Reconciliation Sunday

November 6, 2011
By

Today is Sunday, a day of reconciliation. Christians believe that to be given the keys to the Kingdom that we must first reconcile, or become one, with God. People of the Catholic faith are very familiar with this term; it is a holy sacrament of the Church.

The dictionary definition of reconciliation is this:

  1. an act of reconciling or the state of being reconciled.
  2. the process of making consistent or compatible.

Reconciliation – both in religion and in logic – means coming to terms with the truth.

One of the most difficult aspects of our current political landscape in general, and of the Obama administration in specific, is the difficulty that many people have in reconciling the words of this administration with its actions.

There have been a few recent situations that are truly confounding.

The first is related to transparency in government – your government being open to scrutiny by the people, the regular citizens, to whom they are responsible to and, at least theoretically, work for.

Candidate Obama promised his army of sycophantic zombies (and the rest of us) that his administration would be the most transparent in history. In his remarks welcoming senior staff and cabinet secretaries on January 21st, 2009 he said:

I will also hold myself as President to a new standard of openness. Going forward, anytime the American people want to know something that I or a former President wants to withhold, we will have to consult with the Attorney General and the White House Counsel, whose business it is to ensure compliance with the rule of law. Information will not be withheld just because I say so. It will be withheld because a separate authority believes my request is well grounded in the Constitution.

Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.

In the same statement, he went further in praise of the power of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA):

The directives I am giving my administration today on how to interpret the Freedom of Information Act will do just that. For a long time now, there’s been too much secrecy in this city. The old rules said that if there was a defensible argument for not disclosing something to the American people, then it should not be disclosed. That era is now over. Starting today, every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information but those who seek to make it known.

To be sure, issues like personal privacy and national security must be treated with the care they demand. But the mere fact that you have the legal power to keep something secret does not mean you should always use it. The Freedom of Information Act is perhaps the most powerful instrument we have for making our government honest and transparent, and of holding it accountable. And I expect members of my administration not simply to live up to the letter but also the spirit of this law.

Yet his administration recently attempted to set up a process, by which the government can lie about items legally requested via the Freedom of Information Act. Wired chronicles it here:

The proposal would have granted the government a new option to state that documents relevant to a FOIA request did not exist. According to the Justice Department’s proposal, if the government believes records should be withheld, the government agency to which the request was made “will respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist.”

Still, the government has embraced lying even without FOIA being altered. And judges aren’t very tough on the government when it does lie in FOIA cases.

Last month, for example, a federal judge decided not to hold the CIA in contempt for destroying videotapes of detainee interrogations that included the use of a torture technique known as waterboarding, ruling instead that the spy agency merely committed “transgressions” for its failure to abide by his court order to produce them in a FOIA case brought by the ACLU.

This “interpretation” was dropped under pressure – but you can bet that there will be vestiges of the original proposal put into practice. Fans of Obama will argue that since his minions weren’t successful in implementing the ability to legally lie, that this one doesn’t count – it is a mulligan; however, in point of fact, this government has no problem going extra-Constitutional when it doesn’t get what it wants via legal means.

With respect to the “Stimulus that wasn’t” Act, Nancy Pelosi said this:

In our recovery package we put new standards of accountability and transparency, which we hope will now apply.

And yet we now have a scandal that the Democrats hope will just go away since the mainstream refuses to take more than a passing interest in, the $500 billion Solyndra boondoggle. The Administration is ignoring a congressional subpoena to provide information, claiming that they have already complied – but in true Nixonian fashion, they have supplied Representative Fred Upton’s committee with 85,000 pages of documents that contain none of the information that was requested. The Washington Times reports:

President Obama’s latest failed stimulus story has expanded significantly, as White House documents are now being subpoenaed by Congress over the $535 million taxpayer-funded loan given to now-bankrupt and FBI-raided Solyndra.

The Solyndra loan was a disgusting and unethical smokescreen designed to propagandize the American public into thinking Obama was serious about job creation. The degree of crony capitalism behind the loan has not been sufficiently explored by the mainstream media.

The cronyism started in the months prior to the approval of the Solyndra loan by the Department of Energy in March of 2009, when billionaire and Obama bundler, George Kaiser, held numerous meetings with the White House about the pending loan.

George Kaiser holds the biggest stake in the now defunct Solyndra.

Upton responded to the Administration’s refusal to cooperate:

“We have been reasonable every step of the way in this investigation, and it is a shame that the Obama Administration and House Democrats continue to put up partisan roadblocks to hide the truth from taxpayers. Solyndra was a jobs program gone bad, and we must learn the lessons of Solyndra as we work to turn our economy around and put folks back to work. Our judicious and methodical work over the last eight months has garnered tens of thousands of pages of documents from DOE and OMB that have proven we are on the right track. Now, we need to know the White House’s role in the Solyndra debacle in order to learn the full truth about why taxpayers now find themselves a half billion dollars in the hole. The White House could have avoided the need for subpoena authorizations if they had simply chosen to cooperate. That would have been the route we preferred, and frankly, it would have been better for the White House to get the information out now, rather than continue to drag this out. Our request for documents is reasonable – we are not demanding the President’s blackberry messages as we are respectful of Executive Privilege. What is the West Wing trying to hide? We owe it to American taxpayers to find out.”

The last item is one that will likely draw the accusation that conservatives (and I) believe that Obama is a Muslim. Actually, I believe that he may be something quite different, something far removed from religion – it can be argued that he is an atheist.

The theme of this column is reconciliation as it applies to facts and the truth. As far as the President’s religiosity, I am at a loss to reconcile Obama’s words and deeds with any known religion other than that of a cult of government. He becomes conveniently religious when it is politically beneficial. For example, he attended a black nationalist/revolutionary church for 20 years – the primary message of which was far more Marxist than Godlike, and yet he distanced himself from 20 year of this theology when it became a political liability.

The media ignored that association in support of candidate Obama but how can 20 years of membership be reconciled with the fact that he threw his beliefs away so quickly? It can only be one of two things – he either saw the light or he never believed the theology in the first place and was just there to “fit in” the community he sought support from. The former requires us to believe that Obama just found out about the positions of Jemimah Wright in 2009, after sitting in his church for 1,040 sermons (20 years of Sundays). That would require him to be something less than the most intelligent president ever – as we are constantly told he is – or that he falls into the latter characterization, a cold and calculating political opportunist using religion as s political tool. Based on his actions, the latter is far more plausible.

Obama seems to ascribe to the view of Marx that religion is the “opium of the people”. Religion has the same expendable quality as many of his support groups, he has a practice of allying himself with whatever group or “movement” that can advance him or his political agenda and discards them like a dirty tissue when they are no longer helpful. He hypovehiculates them – throws them under the bus as it were.

That is the only way that I can reconcile this: Obama Administration Opposes FDR Prayer at WWII Memorial:

Republican lawmakers and conservative activists are expressing outrage after the Obama administration announced its objection to adding President Franklin Roosevelt’s D-Day prayer to the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C.

The objection was noted during a congressional hearing on Rep. Bill Johnson’s, R-Ohio, bill — the “World War II Memorial Prayer Act of 2011.”

“It is unconscionable that the Obama administration would stand in the way of honoring our nation’s distinguished World War II veterans,” Johnson said. “President Roosevelt’s prayer gave solace, comfort and strength to our nation and our brave warriors as we fought against tyranny and oppression.”

Roosevelt asked the nation to join him in prayer as U.S. and allied troops launched the invasion that led to the defeat of Nazi Germany. He asked God to give the allied troops courage and faith, saying, “With thy blessing we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council said it’s not all that surprising.

“This is further evidence that the administration has created an environment that is hostile towards American history — but in particular towards Christianity,” Perkins told Fox News. “I hope America wakes up and realizes what this administration is doing to this country and how they want to radically and fundamentally change America.”

“They want to erase every aspect of America’s heritage,” Perkins said of Obama’s administration. “Any president, any official in history that has embraced Christianity, is no longer welcome in this administration. That’s the environment they are creating.”

With this: President Obama marks the Hajj and Eid al-Adha:

Michelle and I extend our greetings for a happy Eid al-Adha to Muslims worldwide and congratulate those performing Hajj.

Thousands of Muslim Americans are among those who have joined one of the world’s largest and most diverse gatherings in making the pilgrimage to Mecca and nearby sites.

As Muslims celebrate this Eid, they will also commemorate Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son by distributing food to those less fortunate around the world. They join the United States and the international community in relief efforts to assist those struggling to survive in the Horn of Africa and those recovering from the devastating earthquake in Turkey.

The Eid and Hajj rituals are a reminder of the shared roots of the world’s Abrahamic faiths and the powerful role that faith plays in motivating communities to serve and stand with those in need.  On behalf of the American people, we extend our best wishes during this Hajj season.

Eid Mubarak and Hajj Mabrour.

In logic, a commonly employed reconciliation tool is the Hegelian dialectic. This is usually presented in a threefold manner, comprising three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction, an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis. For example:

  • Thesis: the fur of the cat is completely black.
  • Antithesis: the fur of the cat is not completely black.

The synthesis of these two assertions is that the cat’s fur is either all black or it is not. One is true, the other is false. As with the example of Schrödinger’s Cat, all we have to do to find out is examine the cat.

Obama asks us to simply believe that the cat is black based on his words and not his actions. He doesn’t want us to look.

I can’t reconcile it.

47 Responses to Reconciliation Sunday

  1. kellsbells on November 6, 2011 at 4:39 am

    Nice, M. Good thing you put your name at the bottom… I was about to tell Poli how much I enjoyed his/her article. Love that you point out all the double-entendres of this president and his administration. Personally, I think the guy’s still Muslim. He tends to lean in their favor. But I suppose he could be atheist….

    Hypovehiculate? Sorry, the blond is coming out…..

  2. utahprez on November 6, 2011 at 5:41 am

    Hypo is “under” or “low” as opposed to hyper which is “over” or “high” -”vehic” as in “vehicle” and “ulate” implying action, ergo – to “hypovehiculate” is to throw someone under the vehicle, in this case Obama’s campaign bus…

  3. kellsbells on November 6, 2011 at 7:12 am

    I get the Latin… seems to me the the word is a Michaelism. And now for two of kells’ favorite kellisisms…..Here we go….hypoosculateor and hypofellatioator. Now I will stop being naughty and go to church! It’s Right Wing’s fault…. he’s a bad influence…..

  4. JCinLa on November 6, 2011 at 7:13 am

    Will Herman, good Christian that he is,reconcile with all the women he harrassed?

  5. NEPA Neocon on November 6, 2011 at 7:21 am

    Excellent post. Thank you. I don’t know if Obama will win or lose next year. I certainly hope he loses big. But one thing I can say with absolute certainty is that he will never achieve the kind of broad, cross-section appeal that leaders like Ronald Reagan enjoyed. You’ll never see the term “Obama Republicans” used in any honest analysis of this Presidency. If Obama wins next year, it will be because he successfully demonized his opponent the way Harry Reid demonized Sharron Angle. “Hope and Change” was an unserious campaign slogan. Nothing more. Obama is not trancendent, he’s not unique, he’s not transformational. Obama is nothing like the President he and his handlers told us he would be. He’s just your average, run-of-the-mill, dime-a-dozen liberal Democrat. He fooled enough independents and Republicans to believe otherwise in 2008. I doubt he can pull that off again.

  6. kellsbells on November 6, 2011 at 7:41 am

    He didn’t fool me. He is very transparent. I voted Huckabee, even though he chastises me here….

  7. utahprez on November 6, 2011 at 8:42 am

    JCinLA: So far, the harassment charge against Cain is about him making someone “uncomfortable”. I don’t know what he did but somehow I think it is less than tweeting a pic of his package to a 16 year-old girl, pleasuring an intern with a cigar or leaving his effluent on a blue dress after a hummer outside the Oval Office.

    Thanks to spineless liberal Republicans and Democrat relativists, this is now our measuring stick…you wanted it, you got it. Next time you get the urge to climb on your high horse about ethical behavior, you might want to remember that.

  8. invalid10 on November 6, 2011 at 9:11 am

    Ron Paul youtube of Fox News Sunday from this morning.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcgjF-IINNw&feature=youtu.be

  9. ken_phd on November 6, 2011 at 9:35 am

    Invaalid10:

    Good video of Ron Paul. I agree with many of his positions.

    However, I believe his views on how to address the problem of Iran becoming a nuclear power are naive. He equates the problem to one of dealing with the Soviet Union or China. How he can think this is troubling. The world has seen countless examples of Muslim fanatics blowing themselves up for Allah and killing as many infidels as possible.

    What in the world makes him think Muslims wouldn’t use nuclear weapons?

  10. JCinLa on November 6, 2011 at 9:39 am

    utahprez: Son, son,son, don’t get your knickers in a know. Cain deserves the same benefit of the doubt as Clinton-none. He’s guilty for the same reason Claence Thomas was guilty. He lost his temper and screamed racism. Both put on a better show than Jesse Jackson. Let’s be blunt. When a black person blames his problem on white racism, the black person has something to hide. Take that to the bank.

  11. utahprez on November 6, 2011 at 9:56 am

    First of all, I doubt that you are old enough to be my father and second, you can save your patronization for someone else.

    Cain was attacked for the same reason as Thomas – because he was conservative AND black – there is a racial component because blacks are not supposed to be conservative…Compare Thomas to Bork – Bork was crucified due to his conservative Constitutional stands but I don’t remember any accusations of him talking about a pubic hair on a can of Coke.

    I don’t like it that Cain played the race card, but I can understand it – there is a special level of animosity reserved for a conservative who happens the be non-Caucasian.

    Here’s what Cain and Thomas both deserved – a fair hearing of the facts, something that neither of them got.

  12. Steve on November 6, 2011 at 9:56 am

    Shocker Video:

    Liberal journalist, Juan Williams,
    vehemently Defends Herman Cain From Liberal Attacks

    “Herman Cain is a threat to that black liberal establishment”
    — Juan Williams

    Juan lays out the double-standards very clearly; the left will NOT like this :shock:
    …the courage of Juan Williams is off the chart on this one.

  13. invalid10 on November 6, 2011 at 10:16 am

    ken_phd,

    Paul is against nuclear weapons and doesn’t support the U.S. having them. In fact he wants to defund the Department of Energy.

  14. invalid10 on November 6, 2011 at 10:22 am

    Cain’s favorability is already down. I for one am hoping he bombs out like Perry and Bachmann soon. Cain in the GOP primary, trolling its voters.

  15. invalid10 on November 6, 2011 at 10:25 am

    This is not the first time Cain ran. He ran for president in 2000 and senate in 2004 so he’s had political ambitions for the WH for over a decade now, but when he ran for senate he refused to give positions on abortion and he was adamantly in favor of affirmative action, and now he is using the race card as an excuse for the media covering his history.

    Cain berates opponents of affirmative action.

    Some of my opponents in the race for the U.S. Senate seem to like to ask me if I am in favor of affirmative action. I’m sick and tired of people trying to divide us on race. So let me make my answer as plain as day, so that even a congressman can understand it. If by affirmative action you mean quotas – then no. But if you mean, do I favor giving all people equal opportunity? You bet. I don’t understand how my opponents could not agree with the idea of removing all barriers for people to have equal opportunity.

  16. invalid10 on November 6, 2011 at 10:35 am

    Are conservatives really going to trust the guy who is hell bent on abortion rights and affirmative action to appoint SCOTUS nominees. He launches his campaign to Pokeman lyrics. In the debates, he also quoted in his words “Great poet” Pokeman as well. He says he’s the brother from another mother of the Koch brothers.

    The artist formerly known as Herman Cain is doing great performance art for this election cycle.

  17. L. on November 6, 2011 at 11:17 am

    JCinLa, did you still want to borrow my proctoscope? I finally got it back from Zachriel. He forgot to clean it, but never mind.

  18. Mad Dog's mom on November 6, 2011 at 11:27 am

    Mad Dog, honey, please don’t leave your Boy’s Life magazines on the coffee table. They are sticky and might ruin the nice wood finish.

  19. kellsbells on November 6, 2011 at 11:37 am

    Thanks for the link, Steve! For once, I actually agree with Juan.

  20. ATTILA on November 6, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    Paul is against nuclear weapons and doesn’t support the U.S. having them. In fact he wants to defund the Department of Energy~~~acroso

    Which would mean we would cease to exist in the nuke world in which we live.

  21. kellsbells on November 6, 2011 at 2:16 pm

    Acroso?

  22. ATTILA on November 6, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    Invalid10=acroso=bunu= all the same dipshit with different guises.

  23. L. (as in Libturd) on November 6, 2011 at 3:30 pm

    Fake Mad Dog’s Mom, can I power your two-handed vibrator, the one with the rubber porcupine on the end?

  24. Mad Dog's mom on November 6, 2011 at 3:47 pm

    Dear L., you will have to ask my son, Mad Dog (as in Mr. Cub Scout Pervert), he stole that porcupine vibrator from me ages ago.

  25. John on November 6, 2011 at 4:19 pm

    Cain was attacked for the same reason as Thomas – because he was conservative AND black

    Thomas was attacked because he accused of being a horndog. An accusation which was shown to be true. He was tolerated, but only by conservatives, because he was conservative AND black.

    Here’s what Cain and Thomas both deserved – a fair hearing of the facts, something that neither of them got.

    Thomas was confirmed because he did not get a fair hearing of the facts. The accusations were shown to be true. If it was a fair hearing he would not have been confirmed.

    I don’t like it that Cain played the race card, but I can understand it – there is a special level of animosity reserved for a conservative who happens the be non-Caucasian.

    Liberals like Cain. It is the GOP that is displaying the animosity.

  26. I am on November 6, 2011 at 4:43 pm

    Invalid I knew you’d be in here jizzing all over yourself with Crazy Uncle Ron on FNS. He made a total fool of himself like usual. I must admit he did come off even crazier than usual today though. In comparison to his showing today you even seem sort of sane but then that’s probably because you don’t actually say much because you know that will never end well for you. If only Crazy Uncle Ron could learn to stick a sock in it before he makes a fool of himself. The more he talks the more he proves he’s becoming a crazy old man.

  27. kellsbells on November 6, 2011 at 5:19 pm

    John, “liberals like Cain.” Seriously, are you being serious? Cain is being crucified by the liberals and the liberal media!
    Who likes him? It’s the people that dig him! Well, except for invalid…….

  28. L. (as in Libturd) on November 6, 2011 at 5:57 pm

    Fake Mad Dog’s Mom, what are you doing with my proctoscope?

  29. JCinLa on November 6, 2011 at 6:08 pm

    utahprez: i don’t pretend to be your father but you have to be straightened out .Playing the race card is wrong under any circumstances.
    Now c’mon, son

  30. JCinLa on November 6, 2011 at 6:17 pm

    Actually, utahprez, I may be old enough to be your father.

    Ponder that, son.

  31. JCinLa on November 6, 2011 at 6:23 pm

    utahprez: Read this, son:

    Asking Cain About Accuser Isn’t UnethicalJonathan S. Tobin | @tobincommentary
    11.06.2011 – 10:54 AM Last night after his so-called Lincoln-Douglas debate with Newt Gingrich (unlike the “rail splitter” and the “little giant”) during which they disagreed about very little, reporters asked Herman Cain about the public statement of one of the women who alleged that he harassed them while he was CEO of the National Restaurant Association. His response was to say, “Don’t go there.” Later he stopped and told them to read “the other accounts” and that he was “back on message.” After that, his campaign manager Mark Block, who earlier in the week made scurrilous and unsubstantiated allegations about the Perry campaign being responsible for the story coming out, scolded journalists about whether they knew the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics.

    Block’s attempt to brand the entire inquiry as unethical is geared toward appealing to the sentiments of conservatives who view the media as a hostile liberal entity that cannot be trusted on any issue. But those who bother to read the Code, would easily see there was nothing unethical about the original Politico story that broke the news. Nor is there anything unethical about asking Cain to respond to the public statement released by one of the women who charged him harassment alleging that his version of events was false. But you don’t have to be a critic of Cain to know that there is something fishy about a campaign that refuses to address these questions and chooses instead to attack the press.

    Indeed, as subsequent developments proved, Politico’s contention that Cain was the subject of formal complaints of sexual harassment turned out to be true, as even the candidate was forced to admit. Other stories have also surfaced alleging misbehavior on his part. We don’t know who is telling the truth here, and it is possible Cain is completely innocent. But the paranoid manner in which Cain and his minion Block have behaved in the past week doesn’t enhance their credibility. To imagine a Cain White House dealing with the press in this manner is to envision a Republican version of the thin-skinned arrogance that has characterized Barack Obama’s presidency.

    Conservatives are understandably inclined to believe the worst of the press. But with the release of the statement from one of his accusers, this is now more than “gossip.” The issue here is real, and to ask voters to pretend these allegations don’t exist or to blame reporters for writing about them is tantamount to demanding they demonstrate a bias for Cain that they would not want them to apply to liberal politicians. Many of the same grass roots conservatives were cheering on those reporters who pursued the story of Bill Clinton​’s harassment of women. For them to say the same standard doesn’t apply to a former Washington lobbyist like Cain is pure hypocrisy.

    Much has been made over the fact that Cain’s poll numbers have not declined over the course of the last week due to the scandal. Like his unflappable personality, his support has remained steady despite his appalling gaffes and inability to defend his 9-9-9-tax plan. Those who have decided to back him appear to be loyal and will stick with him through thick and thin.

    But the odds of his poll numbers rising beyond their current level in the low 20s are slim and none. Few who hadn’t already committed to Cain are likely to do so in the wake of this scandal and the bizarre, even Nixonian or Obamaesque manner in which his campaign has responded to it. Cain’s support may hold steady for a while, but his already slim chances of winning the nomination have been lowered considerably by these revelations and Cain’s response.

  32. Go Huskers! on November 6, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    Cain is being crucified by the liberals and the liberal media!

    Oh he is not. That is just silly.

  33. Mad Dog's mom on November 6, 2011 at 6:42 pm

    Mad Dog, honey, please don’t flail. It is embarrassing to your dear mother. Man up, sweety.

  34. L. (as in Libturd) on November 6, 2011 at 9:11 pm

    Fake Mad Dog’s Mom, want to join me for Masturbation Monday?

  35. kellsbells on November 7, 2011 at 1:49 am

    Huskers, I don’t think it’s silly. They are making a mountain out of a molehill. And J.C.; could that be why Cain’s numbers remain high? Just as people pose as others here, apparently, their true colors will shine through eventually.(just ask Attila) No offense, but my B.S. radar detector hasn’t gone off when I hear Cain….

    P.S.- Who are the Huskers?

  36. utahprez on November 7, 2011 at 4:37 am

    JC – if you are old enough to be my father, you are probably senile which explains your comments.

    I see that you are saying that because Cain told reporters that he wasn’t going to talk about it, that means that he did something.

    Since the complainant has been released from her confidentiality agreement by the NRA, why doesn’t she want to come forward? Think it might be possible that there is another reason for her dismissal that she doesn’t want known?

    I don’t know what he did – or if he did anything. I can tell you that in 30 years in business I have seen people accused of harassment for telling a joke, for asking someone to go for a drink after work and for the simple act of promoting a more qualified male candidate over a less qualified female. Knowing all of the people involved or having sat on the review board of these charges, I know that not a single one of them were actual harassment but in each cause the complainant was given some sort of compensation because the company feared a protracted legal affair.

    It peaked in the late 80′s and early 90′s…

    So I am suspicious of “harassment” claims – especially when they lack evidence as this case seems to.

    Think Politico wasn’t out to get Cain? Bill Jacobson at Legal Insurrection posted this yesterday:

    Just the stats:

    Days as of 8 p.m. Eastern today since Politico broke the story – 7
    Politico news stories about or mentioning “Herman Cain“: 138
    Politico news stories about or mentioning “sexual harassment“: 91
    Politico news stories about or mentioning “sexual harassment” not involving Herman Cain: 0
    Politico news stories showing what Herman Cain actually did: 0
    Politico news stories showing specifically what Herman Cain was accused of: 0
    Percentage drop in Herman Cain favorability rating as reported by Politico: 9
    Politico news stories about or mentioning “Solyndra“: 9
    Politico news stories about or mentioning “Fast and Furious“: 3
    Politico news stories about or mentioning “unemployment“: 17
    Politico news stories about or mentioning “recession“: 14
    Politico’s credibility self-destruction: Priceless

    So there’s that to consider. The liberals really love Cain, that must be why they are writing so many negative stories about him.

  37. JCinLa on November 7, 2011 at 5:21 am

    Pay attentiion utahprez and stop being a smartassed punk. Read the following and weep.

    “He’s not going to be the nominee, if I can just be honest here. He was never going to be the nominee,” Weekly Standard editor William Kristol said on “Fox News Sunday.”

    Ed Rollins, the longtime Republican operative and former Michele Bachmann campaign manager, told POLITICO that Cain’s moment in the sun was already over: “This guy knows nothing about foreign policy, ‘9-9-9’ has been ripped apart, the girl problem is not going away and his beating up the media shows a thin skin that will get him in trouble. You combine that with no real campaign and his days are limited.”

    “My only advice for Cain is to get it all out now and apologize to the women for insulting them,” said Rollins.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67728.html#ixzz1d1NxYKtm

  38. Mad Dog on November 7, 2011 at 5:39 am

    Speaking of smartass punks, how are you this fine morning, JCinLa? Other than having your head up your ass, I mean.

  39. JCinLa on November 7, 2011 at 5:51 am

    Mad Dog: be quiet and also pay attention.

    Anyone who whines about a high-tech lynching is guilty of whatever he’s accused of. Playing the race card is the mark of a loser.

    If you folks are serious about beating Obama, remember evrything I’ve said about Cain and find another candidate.

  40. kellsbells on November 7, 2011 at 5:52 am

    Mississippi; I don’t know if JC can handle reason….if Attila didn”t have me tied up…..

  41. Cal on November 7, 2011 at 6:35 am

    Pay attention utahprez and stop being a smartassed punk.

    Utahprez is sanctimonious. Unfortunately, sanctimony is blind. And so there is no hope for introspection leading to reconciliation. The only thing to do is make some popcorn and enjoy the show.

    The liberals really love Cain, that must be why they are writing so many negative stories about him.

    Another glorious post from Utahprez. Popcorn!

  42. Cal on November 7, 2011 at 6:37 am

    Speaking of sparkling things of beauty:

    “Cain will crush Obama.”

  43. Go Huskers! on November 7, 2011 at 9:08 am

    It peaked in the late 80′s and early 90′s…

    Please source.

  44. kellsbells on November 7, 2011 at 10:44 am

    Cal, luv, your jealousy of Utah is coming through louder than Jesse Norman right now……

  45. Cal on November 7, 2011 at 11:06 am

    Jessye, luv? I haven’t heard of Jesse. As for jealousy, I hadn’t thought of that. If only your sincerity were as loud as Jessye Norman.

  46. Fred from Fred's Wrecker and Towing Service on November 7, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    If you guys want me to pull Cal’s head out of his ass, I’m going to have to have a security deposit on my wrecker. His head is so far in I’m afraid I’ll blow the engine or snap a cable pulling it out.

  47. Berlet98 on November 23, 2011 at 12:35 am

    The Unconscionable Lack of Liberal Conscience

    “Let your conscience be your guide” is an outdated axiom for Catholics in the Democrat Party, as is the concept of moral and ethical conduct as they apply to their religion.

    True and unfortunately, morality and ethics are antithetical constructs in any political context and “ethics committees” seem out of place in political bodies and largely exist as pro-forma charades to satisfy a gullible public but many liberal Catholic Dems go further by overtly flaunting their contempt for ethical behavior.

    Of course, relativists reject the idea of any absolutes in life, which is a nifty excuse for avoiding condemnation for violating established societal norms of decency since they absolutely disagree with those dictates.

    Thus, Catholic and non-Catholic Democrats alike are able to campaign against what reasonable individuals understand intuitively, the existence of living, human life in the womb, on the bases of debatable claims that it is not a human life, that it’s not viable, that a woman’s right to privacy takes precedence over pre-born life.

    The moral-ethical relativists absolutely believe all that and, though I think their beliefs are absurd, I can consider the source and accept them. If their faiths condone the murder of innocent pre-borns, who am I to disagree? The prudent approach of opting for sparing lives when there is any doubt as to when life begins in-utero is inapplicable to relativists.

    You see, it’s all relative, whatever that means.

    What I find totally unacceptable are politicians, especially ostensibly-Catholic politicians, who preach civil rights yet advocate in favor of denying the most fundamental civil entitlement, the constitutionally-guaranteed “right to life” through abortion. When they complain about Catholic consciences inhibiting their unorthodox views, they are hypocrites verging on apostasy.

    Dozens of current Catholic politicians have been lectured . . .
    (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6647.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *