Friday, March 22, 2013

Dufus VP Joe Biden (who is Catholic) Excommunicated by Pope?

I just came across this story on the interwebs... apparently Joe Biden met with the new pope, and REFUSED to kiss his ring, which is proper etiquette. Biden says his mom told him not to, because no one is better than him, and that his bad manners are "all about dignity". I'm not a Catholic, and therefore wouldn't kiss the pope's ring, but Biden is. This is just more disrespect for religion from the Hussein/Biden administration, IMO.

Not that I care, as I'm not Catholic and kissing a ring isn't a big deal, but why wouldn't an individual who is a member of the Catholic religion (so he's supposed to acknowledge the Pope as the head of his religion) follow proper etiquette? Kind of ironic that Biden won't do something non-controversial in the name of dignity when the guy above him is running all over the globe embarrassing the United States by bowing to every foreign leader he encounters and apologizing on our behalf.

Prez Hussein may think the US has something to apologize for, but I do not. I'd rather Hussein stop bowing and have Biden kiss a Pope's ring than the other way around. Why didn't Biden have a talking to with Hussein and suggest he "demand respect"? I think both Hussein and Biden are an embarrassment to our country.

Also, I'm sure that Romney, even though he is a Mormon, would have been respectful of tradition and kissed the Pope's ring - BUT he wouldn't have bowed to foreign leaders or went around apologizing for America.

TLB #21

Friday, March 15, 2013

New Pope

This post concerns my opinions regarding the selection of the new pope, an individual who dubbed himself Francis. These are the opinions of someone who is a Christian, but not a Catholic.

The good news is that he opposes abortion, describing the pro-choice movement as a "culture of death". And, in regards to homosexual marriage, Francis says it is "a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God".

So, it is good that he is a strong supporter of traditional marriage, although this is a hardly shocking position, given what it says in the Bible about this kind of perversion being an abomination.

The bad news is his views regarding wealth inequality. Francis believes that "unjust economic structures... give rise to great inequalities", and that "poor people are persecuted for demanding work, [while] rich people are applauded for fleeing from justice".

Blaming wealthy people for the plight of the poor is the Liberal shtick, and actually the opposite of the truth. Wealthy people are often innovators and job creators. Wealth flows FROM such individuals. They are creators of wealth, and the middle class and poor are better off because of their efforts.

It would be more accurate for him to speak against Socialism and Crony capitalism, because these corrupt forms of government are what we can really blame for poverty. Individuals who attain wealth due to either of these forms of thievery (government stealing from it's citizens) do deserve to be demonized, but certainly not all wealthy people fall into this category.

Also, Francis opposed the distribution of contraceptives in Argentina, which is probably not a good idea, simply because of STDs like AIDS. This is a position that likely costs lives. Yeah, we're talking about sinners having extramarital sex, but is this a sin deserving of the death penalty?

In any case, I think many Catholics do not adhere to this edict anyway. On the other hand, I do believe that promoting contraception for teens is wrong. Adults shouldn't be encouraging kids to have sex.

Finally, I've heard some of those discussing this new pope say that he needs to adopt a zero tolerance for clergy involved in covering up child abuse and moving clergy instead of defrocking them and cooperating with the police... which is a position I am in complete agreement with.

And the helping the poor thing is fine; however, the church holds great wealth, and does anyone think they are going to liquidate any large portion of their assets to further that goal (like in the film "The Shoes of the Fisherman")? That would be an exceedingly shocking turn of events.

TLB #20

Friday, March 8, 2013

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Global Warming Scammer Al Gore Exposed

Whatever you want to call it - "global warming" or "global climate change" - the evidence shows it isn't happening. Or at least humans have nothing to do with it. Now, I know you've heard that there is a "consensus" within the scientific community that ex-president Al Gore's "documentary" is indisputably 100 percent factual, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Even Al Gore does not believe his own BS. This, we know, because of Al Gore's own hypocritical actions. If he really believed in global warming would he own two energy guzzling McMansions built on land that may soon be underwater (if one is to believe his propaganda film)?

Also, as I pointed out in a previous post, Gore recently sold his TV network to Al Jazeera, which is owned by Arabs who make their money from oil. Do you think that America-hating propaganda is the only thing they will promote? Is it likely, do you think, that the channel owned by oil-rich Arabs will encourage their viewers to "go green" and try and reduce their oil consumption?

Of course not. And, is this not extremely strong evidence that Al Gore is nothing but a scammer who is knowingly lies to the gullible Liberal sheep in an attempt to separate these progressive fools from their money? Just like when he lied about inventing the internet (although I do not know that he made money from this fib; perhaps the purpose was only self-aggrandizement?)

Mark Hendrickson of Forbes asks, "Who would benefit from this catastrophically expensive agenda [of addressing "global warming"]?"

You'd most likely be shocked to learn that those who stand to profit enormously from this agenda are "the political and politically connected elite -- the Goldman Sachs outfits that would reap billions from trading carbon permits; the Al Gores and corporate and political insiders that would amass fortunes from their ties to a government-rigged energy market and investments in politically correct technologies..."

Shocked if you're an average American that is. The global warming hoaxsters have done a bang up job of convincing the public at large that there is actually reason to be concerned.

Luckily it appears as though the so-called cap-and-trade legislation is dead in the water, although Prez Hussein is still blowing billions of taxpayer dollars on "green energy" "investments" that are actually payoffs to cronies who donated to the Hussein regime. When is the electorate going to wise up and stop voting for these corrupt Democrats?

TLB #18

Friday, March 1, 2013

Changing the Definition of Marriage is NOT a Civil Rights Issue!

Let me be clear about one thing, and that is that I'm not homophobic. If two women or two men want to engage in sick perversions within the privacy of their own home, well, that's their business. So long as they're not grossing me out by holding hands or smooching in public (or worse), why should I care? (Aside from the fact that this type of depravity makes Jesus cry).

That said, I agree with those who believe marriage is between one man and one woman, and that we should not be changing the definition of marriage to appease the homosexuals. Civil unions, I suppose, are an acceptable compromise, but I strongly oppose Obama's desire to force churches to perform homo weddings.

Of course this kind of thing is what you'd expect from the atheist Christian-hating Left. Their dear leader also decided to force Catholic institutions to pay for birth control under the health insurance policies they provide for their employees, in a clear violation of church doctrine.

While I'm not Catholic and have no problem with married couples using birth control if they want to be intimate and not worry about unplanned pregnancies, I am strongly opposed to Catholic institutions being forced to violate their beliefs. The Liberal fascism of the Hussein administration is truly mind blowing.

What doesn't make sense to me is why such a large percentage of the Hispanics, who are largely Catholic, voted for Democrats that spit on their religious beliefs. I can see why the Mexicans who are here illegally voted for Hussein, but what about the Hispanics who have lived here for generations? I don't think this passes the smell test.

In any case, I was talking about the gays getting "married", and why I'm opposed. Soon the Supreme Court will be weighing in on the issue. The Hussein administration argues that dudes marrying other dudes and chicks marrying other chicks is a "civil right", but how can this be?

Arguing that sodomy is somehow a "civil right" is beyond ridiculous. Hopefully the Conservatives on the court (plus Kennedy) will stand up for what's right and decide to keep the definition of marriage intact and as-is.

TLB #17