Pope Francis, a man whose actions call his devotion into question, has entered the US political fray by attacking Donald Trump. The Pope was in Mexico and was asked about Trump’s positions regarding immigration and particularly his stance on building a wall. The Pope commented that we should be building bridges, not walls, and that anyone who would build such a wall is not a true Christian.
I am sure the Pope is aware that Christians read the Old Testament and follow its doctrine even though it was the Jews involved as Christians were not yet around. In the Old Testament there is some mention, I am sure the Pope can have a Bishop look it up, of at least one walled city.
In fact, if the Pope looks out his bedroom window he can see the very same thing.
You see Vatican City, which is its own small sovereign state, is surrounded by very high walls making it nearly impossible to get in. The Vatican has millions of people who enter it as tourists to visit the place but only about 800 people there are CITIZENS and the rules to gain citizenship are very strict.
Not just any Tom, Dick, or Harry can enter the Vatican and request citizenship. No one can scale the wall (thus entering illegally) and expect to stay and reap the benefits that those who come to America illegally get.
Pope Francis, you need to tear down those walls lest people take you at your word and claim you are not a Christian because you have walls surrounding you.
Why are there walls surrounding Vatican City in the first place? What’s that you say? For safety. Oh, I get it. You want to be able to control who enters YOUR sovereign little slice of the planet.
Well we want the same thing and we don’t need a socialist Pope prancing around telling us we should be doing otherwise.
So either tear down the walls and build a few bridges or sit down and shut up.
As an aside, if you tear down the walls ship the bricks over here. We could use them to lower the cost of our wall.
Never surrender, never submit.
Feb 7, 2015 Military
The Chairborne Rangers at the highest levels of the Army (including the Chief Desk Occupant Secretary McHugh) have politicized the bravery of one soldier and denied him not only the Service’s second highest award but also the Silver Star he was awarded for bravery on the battlefield.
According to a story by Aaron MacLean in The Washington Free Beacon then Captain Matt Golsteyn was awarded the Silver Star for his brave and heroic actions in combat and when he was awarded the Silver Star the powers that be indicated the award was being reviewed and would likely be upgraded to the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC).
A funny thing happened on the way to the award and that is Golsteyn was quoted in a book where he criticized the strategy in Afghanistan. The petty pencil pushers, those who send people into harm’s way and watch from afar, decided to launch and investigation into whether Golsteyn violated the rules of engagement (ROE) that led to the death of an enemy bomb maker (how is that a bad thing).
The long investigation did not result in any charges and the Chairborne Rangers could find absolutely nothing that Golsteyn did wrong but they denied the DSC. One might say they reviewed the case and decided his actions did not warrant that medal.
Fair enough BUT, the Secretary revoked the Silver Star Golsteyn was awarded for his heroic deeds.
This is all recounted by Congressman Duncan Hunter who wrote to McHugh to determine the status of the upgrade from Silver Star to DSC.
This is all petty politics by people who are more concerned with their inside the beltway cocktail luncheons and dinner parties than the welfare of the troops. The people who served with Golsteyn recommended him for the award based on what he did with them and while they were with him.
The denial of the DSC and the revocation of the Silver Star were nothing more than political moves by people whose biggest threat is a paper cut.
The powers that be don’t like the real heroes who have to fight and die pointing out that the tactics and ROE dictated by those pencil pushing powers are getting people killed and stifling their ability to prosecute and win the war.
The Secretary of the Army should be ashamed of himself for allowing politics to cloud his judgement. He should be bounced out of office for tarnishing the name of a true hero whose boots he is not fit to shine.
Never surrender, never submit.
Sep 12, 2012 Political
Anyone ever had an addict in their family??? I have. what drives any form of addict is the bloodthirsty need to have power or control over another or a situation. It is the nucleus to the disorder…and trust me, it is a HUGE disorder…for every addict to remain so, they must have one or more co-addicts. hat being a willing person or partner who doesn’t engage in the addictive act, but does nothing to stop the active addict.
What I witnessed by both Republicans and Democrats at their convention was the disease of addiction and their willing co-addicts. That feeling of watching something occur and asking yourself if you really did just see what you saw. Surreal. The debris inside the eye of the storm flying everywhere, must have been what it felt like to be a delegate of anyone but Mitt Romney. And let’s not give the Dems a pass either…same for any Democratic delegate who places God as their supreme guide in life decisions and behavior.
Those of us on the outside of that eye of the storm can see things for exactly what they are, and it isn’t a pretty sight for either party if they continue this assault on rules, laws, and citizens. Judging from how many citizens don’t bother to vote, and how many dead citizens continue to vote, I’d say this is an utter failure. How about you?
To push away all those elected delegates by the people of their states, and change the rules at the last second to get your boy the 1144 delegates he needed, was less than the “big tent” you claim you are Republicans. And to push God out of any reference in your little party in Charlotte was equally divisive Democrats. You’re not winning anyone over.
How many of you would like to have another choice? How many would like to hear Gary Johnson in the debates, who is on the ballot in all 50 states? I know I would. I would like to hear what a former Governor of New Mexico, who was one of only four Governors to leave office with a budget surplus, has to say. I would like to hear what the former Governor has to say about cutting taxes, because he did so 14 times and still left the treasury with 222 million to the 28 million when he arrived. I would like to hear what the former Governor who won two terms with a wide margin has to say about school choice, since he was the first to lead the challenge on a statewide voucher program. I would like to hear about a former Governor who actually cut 1200 government jobs without firing one government employee. I would like to hear from the former Governor who vetoed 750 bills during his tenure, more than any other Governor in the country. I would like to hear about health care from a former Governor who has participated in several Iron Man triathlons and summited Mt. Everest in 2003.
If the Republicans throw another game in November, just remember, there was a third choice…he just wasn’t invited to the party…maybe because he isn’t a power hungry, controlling addict?? Maybe he isn’t drinking the Kool Aid that requires an intervention.
One would like to think that any court, especially the Supreme Court, would rule based on the Constitution. In an ideal world the judges would look at a case and compare it to what is allowed in the Supreme Law of the land and then decide if it passes muster or not.
Unfortunately, our country is not like that as many judges ignore the Constitution in order to push a political or idealistic agenda. For instance, there is no way that a case involving the right of an American citizen who is not otherwise disqualified (criminal, mental illness, addiction, etc) to own a gun should be shot down by any court. The fact that Second Amendment cases have been 5-4 decisions in our highest court speaks volumes about how some justices view the Constitution and the citizens who own that document.
Today the Supreme Court struck down three of four provisions of the Arizona Immigration Law, a law that was written with the same wording as the federal law and one that did nothing more than enforce ALREADY existing federal law.
Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority on this and there might be a good reason. Justice Kagan recused herself because she was Solicitor General and was involved in the case against the law. If Roberts votes the other way the decision is split at 4-4 and the lower court ruling that invalidated the entire thing would be upheld. At least this way Roberts ensured that the most important part of the law, that which allows police officers to check immigration status, was upheld.
There is another take on this that I have heard and it is that Roberts voted this way because Obamacare is going to be overturned (or parts of it are) and Roberts wants to be able to show the Arizona case as proof that he is thoughtful in his process and that overturning Obamacare was not political.
It is sad that this takes place but the Court has been a political entity since FDR fiddled with it. Justices are selected based on their political ideology and less so on their judicial qualities. Presidents put people on courts not who will uphold the Constitution but who will provide political decisions in a party’s favor. If justices ruled by interpreting the Constitution (and this means reading what the Founders wrote about what it means and not some liberal living document mumbo jumbo) then there would be no issues and there would be fewer 5-4 decisions.
There would also not be a necessity for justices to vote one way to demonstrate that their decisions are not political. There would be no outcry over judicial activism and we would not have Barack Obama and his liberal minions berating the court and trying to intimidate them.
Supreme Court Justices are supposed to interpret law in accordance with the Constitution and base their decisions ONLY on that document. There should be no reference to foreign law or public feeling or opinion polls and there darn sure should not be decisions that run contrary to the words of the Constitution and those who wrote it.
We have these things because nine people sit on a court and play games.
As an aside, Justice Scalia wrote agreat dissenting opinion in the Arizona Case. His was well reasoned and followed the Constitution. It is too bad others could not do this as well.
I think that Roberts voted the way he did in order to keep the entire law from being shot down because of the split. But I can’t help but wonder if he feels as if this were a blessing because now he is on record as voting with the liberals on the Court in favor of Obama’s position so that when Obamacare is shot down (if it is) he will have cover.
It is a shame that our system of government has come to this and unless changes are made we will soon hit a death spiral from which we cannot recover.
On Thursday of this week we will know how Obamacare plays out. We will know if the Court takes its job and its duty to the Citizens seriously or if they have committed us to the loony bin of a banana republic.
Time will tell. I think at least part of the law will be struck down but with politics instead of adherence to the Constitution the MO of the SCOTUS, one can never tell.
Justice Kagan recused herself from this decision because of her role as Solicitor General. She should have recused herself from Obamacare but since she was placed on the Court by Obama to uphold it you can bet she will vote on it.
Though it might get interesting if she did recuse. That would make it a 4-4 and things would really be boogered up.
We will see Thursday if we are a nation of laws or a nation of men.
Never surrender, never submit.
May 1, 2012 Political
Barack Obama opposed everything George Bush did with regard to the Global War on Terror (and nearly everything else). He opposed all of the things that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden and when Seal Team Six carried out that mission Obama told Americans that he would not show pictures or make a lot out of it because, as he said, we don’t spike the ball.
That did not stop Barack Obama from taking all the credit for the success of the mission. Obama turned the mission over to a Naval Officer, Admiral William McRaven, and it was he who put the plans into place. Then Seal Team Six carried the mission to success. All of this was done with the mechanisims put into place by George Bush. Then Obama took all the credit.
Congrats to him for giving the order to carry out the mission. That is where his credit ends and the credit begins for all thoise who were actually in harm’s way. You see, while Obama might have suffered political damage from a failure, those who carried out the mission would have suffered injury or death had things gone badly. One only needs to remember Jimmy Carter and his disasterous plans in Iran to see what happens when a mission goes bad. Carter lost reelection but is still alive. Those who participated in his ill conceived mission in the desert have been dead for decades.
Now, the Navy Seals are not very happy with Barack Obama. They give him credit for giving the go on the mission but are very unhappy that he is using it as a political tool in his bid for reelection. They do not like being props for Obama’s campaign and they do not like the spotlight on them or their actions. They are upset that Obama is claiming that only he would have given the order and that Mitt Romney (the presumptive Republican nominee) would not have done so.
There is no way to know what Romney would have done but the Seals believe that any president would have given the order.
I have to disagree with that a little. While I have no doubt that Romney possesses leadership abilities and would have given the order, I have to disagree with the idea that any president would have.
Bill Clinton had the opportunity to take out Bin Laden on three occasions and he declined to do so. There is no doubt that Clinton had Osama bin laden in our crosshairs three times and each time he said no. One of his advisors (Sandy Berger) even stole papers from the National Archives to cover up information relating to this. If Bill Clinton had given the order on any of those occasions 9/11 might not have happened.
Ironically, the campaign ad the Seals are upset with features Bill Clinton telling viewers that Obama took the harder and more honorable path when he ordered that bin Laden be killed. This means that Clinton took the easier and less honorable path.
It is also interesting to note that the ad starts with the word Forward which has been a Socialist slogan for a very long time.
It was a great day for America and the world when Obama put into action the plans made possible by George Bush and ended the life of Osama bin Laden. It is not so honorable for the leader of this country to use this for political gain in order to be reelected.
The Navy Seals don’t like it and in the overall scheme of things their opinion matters more than that of Obama.
He gave the order but they risked it all to make it happen.
Never surrender, never submit.