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.
More examples in the last days showing the indescribable stupidity of liberals.
The first one is a mother whose young son – only four years old, poor child – tells her that he wants a tutu. Promptly the mother seizes the moment, writes a book with the telling title my princess boy – a contradiction in terms of course, but liberals don’t let logical absurdities come in the way of their ideology – and embarks in a, no doubt, remunerative and sales-promoting tour with the poor child, explaining to all of us how bigoted we are. Chances are that this boy will, notwithstanding his perverted and exploiting mother, still grow up to be a healthy adult male utterly ashamed of his embarrassing mother (if you have seen the film “Laurel Canyon”, Christian Bale gives a very good portrait of such an adult); but make no mistake, mommy will do all she can to make of her son a pervert, because she now has an emotional investment – and a financial interest – in it.
The next level of parental perversion is shown by a Canadian couple (remember: Canada is a country able to put a Catholic bishop in front of a human rights tribunal because he’s Catholic) who, now expecting a child and not wanting to wait a couple of years before starting the perversion work, knows whether it will be a boy or a girl but doesn’t say to anyone, in order to stress that the child should be able to select his “gender” of choice. No you idiots, he won’t. Note that these parents already have two young boys going around dressed as girls. God bless all three of them, poor children.
No amount of liberal madness can ever justify playing with one’s children’s lives to satisfy one’s ideological stance. These people are seriously threatening the future of their children, either giving a substantial contribution to them growing up with sexual perversions (remember: God doesn’t do perversion; humans do!) or saddling them with a huge amount of confusion and uncertainty which will not be easy to throw away as they grow up; particularly considering that in this case perversion is not even seen with a kind of resigned detachment, but clearly encouraged and provided with parental approval. Which, by the way, is another very strong argument (if such were needed) against adoption by perverts.
Private Baldrick was never so right.