On a number of economic issues, Pope Francis is said to be “to the left of Nancy Pelosi.”

biblecash

But as an economic mission statement, Evangelii Gaudium places the pope — as Vatican watcher Rev. Thomas Reese predicted in March — “to the left of Nancy Pelosi.” In his decidedly populist document, Pope Francis specifically criticizes the economic “trickle-down theories” that were the beating heart of Ronald Reagan’s anti-tax, anti-regulation revolution.

The part of the document that is grabbing most of the attention starts with Section 53, in the chapter on “the crisis of communal commitment.” With his caveat that “it is not the task of the Pope to offer a detailed and complete analysis of contemporary reality,” Francis begins his economic critique like this:

Just as the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say “thou shalt not” to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? [Evangelii Gaudium]

Read more

Editor’s note: The Pope can be as liberal as he wants to, with his own money! The problem with liberals in the United States (and elsewhere) is they like to be liberal with other people’s money!

The grievous abuse begins when liberals (typically Democrats) gain control of public funding – especially Federal funding – because only the Federal Government has the power to print money – or to borrow – big time – from other countries, who also print their own money.

As for Republicans – they’re just slightly less abusive with other people’s money than are Democrats.

The Spirit of Corruption and Greed is no respecter of race, creed, or party affiliation!

President says his message “didn’t get through”. On the contrary …


According to Tom Roeser (with whom I agree) …

Watching President Obama at his news conference yesterday ratified for me that he is a congenital Leftist who is truly in-educable.  Declaring truthfully that he and his Dem allies in Congress “took a shellacking” he made several assertions that proved he not only hasn’t learned from Nov. 2 but is in serious denial.

He said the electorate reacted to the economy’s woes. Wrong. It reacted to his programs which cost a trillion dollars with no results but worsened employment. He said he had to rush through a great many programs without adequate explanation. Wrong. His major programs were thoroughly defended by him: 64 separate addresses alone on health care. Many-many news conferences by him and his cabinet touched on cap and trade…stimulus—you name it.
He seemed to thrive on the myth that Republicans simply opposed… and advanced no alternative programs. Wrong.  Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.l among others advanced a comprehensive re-ordering of budget and spending….so comprehensive that Obama’s favorite economist Nobel Prize-winner Paul Krugman of Princeton, columnist for The New York Times made a systemic critique of it.

Obama seemed annoyed that the voters don’t get what he tried to do.  He expressed contrition that “some of the finest public servants I have ever met” encountered defeat after risking their popularity by voting for his measures. Good night…does this man not understand that the electorate does not want his program and the men who were defeated challenged their electorates saying they were wrong?

More

Radical in the White House

Stanley Kurtz didn’t have to go to Kenya
to figure out who Barack Obama really is.

The revealing interview

NPR should change its name to NPLR (National Public Leftist Radio)

Juan Williams put it simply: “I was fired for telling the truth.” That’s about as succinct a summary of the situation as you’re likely to find. NPR CEO Vivian Schiller terminated Williams’ contract because he veered off of the leftist reservation, and to make things even worse from Shiller’s point of view, he did it on Fox. If Williams is one of the tens of millions of Americans who gets nervous when he’s around people dressed in Muslim garb, NPR believes that he ought not mention it, or – as Schiller said – he should discuss his problems with “his psychiatrist or his publicist.” Schiller would eventually apologize for that demeaning insult, but it’s far too late for NPR to recover from this fiasco. Liberals, conservatives and even some Muslim groups expressed shock and disgust over this assault on free speech and open discussion.

Williams’ sin, according to NPR, was that expressing his personal feelings violated NPR’s code of conduct that forbids their on-air talent from taking a position on “controversial issues,” from participating “…in shows that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis” and from expressing opinions on other shows that “…they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist.” At least that’s the official version, as expressed in an internal memo that Schiller wrote explaining her decision. One suspects that the Council on American Islamic Relations had something to do with it as well. CAIR was outraged by Williams’ remarks. In a statement, CAIR said that “NPR should address the fact that one of its news analysts seems to believe that all airline passengers who are perceived to be Muslim can legitimately be viewed as security threats.”

Well, yeah. Political correctness may demand that we subject 80 year-old Swedish grandmothers to the same level of scrutiny at the airport that we do to young Muslim males, but we know – beyond doubt – which demographic represents a potential threat and which does not. Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, acknowledged this basic truth, pointing to the fact that most victims of Islamic terrorism are Muslims and that even a Muslim woman wearing a burka is a potential threat. “We are victims of these guys. A number of suicide bombers who have attacked have killed people [while] wearing the burka,” Fatah said. “This is the truth, we should be speaking the truth rather than what people expect us to say.” Yet, NPR cut Juan Williams loose for expressing his personal opinion, and – worse – for expressing a personal opinion that is entirely reasonable and rests on a solid foundation of fact.

More

The state “religion” of the modern leftist is secularism.

Today’s leadership in America (the government, the media, and the academy) operates under its own fundamental assumptions about the human person and civil society: culture-of-death liberalism. Not everyone adheres to it in its fullest form, but most Americans (and quite a few self-styled conservatives) have come to embrace it in various degrees. According to modern liberalism, civil society must constitute itself etsi Deus non daretur. “We know, and it is our pride to know, that man is by his constitution a religious animal,” the great Edmund Burke once said, and so is the modern leftist. His state theocracy is secularism, the chief dogma in its hierarchy of truths being materialism, the doctrine that all reality is essentially material, that the state must be functionally atheistic, and that man’s highest end is physical satisfaction. These satisfactions have no essential moral content — all morality is either relative or conventional, since to assume the existence of a moral order that transcends subjective preferences might suggest that some persons’ desires are more valid than others. But that would be discriminatory, and discrimination is the only possible sin in the leftist paradigm.

Leftists also have only one sacrament: sex. The orgasm is the source and summit of all bodily pleasure, and to suggest that sexual activity between consenting persons might have a moral content is nothing short of bigotry.

Read more

Obama nominee Dawn Johnsen is a rabid leftist, pro-abort

According to Johnsen:

Abortion restrictions ‘reduce pregnant women to no more than fetal containers.’

The argument that women who become pregnant have in some sense consented to the pregnancy belies reality… and others who are the inevitable losers in the contraceptive lottery no more ‘consent’ to pregnancy than pedestrians ‘consent’ to being struck by drunk drivers.

The experience [of abortion] is no longer traumatic; the response of most women to the experience is relief.

Read more

Tom Roeser “On the Obama Style of Duplicity”

Q. I’m intrigued by the way President Obama performs on television. He may lie but he does it so convincingly he could pass a lie detector test. Is this style something new in politics or what? Take for instance his recent appearance on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

A. Understand, all politicians shade the truth. The greatest advocate for one side of an equation I ever knew was Hubert Humphrey. Reporting for the Associated Press for his first reelection in 1954, I rode (in the back seat of his campaign car) for three weeks, recording fastidiously everything he said on an average of 13 stump speeches a day. But Hubert (of whom I became exceedingly fond-apart from his politics) was confident that he could make his case…faulty as it may be… with unassailable statistics that could not be challenged (his conclusions could be, but not his encyclopedic command of statistics).

The case of Obama, a graduate of the Chicago School of Lying and Deception is far different. The Chicago School borrows from the old Marxist view of truth as refined by two Leftist philosophers, Noam Chomsky-Herbert Marcuse who argued this: truth is not absolute; it can be twisted conveniently to serve the interest of the arguer for “great good” i.e. political victory. In other words the statement “1 plus 1 equals 2” and “snow is white” can be denied if not in the political interest of a “progressive” political advocate. No one employs the Chomsky-Marcuse strategy more than Mayor Richard M. Daley…who has picked it up from his more sophisticated Lefty advisers…although if he were asked who Chomsky and Marcuse are, he’d guess they’re precinct captains in the 50th ward.

Read the whole story