 |
| Eating a raw seal for lunch should have been another tipoff. |
Oh, we got the gist: some genuinely nice sentiments, some unrealistic policy recommendations, a little specious science here and there, and a nice dollop of actual moral conviction (which is always welcome in Washington, if only for its rarity).
Lawmakers gave smatterings of cautious applause whenever their personal oxen weren't being gored by a Papal bull (the Republicans got lectured about their heartless stance on immigration, while the Dems got some finger-waggling about unlimited abortion and threats to traditional marriage).
Sitting directly behind the Pope, Joe "At Least I'm Not Hillary" Biden nodded seriously and tried to look presidential while John Boehner wept like a baby and dabbed away tears which were stained orange by his spray-on tan.
While Hope n' Change doesn't agree with all of the Pope's policies and pronouncements, we still think it was worthwhile to have him speak.
After all, how refreshing is it to hear from a man of the cloth rather than politicians whose pronouncements are rendered from whole cloth?
BREAKING NEWS: BOEHNER RESIGNING! HONEST!
Maybe we were on to something when mentioning John Boehner's streaky tears. He's just announced that he's resigning from the House Speakership and Congress, effective the end of next month.
 |
| The secret to not crying in public? Botox - and plenty of it. |
The latest poll shows Francis and Joe in a dead heat on number of prepubescent girls kissed.
ReplyDeleteThe Pope is an authority on matters of faith, and in the case of this particular Pontiff, that's about all he's got as far as I'm concerned. Politically, he's a Peronism socialist. Economically, he's Marxist. He is the Pope because something completely different was wanted at the time (hope n' change mentality of the day). The left thought they had a guy who would endorse gay marriage and soften the church stance on abortion, but they were wrong. Those are matters of doctrine and faith within the Church and not something a pope can simply abrogate.
ReplyDeleteFull disclosure: I’m Catholic, and I’m not a homophobe (another made-up non-thing). This is an argument about what marriage is. As far as the whole benefit thing is concerned, I am against the government recognizing marriage in any form: marriage is a matter for the church. Governments should decide and recognize “domestic partnerships” for tax and inheritance purposes instead, and the whole marriage debate evaporates. Where is the left screaming for the government to get out of the marriage business (separation of church and state and all that jazz).
Words matter, and too many have been coopted by the left and have lost their actual meaning. Words like gay, choice, patriot, safety net, and a host of others are soon to be joined by the word marriage? Here’s a thought. If the union of a man and a man is marriage, then the union of water and water is tea, right?
As to abortion, it is murder not “choice” and it is to the great shame of our nation that it is a thriving industry here.
Isaiah 5:20 King James Version (KJV)
ReplyDelete20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Jude 1:18
"In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires."
With his positions on abortion, marriage, climate change, and immigration, I feel this pope is more of a political puppet for the globalists than a bastion of Christian values. Judge Napolitano also has misgivings about the pontiff:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/09/24/false-prophet-why-pope-francis-has-disappointed-many-roman-catholics.html
While telling congress we should welcome all "immigrants", the Vatican maintains the strictest immigration policies on the planet. No hypocrisy there...
@Chuck Baker: You are right about the government getting out of the marriage debate. Actually, I favor doing it the way it is done in Mexico. Neither the Church nor the Government recognizes each other's "marriages". So, devout church members have two ceremonies. We should do the same. Go to the county clerk's office and pick up a partnership form. Fill it out and file it on the spot, then the government has the info it needs for legal purposes. Marriage is not even a term used. Period. If a couple get married, it does not take the place of the partnership form for the government to act in legal matters. If people want to get married, that is their own business, but no government official has the right to perform any marriages. Couples do NOT have the right to go to the government whining that "those nasty homophobes won't marry us." None of the government's business. Churches have the right to recognize, or not, the partnership agreement for internal church business. Period.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it curious that the supposed "leader of Christianity" conducted a speech that was NOT opened in prayer, and didn't contain the words "God" or "Jesus", but DID mention the climate, as one would expect from worshipers of the "Gaia Principle".
ReplyDeleteYea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteOK Jarlsberg - your plot work - this time. Now get that damn Pelosi b1tch to resign! Work on it!
And many thanks. Praise be to whomever.
Boehner resigns. obama leaves office in 2017. Guess what, folks?
ReplyDeleteAin't nothin' gonna change.
New clowns, same old circus...
It's quite a superficial love affair the left is having with this Pope. I find it hard to take the relationship particularly seriously considering how generally ignorant most of the left is about religion and people of faith, and how the left picks and chooses the things Pope Francis that correlate to their agenda, and then totally disregards the rest. Religion doesn't work that way. This is how Marxists use the "useful idiots" who feed on the "opiate of the masses" instead of sharing any faith.
ReplyDeleteBoehner: I'm shedding no tears.
Christianity, the state, and marriage: I am a Christian, so the following might surprise some of you, but I'm going to disagree with a lot of my fellow Christians here.
"Marriage" as we recognize it in the west (at least until a few months ago) is more a construct of the state than it is of Christianity. Christ himself said very little about marriage, other than his condemnation of divorce. The reality was that in Christ's time, polygamy was the standard. In fact, the verses in Leviticus that the anti-gay Christians usually quite to condemn homosexuality also recognize polygamy. And yet, Christians (outside of fundamentalist Mormonism anyway) reject polygamy. I think many Christians are as wrong about picking and choosing what they like out of Leviticus as the left is about picking and choosing what they like about what Pope Francis says.
In reality, the one-man-one-woman view of marriage was in fact a social construct settled upon in the western world to engender social stability, which is of vital importance to the stability of the state. Mainstream Christianity went along with this for the very same reasons. But there is little scriptural reinforcement for this. It just worked better socially.
Back to the Pope and Immigration: The left and the media are making great hay about the Pope's comments on "immigration". "Open the floodgates" so they infer.
ReplyDeleteOne of my biggest problems with elitist Progressives is that they have the resources to segregate themselves from most of the problems that they impose upon the rest of us with smug moral authority. They live in gated communities or doorman buildings. They send their kids to private schools. To most of them, mass immigration of desperate low-skilled workers means cheap labor either in their factories or their homes. Living with the negative consequences, like crime, depressed wages, inundated public schools and issues of non-assimilation are not problems they have to live with.
So possibly through divine intervention, this idea hit me yesterday: Millions of American children are stuck in shamefully mediocre schools while the children of the more affluent and elite get to attend decent schools. Think of these schools as "countries", both "rich" and "poor". What I would like to see are the poor kids stuck in Washington DC's worst schools to simply show up at more desirable schools, like the Sidwell Friends School or any of the Archdiocese of Washington schools and simply "immigrate" there. I think that any of these "dreamer" children who wants to go to any of these better schools should be permitted to do so, regardless of their legal or economic status.
Naturally, the Progressive administrators of these schools will call law enforcement and will have these "invaders" arrested for "trespassing", and will insist that the law be enforced, the children evicted and arrested. They might also insist upon action being taken against their parents as well for encouraging and enabling the trespassing. The parents of the children attending these elite schools will insist the same. They'll lament about the questionable health and hygiene of the "dreamer" kids, as well as the negative social influence they may have upon their precious children. They'll be horrified, and wonder how this was allowed to happen, and will demand action against it.
Interesting and hypocritical, don't you think? I'd love to see this happen. If we're going to eliminate the borders, let's eliminate all of them, or at least make the people not doing so look like hypocritical jerks.
@John the Econ - re: poor kids going to 'elite' schools. That's currently playing out in New York. The affluent liberals are reacting as you might expect - with shock and horror that what they advocate for others has turned up to bite them in their own ass..
ReplyDeleteChuck Baker - I've been saying that about marriage for YEARS.
ReplyDeleteState issues DP contracts to all (and no, I do not remotely care about hetero / homo / poly / what ever. Everyone gets the same paper, conferring the same legal rights) Churches track "marriages" if they care to.
Problem just dries up, and goes away...
But, that's too easy, and the hate mongers who derive power from whipping up the "faithful" on ALL sides do NOT want to have it FIXED, they'd have to get real jobs then. And MSNBC can barely support the number of useless Sharptons they have...
"More than one Dumbo parent has tried to explain to me how they’re totally different from other people who fight against integration... Of course they want integration, they’ll tell you, but only if it entails no sacrifice on their part. “It’s more complicated when it’s about your own children,” says one Dumbo parent."
ReplyDeleteThat's a great story, @CenTexTim, that well encapsulates elitist Progressive non-thought and hypocrisy. Like with crime, "climate change", or "gun control", it's all a problem for someone else to deal with or sacrifice for. As long as their bubble remains intact, they really don't care.
What I'm talking about is taking it to the next, logical level to mirror what is happening in immigration. At least there's a legal process for re-defining school boundaries. I'm talking about anarchy, which is basically what our current immigration situation is. The kids from P.S. 307 should literally invade P.S. 8. They should walk into any classroom and take any seat. If there are no seats available, they should either shove someone who has one out of it, or those with seats should be made to share. Any P.S. 8 student (or parent) who resists should be berated as xenophobic and a racist. As the Dumbo article mentions, many of the P.S. 307 kids have behavioral issues. The P.S. 8 students should be made to live with it, be it distractions from learning or physical violence.
Let's make the President and Pope's dream a reality for our kids and their sheltering parents.
John Boehner delivers his Happy Halloween message this morning. That's when his resignation is effective. Now if we can get McConnell to do the same.
ReplyDeleteI'm sending the College of Cardinals a note to say that next time it's OK to elect a non-communist as pope.
This pope grew up in Argentina, and is indeed a Peronista socialist. I don't know why he would be, since earlier in the 20th century, Argentina had the 5th best economy in the world. All of which was destroyed by the Perons and the socialists who followed.
I'm thinking the Cardinals picked the wrong guy, and have wondered exactly what was burned to create that white smoke. As far as I'm concerned, they dropped the ball when they didn't elect Father Guido Sarducci. Pope Francis is an OK guy and all that, likeable, and seems down to earth, but he really is a flaming Marxist. No room for that in Christianity I think. Jesus said to render unto Caesar and such, but he also said we should take care of each other, not send all of our money to Caesar.
ReplyDelete@CenTexTim,
Too funny.... Spending other people's money if just peachy until you stick your hand in THEIR pocket!
Boehner? Good riddance, you big fat nutless baby! Still, his replacement will just be another RINO. Fat chance of getting a Trey Gowdy or a Louis Gohmert.
I chose not to watch the Pope's speeches but caught a few seconds occasionally. The sound bites I heard were all political, which invalidates his opinion as far as I'm concerned. He has no business telling America how to behave. We are the most forgiving and giving nation the world has ever known and need no lectures. Many Popes throughout history have been less than saintly and this one falls in that category. As for marriage, I believe the original concept by God was to populate the world. That can't be done with two same sex people nor by killing the unborn.
ReplyDeleteBoehner? Good riddance.
Kind of wondering what someone has on Boehner to make him leave his position ... not that I'm sad he's leaving. It's about time that gutless wonder left.
ReplyDeleteMeant to add: when His Holiness looks out across a sea of Syrian immigrants in St Peter's Square, then he can tut-tut us about our immigration policies.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAll this is interesting but I'm not going to engage. I'm taking no chances on John the Econ accusing me of thinking like the Clintons again. That stung. LOL!
ReplyDeleteAs I was considering the Pope's take on capitalism, I came across this on today's Wall Street Journal editorial page:
ReplyDelete"In the Americas “thousands of persons are led to travel north in search of a better life for themselves and for their loved ones, in search of greater opportunities,” the pope said... The pope’s call to a common humanity is much-needed, but to our ears the most striking word in that passage is “north.” Here is the Latin American pope acknowledging that the migrants are moving north to the United States, not the other way around. This is the same United States that practices the capitalist economics the pope has excoriated on so many other occasions. There must be something moral to free-market economics if it creates so much opportunity that attracts so many of the world’s poor."
So true. Every day, the left, from our own President on down takes glee in extolling the moral shortcomings and injustices of America, and yet people all over the world continue to risk everything, often their own lives, in coming "north". They never consider any of the supposedly "more just" socialist countries to the south. They're either escaping or bypassing the various worker's paradises and countries with "free" health care to come here, to the US with it's supposed rampant racism and obvious income inequality.
I think the Pope is lecturing the wrong people.
@Rod, so sorry about that. I really didn't consider the scathing impact of comparing people of conscience with the Clintons. I know it would hurt me!
Thanks for the belly laugh this morning Stilt. I opened up HaC and roared at the Polar Bear Pontiff.
ReplyDelete@Colby
ReplyDelete"Boehner? Good riddance, you big fat nutless baby! Still, his replacement will just be another RINO. Fat chance of getting a Trey Gowdy or a Louis Gohmert."
I understand the two frontrunners to be his replacement are Rep. Hardonn and Rep. Stiffee, just to keep the vibe going.
@ John the Econ. No worries; I've recovered and am poking back. I like your input.
ReplyDeleteAs for the 'Pope':
ReplyDeleteIMHO, I am very disappointed. He believes in the global warming/cooling/climate change scam, thinks wealth re-distribution should happen; won't yell at the Obama for funding Planned Infanticide, wants the US to take in MORE immigrants, and thinks the Iranian nuke 'deal' is a good thing. I'm not a Catholic,(duh), but I used to have a lot of respect for the Pope until now. Funny how he can can throw down solutions to all the world's problems, but his native country is in turmoil. Do I need to go to confession now?
As for the Boehner:
Hasta la Vista limp Boehner. It's WAY past time that the flaccid Boehner resigned, as there was just not enough Viagra to make that Boehner stand up to anything. Oh, wait; his name is pronounced 'BAY-NER'. Sorry, my bad. But as his last act of defiance; he, as a 'devout' Catholic; and one who just met with the Pope, decided to vote FOR the further funding of 'Planned Parenthood'; read that 'Planned Infanticide', a gummit funded baby parts selling company. Adios, Boehner, sorry it took so long.
'Bay-ner' my ass. It is 'boner' and no amount of denials can alter that fact. I can't think of any language transposes 'boe' into 'bay', none at all. The closest pronunciation variable would be in Teutonic languages where 'Boeh' becomes 'ber' but that requires an umlaut.
ReplyDeleteI served at one time with a soldier surnamed 'Cocks'. A good guy. He got tired of being the target of wang/dork/dong-type jokes so had his named legally changed to...Cox. After he'd been posted to a new unit he wrote me and said nobody on his new base gave his (modified) name a second thought or comment.
I find it rather interesting that Pope Francis waited until the plane ride home to unleash this nugget instead of on the plane ride over:
ReplyDeleteGovt. workers have right to refuse gay marriage licenses
No doubt his reception would have had a decidedly different tone amongst the left and the MSM had he gotten off the plane spouting this upon his arrival instead of socialist utopianism.