On the 12th of February, in a medical waiting room, the CNN commentary mistakenly called “news” was perpetrated upon me. This was a by-product of inefficiency or of poor scheduling by the medical industry, and while I could avert my eyes, I had neglected to bring ear plugs or muffs.
CNN made as big a production of what it jocularly called Lincoln’s Legacy as the Met Opera does with Lohengrin. Had that, in fact, been the substance of the extravaganza, I would have no comment. Mr. Lincoln was a brilliant, wise leader that preserved this country and piloted it through the gravest crisis ever to threaten it. (That is, at least up to the election of an incompetent, devious, leftist noodnik to its presidency.)
However, CNN “news” merely used it as a platform to flaunt B.O., our first mulatto president. Aside from both men’s living for a time in Illinois, I see no similarity, whatsoever, between them; not in credentials, not in philosophy, not in means of action, and not in honesty.
The only palpable connection is that Lincoln emancipated slaves (He said plainly, strongly, and dozens of times that he was NOT fighting the war over slaves.) and that B.O. is a mulatto. Even then, though, the relationship is tenuous, for B.O.’s African father was never a slave. I would say that, overall, B.O. is about as much like Abe Lincoln as a pea is, a blue whale.
I believe the explanation is that the media, so erotic about B.O. and the agency that propelled him into the White House, must now try and persuade us, and perhaps themselves, that they did a correct thing. Sorry, Yves Chauvire is not persuaded
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
CATHOLICS FOR OBAMA?
Or
Another Contradiction in Terms?
Owing to its manifold distortions and selective concealments and rubrics for the November elections, I’ve ceased believing much of what is propagated by the so-called news media. It reports that a significant percentage, possible more than fifty, of Catholics voted for B.O. This is an individual, remember, that voted repeatedly to deny life support to wretched, defenseless babies that somehow had survived attempted clinical murder.
Catholics, indeed all Christians, as well as Jews, are bound by the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments, one of which says simply, “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” In blatant, persistent, strident opposition to this canon, B.O. advocates the murder of unborn children.
In the twenty-first century, given what is evident in science, a person must be as mendacious or as ignorant as N. Pelosi or B. Boxer, among a plethora of the high-profile benighted, to claim that an unborn baby is not a living human being. Therefore, a reasonable question is how a person professing Catholicism can endorse a candidate that systematically and enthusiastically advocates a policy in stark opposition to a basic tenet of that faith? Does that not disqualify one from classification as a Catholic, or, in fact, any sect publishing that rule as one of its laws?
Consider certain other examples. Suppose a Catholic commits adultery. Is he disqualified from the faith? No. What if he robs a bank or kills a person? He can still call himself a Catholic, though, hopefully, he will confess the transgression, do penance, and amend his life. The difference between these examples and the contradiction in terms of a Catholic Obama-supporter is the latter’s fidelity to a policy that systematically denies and brazenly violates a commandment. Thus, such an individual does not believe in the foundations of Catholicism and, hence, cannot call himself a Catholic.
Whatever your faith, and even if you lack one, could you take comfort in having helped elect B.O.? Is it reassuring to know that, as a direct consequence of the votes of people like you, tens of thousands of others with immortal souls but poor, little mortal bodies, will be murdered? Christians are taught not to judge others, and, whereas I’m no exemplar, I try my best not to pronounce judgment, but, personally, I would not want to die bearing that responsibility.
At the same time, though, people are killed in wars, so does the individual endorsing a candidate that initiated or is pledged to prosecute a war guilty of the same trespass? This is the self-deception some so-called Catholics used to attempt to shield their consciences. I don’t believe it’s the case; the people to whom these laws were given appear to have spent a good deal of their time at war, and war was not forbidden them.
Should the Federal Government not have made war upon the Confederate States? Should the U.S. not have entered World War II? Should we not have helped preserve South Korea as a sovereign nation? Should we not have acted – and succeeded, as we easily could – to rescue South Vietnam? These were not sins; these were acts of enormous selflessness, national and personal sacrifice, chivalry, goodness, and necessity. The premeditated murder of human beings, especially babies, was not the U.S. objective in any of the wars cited above, nor, so far as I am aware, in any in which this country ever involved itself. The kinds of terrorist campaigns carried out by Ho Chi Minh and the sundry jihad maniacs, of course, are quite different; murdering people is/was the prime objective in those examples.
B.O and others, for instance every proponent of the insidious, euphemistically-named “Freedom of Choice Act,” are similarly waging a ruthless, bloody war on helpless individuals. That, friends, IS a sin, and any person supporting them has forfeited the right to the appellation, “Catholic.” In the opinion of Yves Chauvire, extrapolation to anyone professing adherence to that Commandment follows immediately.
Another Contradiction in Terms?
Owing to its manifold distortions and selective concealments and rubrics for the November elections, I’ve ceased believing much of what is propagated by the so-called news media. It reports that a significant percentage, possible more than fifty, of Catholics voted for B.O. This is an individual, remember, that voted repeatedly to deny life support to wretched, defenseless babies that somehow had survived attempted clinical murder.
Catholics, indeed all Christians, as well as Jews, are bound by the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments, one of which says simply, “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” In blatant, persistent, strident opposition to this canon, B.O. advocates the murder of unborn children.
In the twenty-first century, given what is evident in science, a person must be as mendacious or as ignorant as N. Pelosi or B. Boxer, among a plethora of the high-profile benighted, to claim that an unborn baby is not a living human being. Therefore, a reasonable question is how a person professing Catholicism can endorse a candidate that systematically and enthusiastically advocates a policy in stark opposition to a basic tenet of that faith? Does that not disqualify one from classification as a Catholic, or, in fact, any sect publishing that rule as one of its laws?
Consider certain other examples. Suppose a Catholic commits adultery. Is he disqualified from the faith? No. What if he robs a bank or kills a person? He can still call himself a Catholic, though, hopefully, he will confess the transgression, do penance, and amend his life. The difference between these examples and the contradiction in terms of a Catholic Obama-supporter is the latter’s fidelity to a policy that systematically denies and brazenly violates a commandment. Thus, such an individual does not believe in the foundations of Catholicism and, hence, cannot call himself a Catholic.
Whatever your faith, and even if you lack one, could you take comfort in having helped elect B.O.? Is it reassuring to know that, as a direct consequence of the votes of people like you, tens of thousands of others with immortal souls but poor, little mortal bodies, will be murdered? Christians are taught not to judge others, and, whereas I’m no exemplar, I try my best not to pronounce judgment, but, personally, I would not want to die bearing that responsibility.
At the same time, though, people are killed in wars, so does the individual endorsing a candidate that initiated or is pledged to prosecute a war guilty of the same trespass? This is the self-deception some so-called Catholics used to attempt to shield their consciences. I don’t believe it’s the case; the people to whom these laws were given appear to have spent a good deal of their time at war, and war was not forbidden them.
Should the Federal Government not have made war upon the Confederate States? Should the U.S. not have entered World War II? Should we not have helped preserve South Korea as a sovereign nation? Should we not have acted – and succeeded, as we easily could – to rescue South Vietnam? These were not sins; these were acts of enormous selflessness, national and personal sacrifice, chivalry, goodness, and necessity. The premeditated murder of human beings, especially babies, was not the U.S. objective in any of the wars cited above, nor, so far as I am aware, in any in which this country ever involved itself. The kinds of terrorist campaigns carried out by Ho Chi Minh and the sundry jihad maniacs, of course, are quite different; murdering people is/was the prime objective in those examples.
B.O and others, for instance every proponent of the insidious, euphemistically-named “Freedom of Choice Act,” are similarly waging a ruthless, bloody war on helpless individuals. That, friends, IS a sin, and any person supporting them has forfeited the right to the appellation, “Catholic.” In the opinion of Yves Chauvire, extrapolation to anyone professing adherence to that Commandment follows immediately.
Monday, February 16, 2009
G.B.S.
In his play, “Mrs. Warren’s Profession,” George Bernard Shaw wrote, “People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don’t believe in circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the people that get and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can’t find them, make them.”
It doesn’t require a great saltation of intelligence to understand that this means we should have had enough of blaming inability, lack of achievement, and unacceptable performance on anything other than the individual.
It doesn’t require a great saltation of intelligence to understand that this means we should have had enough of blaming inability, lack of achievement, and unacceptable performance on anything other than the individual.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
GEORGE BANCROFT
He was a famous American historian, and this is something he once said,
“ … it is all right to preserve freedom in constitutions, but when the spirit of freedom has fled from the hearts of the people, then its matter is easily sacrificed under law.”
When our president, congress, and courts play at weakening our Constitutional freedoms, you must cry out in a loud voice and deny them your support. Into the stone of The National Archives Building is incised this injunction,
“Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.” Be vigilant!
“ … it is all right to preserve freedom in constitutions, but when the spirit of freedom has fled from the hearts of the people, then its matter is easily sacrificed under law.”
When our president, congress, and courts play at weakening our Constitutional freedoms, you must cry out in a loud voice and deny them your support. Into the stone of The National Archives Building is incised this injunction,
“Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.” Be vigilant!
Thursday, February 12, 2009
LEGISLATIVE LUNACY AT THE STATE LEVEL
Lately a Colorado state legislator named Rommer mounted a campaign, not his first, to grant in-state tuition to children of illegal aliens!
His insanity requires no editorializing but demands the posing of an obvious query;
SINCE IT'S IMPLICIT THAT THE MORONS KNOW THE ILLEGAL ALIENS' IDENTITIES, WHY THE HELL DON'T THEY ROUND THEM UP, BOOT THEM OUT, AND KEEP THEM OUT OF THE COUNTRY?
Y.C.
His insanity requires no editorializing but demands the posing of an obvious query;
SINCE IT'S IMPLICIT THAT THE MORONS KNOW THE ILLEGAL ALIENS' IDENTITIES, WHY THE HELL DON'T THEY ROUND THEM UP, BOOT THEM OUT, AND KEEP THEM OUT OF THE COUNTRY?
Y.C.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
A JUST RETALIATION - AND MORE
A JUST RETALIATION
Back in the 1980’s the U.S. Catholic bishops convened and decided to draw up the conditions for determining whether a war is just or not.
In Yves Chauvire’s opinion their time would have been much more profitably spent in weeding predatory homosexuals from the priesthood, and, from their own ranks, cover-up administrators that propagated the faggots and the damage. They would have saved their Church 100’s of $M’s, if not $G’s and, more importantly many, many individuals from years or lifetimes of anguish.
At any rate, though, they arrived at a set of criteria for deciding if a war is just, though, if you read them, you’l find that it would be effectively impossible for a person objectively to arrive at a yes/no answer for any of the conditions.
Their exercise, though, made me wonder what constitutes a just retaliation. For example, Pearl harbor precipitated a retaliation the Japanese could not possibly have contemplated; the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole and murder of several crew went unchastised, as did North Korea’s seizure of the incompetently-commanded U.S.S. Pueblo and subsequent torture of crew members; and the infamous events of 11 September 2001 resulted in our large-scale operations in Afghanistan. What is condign retaliation?
I’ve been thinking about Israel’s late retaliation against Palestinian militants. The latter could hardly expect a country, unless it would be the U.S., to ignore a rocket assault, but how much retaliation was justified? The rocketeers were all the more culpable, because they know from experience that Israeli retaliation is generally orders of magnitude beyond the provocation; that many of their own, innocent people would be killed and maimed as a consequence.
It seems to me excessive, for example, that Israel destroyed an ambulance seeking to aid the injured and that they repeatedly shelled a U.N. outpost in the wretched area.
Israeli counter-attacks are too often of the rabid, unbridled sort. Consider the case of the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967. In international waters our clearly-identified ship had been monitored FOR HOURS by Israel’s warplanes, which suddenly mounted an unprovoked, murderous assault on the “allies,” there only for the purpose of observing. This unprecedented aggression continued for hours and resulted in the sinking of the ship, the deaths of 30-odd crew, and the injury of over 100 others. On your search engine look up “U.S.S. Liberty” and read all about it.
“Well, it was a mistake,” offered the Israeli liars. “We didn’t know it was your ship,” and the impossibly impotent, spineless, kow-towing U.S. did NOTHING, whereas it should have bombed that excuse for a country back into the stone age, whence it came. Thanks to our carte blanche giveaways the chances are great that our personnel were murdered and wounded with our own munitions! They don’t have any airplane factories over there, do they?
Broach this topic with 1000 Jews, and 999 will set up a greater wail than in a couple of millennia at the Western Wall. You’d think you’d threatened to saponify them, and the number of anti-Semitism bleats will be uncountable. (Say, isn’t that a term to be used only by illiterates? Arabs, if you haven’t noticed, are ALSO Semitic people!) Criticize a Jew, and you must despise the lot of them, right? One would be forgiven for believing they care more for Israel than for their own country. Well?
Back in the 1980’s the U.S. Catholic bishops convened and decided to draw up the conditions for determining whether a war is just or not.
In Yves Chauvire’s opinion their time would have been much more profitably spent in weeding predatory homosexuals from the priesthood, and, from their own ranks, cover-up administrators that propagated the faggots and the damage. They would have saved their Church 100’s of $M’s, if not $G’s and, more importantly many, many individuals from years or lifetimes of anguish.
At any rate, though, they arrived at a set of criteria for deciding if a war is just, though, if you read them, you’l find that it would be effectively impossible for a person objectively to arrive at a yes/no answer for any of the conditions.
Their exercise, though, made me wonder what constitutes a just retaliation. For example, Pearl harbor precipitated a retaliation the Japanese could not possibly have contemplated; the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole and murder of several crew went unchastised, as did North Korea’s seizure of the incompetently-commanded U.S.S. Pueblo and subsequent torture of crew members; and the infamous events of 11 September 2001 resulted in our large-scale operations in Afghanistan. What is condign retaliation?
I’ve been thinking about Israel’s late retaliation against Palestinian militants. The latter could hardly expect a country, unless it would be the U.S., to ignore a rocket assault, but how much retaliation was justified? The rocketeers were all the more culpable, because they know from experience that Israeli retaliation is generally orders of magnitude beyond the provocation; that many of their own, innocent people would be killed and maimed as a consequence.
It seems to me excessive, for example, that Israel destroyed an ambulance seeking to aid the injured and that they repeatedly shelled a U.N. outpost in the wretched area.
Israeli counter-attacks are too often of the rabid, unbridled sort. Consider the case of the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967. In international waters our clearly-identified ship had been monitored FOR HOURS by Israel’s warplanes, which suddenly mounted an unprovoked, murderous assault on the “allies,” there only for the purpose of observing. This unprecedented aggression continued for hours and resulted in the sinking of the ship, the deaths of 30-odd crew, and the injury of over 100 others. On your search engine look up “U.S.S. Liberty” and read all about it.
“Well, it was a mistake,” offered the Israeli liars. “We didn’t know it was your ship,” and the impossibly impotent, spineless, kow-towing U.S. did NOTHING, whereas it should have bombed that excuse for a country back into the stone age, whence it came. Thanks to our carte blanche giveaways the chances are great that our personnel were murdered and wounded with our own munitions! They don’t have any airplane factories over there, do they?
Broach this topic with 1000 Jews, and 999 will set up a greater wail than in a couple of millennia at the Western Wall. You’d think you’d threatened to saponify them, and the number of anti-Semitism bleats will be uncountable. (Say, isn’t that a term to be used only by illiterates? Arabs, if you haven’t noticed, are ALSO Semitic people!) Criticize a Jew, and you must despise the lot of them, right? One would be forgiven for believing they care more for Israel than for their own country. Well?
Monday, February 2, 2009
ON DASCHLE, ON GEITHNER,
ON MANNY, AND MICHY
Hope the references to the “danseur” and the Worst Lady didn’t confuse you, but I wanted a little jingle to emphasize how the first-named
TAX CHEATERS
have our first mulatto president’s undiluted blessings.
I suspect that in Chicago he must have learned the example of Harry Washington, a felon-mayor, whom B.O.’s town embraced. (They sure have class over there.) At any rate, it seems that being a
TAX CHEATER
is an important credential for the CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN [sic] administration. “These guys cheated on income taxes, folks, but, hey, they said they’re sorry. Just look at me and Blago Blago in Cook County. Approve them, congressional toadies, and trust my 141-day short course in national government to guide us.”
Hope the references to the “danseur” and the Worst Lady didn’t confuse you, but I wanted a little jingle to emphasize how the first-named
TAX CHEATERS
have our first mulatto president’s undiluted blessings.
I suspect that in Chicago he must have learned the example of Harry Washington, a felon-mayor, whom B.O.’s town embraced. (They sure have class over there.) At any rate, it seems that being a
TAX CHEATER
is an important credential for the CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN [sic] administration. “These guys cheated on income taxes, folks, but, hey, they said they’re sorry. Just look at me and Blago Blago in Cook County. Approve them, congressional toadies, and trust my 141-day short course in national government to guide us.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)