”?! Really?
I hope the chap does not change his mind any time soon, because in the meantime Catholics might be slowly awakening; and when they do, either the Democrats change their tune of they will lose three presidential election in a row again.
And so the PRENDA, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, which would have made it illegal to kill a baby in the womb because of his gender, has failed to get the necessary 2/3 majority.
Planned Parenthood was obviously opposed to the bill: they plainly admit to proceed to gendercide (“Good morning Mr Chang. Your wife is expecting a girl? Bad, uh? Don’t worry, we’ll deal with the problem”) and clearly would not want to have any abortion banned, for any reason. The health of the girl is clearly at stake… erm…
Still, the bill was also opposed by the President, who was in this occasion not concerned about the “war on women”, but on the way of protecting the doctors who fail to see the intent behind the abortion.
I gather from this the President is concerned about the women who have already been born or who, more specifically, vote; but he is rather less concerned about a gendercide largely at the expense of women taking place every day, even on American soil. Therefore, an army of innocent little girl will have to die so that the irresponsible and egoistic behaviour of Obama’s voters can go on undisturbed.
Once again, it appears very clearly that so-called “pro-choice” liberals are the new Nazis.
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 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:
A strange article on the catholic News Agency, citing a recent analysis, makes the hypothesis Obama has not shot himself in the leg with the HHS mandate, but be expressly wooing the non-Christian and non-believer vote, moving from the assumption that the Catholic vote has been slowly drifting away anyway and the numbers are rapidly tipping the scale in favour of non-believers.
Firstly, allow me to say I am perfectly persuaded Obama is a Christian as I am a communist, and if he has some affection for a religion – meant as a cultural, not spiritual phenomenon – this is most certainly Islam, not Christianity.
Still, I think I should examine the argument and say why I disagree and think the Obama people have simply vastly understated the price they would have to pay if they anger the catholic world.
1) It seems strange to me that whilst we have been told for so many years – and have had impressive demonstrations, see G.W. Bush – that the Catholic vote can make Presidents, suddenly it would pay to woo the enemies of Catholicism. Certainly, in the course of a generational change this might happen, but Catholics are not getting less numerous, nor are they getting less Catholic (than they already are). Vocations in the US have been on the increase for many years now, and the vote has been moving progressively to the Republicans,which is certainly in part due not to the fact that they aren’t Catholics anymore, but that they still are (with all the caveats about the state of the US Catholic culture, of course).
2) Which in my eyes neatly introduces my second point: Democrats lose the Catholic vote, at least in part, because Catholics understand Democrats do not protect Catholic values: the idea that as they are losing them in instalments be better to be losing them altogether seems to me a rather suicidal logic. If Obama were not so blinded by ideology, he would be thinking day and night what to do to please them, not to anger them.
3) Catholics are spread only in certain parts of the countries, and are a powerful force only in a dozen or so of them. But Catholics are, most importantly, crucial in key States like Florida and Ohio: who on earth would willingly set to sacrifice their vote in such important battlegrounds?
4) The theory goes that for every Catholic you lose you will earn at least one atheist. Very strange. I think I am not very far from the mark thinking the majority of the atheist vote is already solidly in Democratic hands, and many of the Republican atheists are socially conservative enough not to want to go against established religion even if they don’t believe in God themselves. Where is this huge untapped reservoir of non-voting Democratic atheists only waiting for the HHS controversy to go vote Obama & the gang? On the contrary, the prospective of losing the Catholic vote is painfully real, and backed by the impressive fact of more than 55 millions voters. The idea of willingly cross them is, in my eyes, pure madness. Don’t believe me? Ask John Kerry.
5) The fallout on the Protestants is completely ignored. In fact, Santorum’s candidature is being propelled in decisive measure by protestant votes, and Protestants can be mobilised as well as atheists. Granted, they vote Republican in their majority already, but there is a lot of potential loss here anyway.
In conclusion, it seems to me Obama has, very simply, done something very stupid whose consequences he had not foreseen, and is now trapped by a controversy he allowed to go too far before noticing the quicksand was all around him. If you ask me, there is no “cunning plan” at all, and political analysts merely try to give, in retrospect, some sense to this senseless ideological entrenchment, initially started in the illusion it would not cause any big conflict, and no so difficult to get out of without loss of face. Exit without loss of face the Government has already attempted a couple of times, with the only result of making the choice between all out fall out or retreat more difficult.
But it’s a lose-lose for Obama. If he caves in he loses face, and if he doesn’t he loses desperately needed votes.
Six months of ferocious controversy on the HHS mandate, and good luck in Florida. I so hope Archbishop Dolan & Co. continue the fight to the end, and step up the tone in Summer.
The disgusting picture you see above is one of the photoshopped images used by Benetton, the crap sellers, to try to help a declining brand to escape oblivion with some “cool” scandal, like for example openly approving faggotry.
You would think that such disgusting exercise would be very pleasing to the liberal minds, never tired to stress out how “homophobic prejudice” continues to penalise countless ohh so sensitive perverts and make them a target for homophobic persecution or, to use a fashionable word, “bullying”. Who then, you certainly reason, should be more happy to be represented in such a “diverse” posture than the New Messiah, the Herald of Change, and enthusiastic supporter – as much as his role allows him to; at least until after the election – of so-called “gay rights”, Adolf Hussein Obama?
Isn’t it so, that an enthusiastic approval of the picture would earn him the immediate approval of all the “liberal minds” – even the heterosexual ones – of the United States? Isn’t it so, that with the economy set not to improve rapidly and a deficit to let the Italians look thrifty, Obama needs all the support he can get from those oh so mistreated minorities who see in him a beacon of hope and social – again – “change”? Can it be denied that a liberal mind like Obama cannot, cannot see anything wrong in a homosexual kiss, even if he happens to be straight? Aren’t liberal not all faggots at heart, and be it only in their own peculiar, oily, hypocritical “I would so like to be a faggot to know how it feels to be persecuted”-way?
Wrong, my friend. The White House is not amused. Not amused at all. Obviously they don’t say that dear Minority President doesn’t want to be identified, in any way whatsoever, with that minority; liberals have high standards of hypocrisy that must be maintained at all times. No, what they say is that they resent the use of the President for “commercial reasons”. Interesting. I seem to remember Nixon with the Coca-Cola bottle. Besides, the subject of the campaign is, in change-English, “unhate”. How can it be that the President of the United States overlooks the humanitarian sense of the campaign, to focus exclusively on the vile commercial interests, like a Republican would? What kind of mindset is this? What has happened to the promised “change”? Was the same virulent reaction caused by the (now passed) phenomenon of Barackvertising?
Take it from me: the President of the United States acts the liberal, but in reality he is a homophobic closet conservative.
Or, as they say in Italy, “everyone can be a homosexual with other people’s backside”…
P.s. one is curious about the reaction of the Chinese… should be fun for Benetton’s Chinese sales prospects…
I certainly do not need to give my US American readers any motivation to try to kick Mr. Golf-playing Hussein Obama out of the White House come November 2012, his ultra-abortionist, pro-perversion agenda being actually reason enough even if you happened to like his economic policy.
Still, you might be interested to know that one of the many flourishes of this goddamn administration is, in this probably most free of all countries, the extremisation of “sensitivity training” aimed at purifying you from every trace of Christianity the Obama administration may find in you.
The US Department of Agriculture started a “sensitivity training” aimed at purging the Christian elements in your formation leading you to think that homosexuality is a perversion. This not being stupid enough – and the liberals currently in power being utterly determined to wipe out the United States as a world power – the same treatment should now, if these nutcases get their way, be extended to the armed forces.
In a heroic, utterly Goebbelsian effort of re-shaping reality (hey: don’t these people love “change”?) you are explained that to consider, say, marriage as the union of a man and a woman is heterosexism. In case you’d say “so what?”, our Goebbelsian heroes are ready to explain to you that this word has been created to make you understand that…. it is bad. Like “racism”.
Don’t you love “change”….
Once again, it is clear that these oh so tolerant liberals are clearly bent on wiping out the Christian thinking from the country. If they were left to their own devices, a Christian would soon be seen as a Ku Klux Klan member, and treated accordingly.
I have said many times, and will repeat now, that the answer to such a mentality is not to react by showing how our sensitivity is the right one, but to assertively claim Christian values as the moral basis of Western civilisation.
There can be no middle way between being a Christian and being at the mercy of the nazi liberals. The history of the past decades clearly shows that there is no limit to the ground they will want to take, until Christian values have been completely wiped out.
This makes total sense, because perversions are from the devil, and the devil is not interested in tolerance, but in domination. You are “tolerant” and begin to make compromises with Catholic values, and within a couple of generations the Christian culture in your country will be fighting for survival.
The Christian resurgence (now clearly in action in the United States, and I might be wrong but I can’t remember so many pro-life potential candidates to the Presidency, whilst people like Santorum and Palin are, in a 10-12 years perspective, far more credible future Presidents than this would have been the case only fifteen years ago) must not stop at the defence from all-invading godless, pervert liberalism. It must reclaim the lost ground, and impose Christian values as the only metre of morality.
Bring back abortion ban, and sodomy laws. Throw same-sex abominations into the bin. There can be no half way.
Great people of the past knew that, and never would a St. Thomas Aquinas have suggested to you that there may be any long-term security for Christianity if you start to compromise on abortion, or on homosexuality. Those wise people knew that this kind of “tolerance” is the thin end of the wedge. You can’t be “tolerant” of Satan and tell him “come on, you can have the entrance hall and half of the ground floor corridor, if I get to keep the rest of the house”. It just doesn’t work that way.
If the newly invented concept of “heterosexism” doesn’t persuade you of this, I frankly do not know what could. And at this point, I really must use the title of a well-spread Corapi video:
Wake up, America.
Terry Jones doesn’t know me. Not that this is a very rare evenience, or a particularly disgraceful one. But in this case knowing me might perhaps (just perhaps) have had some advantage.
He might have called me, for example, and asked me what he should do. He would have probably told me that he is terrified, that this thing has gone completely out of control, he has everyone against him from Obama to the Pope to Sarah Palin and not even paramilitary groups have wanted to be at his ceremony.
Well, if he had called I would have said to him: “Don’t panic, old boy. You made a very clever move and showed to the entire planet the danger represented by Islamic fanaticism, a religion with a lot people ready to start massacres just because you burn books they consider holy”.
“Yes, Mundabor” he would have said “but I now really, really want to get out of this. What shall I do?”
“Very simple, Terry, old boy” I would have answered. “Put your nicest face and your nicest suit on, go in front of the cameras, say that you have already reached your objective of showing how dangerous Muslim fanaticism is. Say that you do not want the eruption of this senseless violence to be linked with your name and announce the end of the initiative without the burning of the Korans. Then send your best greetings to the boys in Afghanistan and go away with the notoriety, the point well made, your face and an intact reputation”.
This is what I would have told him. But you see, he didn’t call me. Not only because he doesn’t know me but because he is a Protestant. Which makes things a bit weird.
Therefore, he retired in prayer with his community, waiting for a “sign”. Which is strange, isn’t it? If you are waiting for a sign why do you announce the initiative in the first place? Was there no sign then? Has God changed His mind?
Then he and his small community (all terrified, one supposes) decide that the sign can be, in fact, pretty much everything… a phone call and he is out, God must have told him. The President would be best, but really, pretty much everyone big in Washington would seal the deal.. and one wonders what a phone call would then change wouldn’t one…. what kind of difference can a phone call conceivably make…..
But he doesn’t get any call (that I know of, but I think also that I do not know of) and suddenly God gives, in His mercy, another sign: if they renounce to the mosque near Ground zero (can’t remember hearing him complaining about that; it must be me) then he has a deal. And if they don’t renounce, well ok it is fine if they move it. And if they don’t move it, well it’s still fine, these things take time, provided that there is an agreement…
And so he announces that there is going to be no bonfire, because he has an agreement with some strange Imam (not the owner of the real estate, mind) that they are going not to build anymore, ahem, to build elsewhere, ahem, to discuss about building elsewhere…
In the meantime, it appears the owners of the project have given no assent whatsoever to stop or move the project at all and frankly, this would have been surprising…. so one wonders what signal has God sent to the chap, after all……
I wonder whether this man will not appear as a drunken idiot tomorrow, when with a bit of common sense and political antennae he could have been, for a day at least, the darling of the nation.
But then I reflect that he is a Protestant. He talks to God. Receives signs. Several a day. With multiple choices. I imagine (I cannot imagine anything else, besides substance abuse) that this kind of “God has sent us a sign at 4pm and another sign at 5pm, but we have gone for the 8:15pm sign which is not even there”-mentality does have followers. It seems drunken nonsense to us but hey: he is the professional; he earns his livelihood out of that small community; he must know….. perhaps he just couldn’t have done purely what is most reasonable; perhaps he is supposed to be inspired….
Well, the entire matter has ended with a big laugh instead of violence. I still think that the message was brilliant and that it has been understood by most people. But this kind of disordered desperate search for the emergency exit and this idea of the broadband connection to Heaven will, I am afraid, gravely damage his credibility and the impact of the entire story.
Bonfires are best left to the Dominicans.
Absolutely beautiful video posted on the Creative Minority Report website.
Its importance is more than merely “local” (referred to the Mid-Term Election in November) and extend to the attitude every Catholic should have when he approaches the ballot box. The separation of Christian values and voting decisions has brought the West to the point we are today and the pendulum must now start to swing in the other direction. It is will be a slow process, but in time it will take momentum and will give us in the West more Christian societies.
Even if you don’t live in the US, please spread the word and forward this video.