It seems the New Investiture Controversy is going to get settled.
With extreme prejudice.
The Bishop of Linz has been summoned to Rome to explain himself.
Word is, Pope Benedict is handling the matter personally.
Here's the burning question: will the bishop have to cut his own wood switch, or will Benedict have a drilled paddle waiting for him?
Hot times in the old town tonight!
UPDATE:
Catholic Culture reports that Rome has folded.
Bishop-Elect Wagner's resignation has been accepted.
This is a sad time for the Church...
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
New Use for the New York Times
Will wonders never cease?
Many people have eschewed subscribing to the New York Times because they can't stand the liberal bias.
In an effort to prop up its sales, the New York Times delicately hints that there are excellent reasons to continue to subscribe to its print edition.
In short, it replaces the Sears Catalogue.
Many people have eschewed subscribing to the New York Times because they can't stand the liberal bias.
In an effort to prop up its sales, the New York Times delicately hints that there are excellent reasons to continue to subscribe to its print edition.
In short, it replaces the Sears Catalogue.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Flying the Byrd
Democrat Senator Robert Byrd has begun to criticize Barack Obama because he sees Obama making a naked grab for power.
When even his own party begins to voice concerns, there is reason to be interested.
I've said several times and in several ways that Barack Obama is the most dangerous man American Catholics have ever had to face.
For his own reasons, Senator Byrd apparently does not entirely disagree.
When even his own party begins to voice concerns, there is reason to be interested.
I've said several times and in several ways that Barack Obama is the most dangerous man American Catholics have ever had to face.
For his own reasons, Senator Byrd apparently does not entirely disagree.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Calling a Chimp a Chimp
I don't understand this one.
I thought Harry Reid and Senator Pelosi wrote the stimulus bill?
The only part that Barack Obama wrote was his signature in the "Sign Here (X)" box.
So, how is shooting a chimp and saying we'll need to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill a racist statement against Barack Obama?
Can we no longer tell the joke about a thousand chimps on a thousand typewriters?
The Democrats really ARE jackasses.
I thought Harry Reid and Senator Pelosi wrote the stimulus bill?
The only part that Barack Obama wrote was his signature in the "Sign Here (X)" box.
So, how is shooting a chimp and saying we'll need to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill a racist statement against Barack Obama?
Can we no longer tell the joke about a thousand chimps on a thousand typewriters?
The Democrats really ARE jackasses.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
The New Investiture Controversy
A few days ago, a lowly priest in Austria was named bishop-elect. The Austrian bishops' conference almost immediately went berserk, holding a special meeting to question his appointment.
Why?
Well, (pace Mark Shea), Bishop-Elect Wagner is of the opinion that sin has consequences.
Specifically, he said that Hurricane Katrina was divine punishment for the homosexual sex clubs and the abortion clinics that were scattered throughout New Orleans. He had the unmitigated audacity to point out that every one of those clubs and clinics were destroyed by that same hurricane.
Worse, the man actually forbad altar girls. He called Harry Potter books "satanic".
It's CRAZY talk, I tell ya'...
For these sins, and for many more, the Holy See has seen fit to elevate this man to the bishopric!
Cardinal Shoenborn defended him, but that wasn't good enough.
The Austrian bishops kept screaming.
The poor man, being crucified by his soon-to-be fellow bishops, tendered his resignation to Rome.
But Rome is not so easily swayed.
In the earliest years of the Church, the community of Christians often made known who they would like for their next bishop by popular acclamation, and Rome often recognized the worth of their recommendations, elevating the person to the bishopric. That's how St. Ambrose, a catechumen at the time of his appointment, got baptized, confirmed, received first Eucharist, then was ordained deacon, priest and bishop all in the space of a couple of days.
Everyone knew he was holy.
But as time went on and Christian communities became less intimate, less knowledgeable about their own members, this practice faded away.
For a time, kings and princes, heads of state, recommended bishops for various sees within their kingdoms. For her own reasons, Rome often chose to recognize and elevate these men. Numerous bishops, including more than one bishop of Rome, was elected, or not elected, due to the influence of the head of a secular state. Indeed, the last state to exercise this kind of influence was Austria, in 1903, blocked the almost certain election of Cardinal Rampolla. In response, Cardinal Sarto, the man elected Pope in his place, became Pius X and stripped that veto power away.
That was the last gasp of what was known as the Investiture Controversy - who is permitted to decide which man may be invested with the office of bishop?
Now, the Austrian bishops seem intent on reviving the Investiture Controversy, intent on forcing Rome to bow to the desires of local bishops' conferences.
Who has the power to appoint?
Rome?
Or a bunch of none-too-orthodox bishops?
Combine this controversy with a second: what will be done to Nancy Pelosi, now that she is twice confirmed a heretic, by her own bishop and by the Bishop of Rome?
And a third: a cardinal who deliberately offers disrespect to the head of the Apostolic Signatura, the pope's own, his hand-picked canon lawyer?
Rome is under siege.
Or, rather, the gates of hell are under siege, and open battle has been joined.
I know which way I'm betting.
Why?
Well, (pace Mark Shea), Bishop-Elect Wagner is of the opinion that sin has consequences.
Specifically, he said that Hurricane Katrina was divine punishment for the homosexual sex clubs and the abortion clinics that were scattered throughout New Orleans. He had the unmitigated audacity to point out that every one of those clubs and clinics were destroyed by that same hurricane.
Worse, the man actually forbad altar girls. He called Harry Potter books "satanic".
It's CRAZY talk, I tell ya'...
For these sins, and for many more, the Holy See has seen fit to elevate this man to the bishopric!
Cardinal Shoenborn defended him, but that wasn't good enough.
The Austrian bishops kept screaming.
The poor man, being crucified by his soon-to-be fellow bishops, tendered his resignation to Rome.
But Rome is not so easily swayed.
In the earliest years of the Church, the community of Christians often made known who they would like for their next bishop by popular acclamation, and Rome often recognized the worth of their recommendations, elevating the person to the bishopric. That's how St. Ambrose, a catechumen at the time of his appointment, got baptized, confirmed, received first Eucharist, then was ordained deacon, priest and bishop all in the space of a couple of days.
Everyone knew he was holy.
But as time went on and Christian communities became less intimate, less knowledgeable about their own members, this practice faded away.
For a time, kings and princes, heads of state, recommended bishops for various sees within their kingdoms. For her own reasons, Rome often chose to recognize and elevate these men. Numerous bishops, including more than one bishop of Rome, was elected, or not elected, due to the influence of the head of a secular state. Indeed, the last state to exercise this kind of influence was Austria, in 1903, blocked the almost certain election of Cardinal Rampolla. In response, Cardinal Sarto, the man elected Pope in his place, became Pius X and stripped that veto power away.
That was the last gasp of what was known as the Investiture Controversy - who is permitted to decide which man may be invested with the office of bishop?
Now, the Austrian bishops seem intent on reviving the Investiture Controversy, intent on forcing Rome to bow to the desires of local bishops' conferences.
Who has the power to appoint?
Rome?
Or a bunch of none-too-orthodox bishops?
Combine this controversy with a second: what will be done to Nancy Pelosi, now that she is twice confirmed a heretic, by her own bishop and by the Bishop of Rome?
And a third: a cardinal who deliberately offers disrespect to the head of the Apostolic Signatura, the pope's own, his hand-picked canon lawyer?
Rome is under siege.
Or, rather, the gates of hell are under siege, and open battle has been joined.
I know which way I'm betting.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
What's the Game Plan?
Senator Diane Feinstein just gave away the location of the Predator strikes upon Pakistani terrorists, letting the world know that the Pakistani government is permitting those raids from a base within the country's own borders.
This information was never leaked in such a brazenly public manner during the Bush administration, but it happens within the first month of Barrack Hussein Obama's administration.
Sure, it could have been a slip of the tongue.
But it's remarkable that such slips never happened prior to this.
It seems much more likely that Feinstein intentionally released the information in order to humiliate and destabilize the Pakistani government or some similar reason.
Obama has publicly courted the Muslims.
He has already deliberately snubbed the British.
He seems to be trying to completely alter the alignment of the United States towards the Muslims and away from our traditional allies.
This is a dangerous and deadly game.
Even assuming Barack Hussein Obama's government is so disorganized that this impression is merely based on coincidence and not plan (if true, it is a staggering statement about his incompetence), this cannot continue.
UPDATE:
Finally, someone who understands Obama...
Update II:
Within hours of Feinstein's remarks, Pakistan enshrined sharia law in its own northern provinces, in order to make the Taliban happy. Coincidence?
Update III:
The latest on how Obama is selling out Israel
Update IV:
The Israelis are publicly saying that Obama's rhetoric contributes to Iran's nuclear power.
This information was never leaked in such a brazenly public manner during the Bush administration, but it happens within the first month of Barrack Hussein Obama's administration.
Sure, it could have been a slip of the tongue.
But it's remarkable that such slips never happened prior to this.
It seems much more likely that Feinstein intentionally released the information in order to humiliate and destabilize the Pakistani government or some similar reason.
Obama has publicly courted the Muslims.
He has already deliberately snubbed the British.
He seems to be trying to completely alter the alignment of the United States towards the Muslims and away from our traditional allies.
This is a dangerous and deadly game.
Even assuming Barack Hussein Obama's government is so disorganized that this impression is merely based on coincidence and not plan (if true, it is a staggering statement about his incompetence), this cannot continue.
UPDATE:
Finally, someone who understands Obama...
Update II:
Within hours of Feinstein's remarks, Pakistan enshrined sharia law in its own northern provinces, in order to make the Taliban happy. Coincidence?
Update III:
The latest on how Obama is selling out Israel
Update IV:
The Israelis are publicly saying that Obama's rhetoric contributes to Iran's nuclear power.
Open For Business
Since 1991, I have been pointing out that legal abortion eventually requires legal murder of the elderly, the infirm, the "useless eaters" of society.
With the package of the stimulus bill, the death camps have now been opened.
Now, according to the law, when we become a burden on the state, we have a duty to die.
Any doctor that refuses to kill off such a patient will be brutally penalized.
Catholics can no longer be health care workers.
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, all the great murderers of history, now stand in awe of the coming deluge: Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrats have your medical files (or soon will) and they'll see to it that you die.
We have sown the wind, now we will reap the whirlwind.
With the package of the stimulus bill, the death camps have now been opened.
Now, according to the law, when we become a burden on the state, we have a duty to die.
Any doctor that refuses to kill off such a patient will be brutally penalized.
Catholics can no longer be health care workers.
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, all the great murderers of history, now stand in awe of the coming deluge: Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrats have your medical files (or soon will) and they'll see to it that you die.
We have sown the wind, now we will reap the whirlwind.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Explaining Liberals
As most talk radio listeners now know, the only liberal talk radio station in Washington DC, Obama 1260, is folding its liberal talk format. Why? Because the listening audience was "undetectable."
This was in WASHINGTON D.C.
You know, the city that voted 93% in favor of Barack Obama.
It's the most liberal population in the nation, in a town run by the largest Democrat contingent in the nation's history, and it can't keep it's own liberal talk radio show alive because no one will listen to it.
Why does liberal talk radio always fail?
Simple.
Liberals are too arrogant to listen to anyone's opinion but their own.
You can't tell a liberal anything.
Talk radio only works when the people on both sides of the microphone are actually willing to listen to one another. You have to have an open mind to be a conservative. You have to be an immature, close-minded bigot to be a liberal. Liberals aren't interested in conversations, they are interested in being able to say, "I won. So we'll do it my way."
But why do liberals hate business?
Because they're no damned good at it.
In order to be good at business, you have to listen to the customer, change your business to match the customer's desires. Liberals aren't about matching desires, they're about imposing worldviews.
Furthermore, liberals are racist and they are anti-Semites.
They hate blacks. Democrats invented the KKK, Jim Crow, segregation, lynching and did their best to stop integration. What other party has had a Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in the Congress?
They also hate Jews. They supported Yassir Arafat, they support Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palistinians, and any other Jew-hater they can find. FDR turned tens of thousands of Jews away from American shores before and during WWII because he didn't want them in this country.
Since a lot of very successful businesses are run by Jews, this also gives liberal Democrats yet another reason to hate businesses.
Why are so many Jews liberals?
Because Jews have enormous respect for learning and for learned people.
Now, liberal Democrats are actually close-minded, relatively stupid people, but anti-Semitic, racist liberal Democrats have had enormous control over the universities of this country since at least the early 1900's. Thus, liberal Democrats have the appearance of being learned.
Consequently, their opinions have garnered the support of the Jewish population even when their opinion was actively hurtful to that same Jewish population.
And now the country is run by these anti-Semitic racists.
Sigh...
This was in WASHINGTON D.C.
You know, the city that voted 93% in favor of Barack Obama.
It's the most liberal population in the nation, in a town run by the largest Democrat contingent in the nation's history, and it can't keep it's own liberal talk radio show alive because no one will listen to it.
Why does liberal talk radio always fail?
Simple.
Liberals are too arrogant to listen to anyone's opinion but their own.
You can't tell a liberal anything.
Talk radio only works when the people on both sides of the microphone are actually willing to listen to one another. You have to have an open mind to be a conservative. You have to be an immature, close-minded bigot to be a liberal. Liberals aren't interested in conversations, they are interested in being able to say, "I won. So we'll do it my way."
But why do liberals hate business?
Because they're no damned good at it.
In order to be good at business, you have to listen to the customer, change your business to match the customer's desires. Liberals aren't about matching desires, they're about imposing worldviews.
Furthermore, liberals are racist and they are anti-Semites.
They hate blacks. Democrats invented the KKK, Jim Crow, segregation, lynching and did their best to stop integration. What other party has had a Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in the Congress?
They also hate Jews. They supported Yassir Arafat, they support Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palistinians, and any other Jew-hater they can find. FDR turned tens of thousands of Jews away from American shores before and during WWII because he didn't want them in this country.
Since a lot of very successful businesses are run by Jews, this also gives liberal Democrats yet another reason to hate businesses.
Why are so many Jews liberals?
Because Jews have enormous respect for learning and for learned people.
Now, liberal Democrats are actually close-minded, relatively stupid people, but anti-Semitic, racist liberal Democrats have had enormous control over the universities of this country since at least the early 1900's. Thus, liberal Democrats have the appearance of being learned.
Consequently, their opinions have garnered the support of the Jewish population even when their opinion was actively hurtful to that same Jewish population.
And now the country is run by these anti-Semitic racists.
Sigh...
Why Were Children Killed?
Question: Last night I watched the story of David. My heart was concerned and upset that during the story line, God, through the prophet Samuel told Saul to kill the Amelikites, children, women and men. Why? Especially children.
Answer: It may help to read Exodus 17 in addition to 1 Samuel 15.
In Ex 17:8-15, the Amelkites waged war on Moses and the Chosen People while they were in the desert.
Pay very close attention to how the Chosen People win the battle.
Moses stood at the top of a hill - whenever his arms were raised (think of Jesus with his hands outstretched on the cross), things went well for the Israelites.
When his hands lowered (he stopped imitating the crucified Christ), things went badly.
Ultimately, Moses sat down on a rock and had a man on each side to hold up his arms.
Now, read the Exodus passage again, using typology.
Sin (the Amelkites) wages war on the members of the Church (the Chosen People).
Through the intervention of the crucified Christ (Moses with arms outstretched, a man on each side, as Christ had a man crucified on each side of him), and the Church/Peter (the rock upon which Moses sat), sin is conquered.
God then promises to wipe out all memory of sin (the Amelkites).
For this reason, Christ made a sacrifice of Himself (Moses built an altar).
So, in 1 Sam 15, the wiping out of the Amelkites by the King of the Chosen People, Saul, is like unto the wiping out of the Egyptian army by the flood of the Red Sea. The latter destruction has always been seen as a prefigurement of baptism.
In both cases, God is trying to tell us how He will destroy sin and restore mankind.
With the Egyptians, He shows that He does this through baptism.
Here, He shows that it is accomplished through His Kingship, and our willingness to become like the crucified Christ.
Keep in mind that the deaths of the Amelkites does not mean that any of THEM necessarily go to hell.
Loss of the body is not so serious as loss of the soul.
But the wiping out of these people is a foreshadowing of the wiping out of sin, the conquering of the devil and his minions.
As Paul said in Corinthians, "these things were written down for our instruction, upon whom the end of the ages has come."
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Is Eight Enough?
Several people have asked me to comment on the octuplets situation.
How is a Catholic to react to the news that a single mother has 14 children by in vitro fertilization, is on welfare and must be supported by the US taxpayer?
That's easy.
Take the issues one at a time.
A) Single motherhood.
Single motherhood is a sin if entered into with consent (rape is, of course, a different situation). She had no business being a single mother, which is an offense against the children on several levels.
First, it increases their physical danger. As Ann Coulter has definitively documented, single motherhood is the single best predictor of substance abuse, low school achievement and probability of imprisonment among the children they failed to raise.
Second, and worse, it is a sin against the children, who deserved to be conceived in the normal way by two parents who are bound by promises of life-long service to each other.
B) Through IVF
IVF is an even greater sin against the children than single motherhood.
Not only is IVF associated with a much higher risk of fetal deformity and later physical disability, it is also a sin against the child conceived in this way. A child has a right to be embraced within his mother's body from the first moment of existence, she should not be treated like an implantable ice cube simply because the mother finds this the most convenient way to conceive her.
C) 14 Children
praise God for big families! There's nothing wrong with having fourteen children. Indeed, in this day and age, it might be considered an heroic virtue. Saint Catherine of Sienna was the 23rd child in her family - large families can produce wonderful vocations. But that's assuming that the woman's motivations are relatively pure.
The fact that she was advised to abort several of the children and steadfastly refused to do so demonstrates that she has her head on straight to at least some degree. The fact that she used IVF as a single mother demonstrates that she does not have her head on straight. So good Catholics can come down on either side on this part.
D) On welfare
Society has a duty to protect the weak. The woman has a right to sustenance to care for her children. Indeed, to the extent that I have resources and refuse to share them with someone in need, I have stolen from the poor. St. John Chrysostom has several homilies that revolve around this theme: if you have six pairs of shoes in your closet and regularly use only one or two pairs, the other four pairs are stolen from the poor.
It is not a sin to be poor. It is not a sin to receive charity.
Furthermore, if the United States government can give subsidies to farmers to grow rice, wheat and mohair, then certainly the government can subsidize or otherwise financially assist parents raising the nation's children. It's not at all clear to me how paying to feeding a child's mind through public school is any different from feeding a child's belly through welfare, food stamps, WIC, and the like. Public schools are just as much welfare as giving them Wheaties is.
E) Supported by the US Taxpayer
On the other hand, it is a sin to extort money out of someone. We should be given the opportunity to be charitable, not be forced into it. By forcing the taxpayer to contribute money, the principle of subsidiarity is violated. Subsidiarity dictates that a higher authority should not interfere in the operation of a lower authority. The federal and state governments have no right to take money from the taxpayer in order to fund this.
Welfare should come from the grace-endowed goodness of individual taxpayers who choose to assist others. The right to private property must be respected. The government has every right to strenuously entreat people to help their fellow poor citizens, but I don't see where it has the right to extort money for the poor from them.
Certain people are always on about how you shouldn't give a man a fish, you should teach him to fish. Well and good. So don't take a man's money, give a man a chance to learn to give money on his own. Shame him into it, if you like, but don't take it from him. It's his resource, given to him by God, and he's responsible for it. If a government functionary takes it, then that functionary becomes morally responsible if it gets wasted. Who wants to be in THAT position?
How is a Catholic to react to the news that a single mother has 14 children by in vitro fertilization, is on welfare and must be supported by the US taxpayer?
That's easy.
Take the issues one at a time.
A) Single motherhood.
Single motherhood is a sin if entered into with consent (rape is, of course, a different situation). She had no business being a single mother, which is an offense against the children on several levels.
First, it increases their physical danger. As Ann Coulter has definitively documented, single motherhood is the single best predictor of substance abuse, low school achievement and probability of imprisonment among the children they failed to raise.
Second, and worse, it is a sin against the children, who deserved to be conceived in the normal way by two parents who are bound by promises of life-long service to each other.
B) Through IVF
IVF is an even greater sin against the children than single motherhood.
Not only is IVF associated with a much higher risk of fetal deformity and later physical disability, it is also a sin against the child conceived in this way. A child has a right to be embraced within his mother's body from the first moment of existence, she should not be treated like an implantable ice cube simply because the mother finds this the most convenient way to conceive her.
C) 14 Children
praise God for big families! There's nothing wrong with having fourteen children. Indeed, in this day and age, it might be considered an heroic virtue. Saint Catherine of Sienna was the 23rd child in her family - large families can produce wonderful vocations. But that's assuming that the woman's motivations are relatively pure.
The fact that she was advised to abort several of the children and steadfastly refused to do so demonstrates that she has her head on straight to at least some degree. The fact that she used IVF as a single mother demonstrates that she does not have her head on straight. So good Catholics can come down on either side on this part.
D) On welfare
Society has a duty to protect the weak. The woman has a right to sustenance to care for her children. Indeed, to the extent that I have resources and refuse to share them with someone in need, I have stolen from the poor. St. John Chrysostom has several homilies that revolve around this theme: if you have six pairs of shoes in your closet and regularly use only one or two pairs, the other four pairs are stolen from the poor.
It is not a sin to be poor. It is not a sin to receive charity.
Furthermore, if the United States government can give subsidies to farmers to grow rice, wheat and mohair, then certainly the government can subsidize or otherwise financially assist parents raising the nation's children. It's not at all clear to me how paying to feeding a child's mind through public school is any different from feeding a child's belly through welfare, food stamps, WIC, and the like. Public schools are just as much welfare as giving them Wheaties is.
E) Supported by the US Taxpayer
On the other hand, it is a sin to extort money out of someone. We should be given the opportunity to be charitable, not be forced into it. By forcing the taxpayer to contribute money, the principle of subsidiarity is violated. Subsidiarity dictates that a higher authority should not interfere in the operation of a lower authority. The federal and state governments have no right to take money from the taxpayer in order to fund this.
Welfare should come from the grace-endowed goodness of individual taxpayers who choose to assist others. The right to private property must be respected. The government has every right to strenuously entreat people to help their fellow poor citizens, but I don't see where it has the right to extort money for the poor from them.
Certain people are always on about how you shouldn't give a man a fish, you should teach him to fish. Well and good. So don't take a man's money, give a man a chance to learn to give money on his own. Shame him into it, if you like, but don't take it from him. It's his resource, given to him by God, and he's responsible for it. If a government functionary takes it, then that functionary becomes morally responsible if it gets wasted. Who wants to be in THAT position?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
George Orwell's Boy
Now here's a thought...
I've long argued that Barack Obama has no particular reason to improve the economy. FDR managed to maintain a four-term presidency with unemployment rates that never dropped below 15% largely through a combination of slick talk and immense amounts of pork poured into Democrat districts.
People quickly discovered that handouts only went to registered Democrats, so FDR bought them, lock, stock and barrel.
When things started looking dicey, he made sure we got involved in a war in Europe, knowing that Americans have never changed horses in mid-stream. No matter how good or bad a presidency, if America is in the middle of a serious war, the president typically doesn't get voted out of office. Many cynics argued that the Bush invasions were built on this principle.
So, what if Obama is actually interested in having a full-blown war between Muslims and the United States? What if he intends to weaken the United States because it will bear him political fruit down the road?
After all, it's the basic reason that Britain has welcomed and coddled violent Islam: Muslims are cheap votes for the ruling party. It's the basic reason that illegal immigration has been encouraged in the United States: Republicans like the cheap labor, Democrats like the cheap votes.
So, if Barack sees an advantage to being president during a war, what's to stop him from fomenting a long, long war with, say, EastAsia, excuse me, I mean, Islam?
George Orwell, call your office...
I've long argued that Barack Obama has no particular reason to improve the economy. FDR managed to maintain a four-term presidency with unemployment rates that never dropped below 15% largely through a combination of slick talk and immense amounts of pork poured into Democrat districts.
People quickly discovered that handouts only went to registered Democrats, so FDR bought them, lock, stock and barrel.
When things started looking dicey, he made sure we got involved in a war in Europe, knowing that Americans have never changed horses in mid-stream. No matter how good or bad a presidency, if America is in the middle of a serious war, the president typically doesn't get voted out of office. Many cynics argued that the Bush invasions were built on this principle.
So, what if Obama is actually interested in having a full-blown war between Muslims and the United States? What if he intends to weaken the United States because it will bear him political fruit down the road?
After all, it's the basic reason that Britain has welcomed and coddled violent Islam: Muslims are cheap votes for the ruling party. It's the basic reason that illegal immigration has been encouraged in the United States: Republicans like the cheap labor, Democrats like the cheap votes.
So, if Barack sees an advantage to being president during a war, what's to stop him from fomenting a long, long war with, say, EastAsia, excuse me, I mean, Islam?
George Orwell, call your office...
I'm a Prophet
Back in the days immediately before of the first Gulf War, a pundit prophecied that the US was going to invade Iraq. His argument? The number of aircraft carriers in the vicinity.
One carrier is showing the flag.
Two carriers is a strong warning.
Three carriers is an invasion.
We had five carriers in the area.
The conclusion was straightforward.
Within three months, his prediction had been vindicated.
Back when Barack Obama was still battling Hillary Clinton for the nomination, I predicted Barack would win, and I pointed out that he was a much more dangerous person than Hillary. I lived in Illinois when he was a state legislator and I saw how he ran his US Senate race. At that time, anyone who observed his style for more than twenty minutes could see that he was a vicious, lying snake, a glib, poisonous serpent, an evil man who used other people like blocks of wood, blocks he willingly stepped on in order to advance his career. In short, he was one of the finest Chicago politicians Mayor Daley's machine ever produced.
Since then, I have been sounding the alarm about what his socialism means for the weakest among us. As recently as January 21, I pointed out that, if he was really serious, then killing old people was an economic necessity. Indeed, I have been predicting nationalized euthanasia was coming since at least 1991.
Now we find out that the stimulus package will nationalize health care, changing the standard of care from "safe and effective" to "cost-effective."
I'd say there were three carriers in the Gulf right now.
One carrier is showing the flag.
Two carriers is a strong warning.
Three carriers is an invasion.
We had five carriers in the area.
The conclusion was straightforward.
Within three months, his prediction had been vindicated.
Back when Barack Obama was still battling Hillary Clinton for the nomination, I predicted Barack would win, and I pointed out that he was a much more dangerous person than Hillary. I lived in Illinois when he was a state legislator and I saw how he ran his US Senate race. At that time, anyone who observed his style for more than twenty minutes could see that he was a vicious, lying snake, a glib, poisonous serpent, an evil man who used other people like blocks of wood, blocks he willingly stepped on in order to advance his career. In short, he was one of the finest Chicago politicians Mayor Daley's machine ever produced.
Since then, I have been sounding the alarm about what his socialism means for the weakest among us. As recently as January 21, I pointed out that, if he was really serious, then killing old people was an economic necessity. Indeed, I have been predicting nationalized euthanasia was coming since at least 1991.
Now we find out that the stimulus package will nationalize health care, changing the standard of care from "safe and effective" to "cost-effective."
I'd say there were three carriers in the Gulf right now.