Obama Disrepecting The Vatican, Catholics, Jews, Everyone But Muslims

First Obama pushes a deal with Iran that does nothing to prevent that Muslim nation from getting the bomb putting Israel in mortal danger, before that he sided with al Qaeda and other Muslim groups in Syria despite that they are murdering Christians just for being Christians, and now Obama disses Catholics by moving the US embassy to the Vatican out of the Vatican and miles away next to the Italian embassy in Rome.

In only a few day’s time, Obama has turned his back on Jews and Catholics both while giving Muslims all the help they need to become an even greater danger to the whole world. Who’s side is this guy on, anyway?

Obama has offended the Vatican and Catholics everywhere with his unilateral decision to move the embassy out of the Holy See, claiming he did so because of “security” reasons.

Security is a pretty weak reason, of course. The embassy to the Vatican is no more safe in Rome than it is in the Vatican itself.

Former U.S. Ambassador James Nicholson, who is now at the National Catholic Reporter, is one former official that thinks this is a big diss to Catholics and recently called the move a “massive downgrade of U.S.-Vatican ties.”

“It’s turning this embassy into a stepchild of the embassy to Italy. The Holy See is a pivot point for international affairs and a major listening post for the United States, and … [it’s] an insult to American Catholics and to the Vatican,” Nicholson said.

Former envoy Raymond Flynn also attacked the move and called Obama’s “security” reason a “smokescreen.”

“It’s not just those who bomb churches and kill Catholics in the Middle East,” Flynn said, “but it’s also those who restrict our religious freedoms and want to close down our embassy to the Holy See. [There’s no] diplomatic or political benefit to the United States” for the relocation, he explained.

Measure this against the danger Obama is putting Israel in and the many, many times he’s bent over backwards to give Muslims his eager assistance, and what do we have?

Shortlink:

Posted by on November 29, 2013.
Filed under Barack Obama, Big government, corruption, Culture Of Corruption, Democrats, Foreign Affairs, Iran, Islam, Islamic Fascism, Israel, Liberals, Religion, Religious Liberty.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events.He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com"The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • jim_m

    I wouldn’t call it disrespecting. I would just call it siding with our enemies.

    • Constitution First

      Barry’s actions speak louder than his teleprompter (written with somebody else’s words, of course) I do realize this is hard for Progressives to embrace with their head so far in the sand.

    • Constitution First

      Barry’s actions speak louder than his teleprompter (written with somebody else’s words, of course) I do realize this is hard for Progressives to embrace with their head so far in the sand.

  • Commander_Chico

    Raymond Flynn spent his time in Rome boozing, no wonder he wanted his own place. He’s got wet brain syndrome, sees the devil attacking Catholics everywhere now, it’s like a scene in The Lost Weekend.

    I’ve been to the U.S. Embassy in Rome – it’s massive, with several buildings on the grounds. There is plenty of space in it. The building and security costs of maintaining another embassy are large. The embassy to the Vatican is also not in the Vatican, it is in Rome and actually farther away from the Vatican than the US Embassy to Italy is!! The money to maintain another embassy comes out of the same budget that has to allocate money to places like — Benghazi. What’s more important, the separate Vatican embassy building, or more security for Sana’a, Tunis, or Cairo?

    Another example of saying you want to cut government waste, except when something offends some interest group.

    Of course you also back up the Iran warmongers like Kristol, who brought us the Iraq war and have been wrong about everything.

    .

    • jim_m

      Nice try. The move was not proposed to save the government money, it was proposed because the obama admin claimed that the Vatican was too dangerous.

      So instead on replying with “Oh look! A shiny!” Why not actually address what the obama admin said and why they are right/wrong? Or is honesty just too difficult for you to pull off?

      • Commander_Chico

        Since the present US Embassy to the Vatican is not in the Vatican, but across the Tiber near the Circus Maximus in Rome, WTF are you talking about?

        There will still be an Ambassador to the Holy See, with staff. It will continue to be a political appointment given to a prominent US Catholic.

        • jim_m

          Regardless, the point was that you claim this is a cost savings measure and it was not announced as such. Fight for you lord and savior on the grounds of what his claims are and not on what you think they ought to be.

          • Commander_Chico

            It’s pretty obvious it will save money. The whole government is making cuts now.

            Here’s the embassy. A small but substantial mission. Maintaining and securing it obviously costs tens of millions per year, if not more.

            http://goo.gl/maps/59Xmu

          • jim_m

            Dude, the admin never said that this was about money so STFU with the argument that no one is making. obama claimed that this was about security. And as I mention to Bruce, obama has never been concerned about spending, unless it was a concern about how to increase it.

          • Commander_Chico

            Is everything you say bullshit?

            Addressing the growing controversy in Rome, the State Department arranged a briefing for reporters on Monday with an unnamed senior official who said the purpose for the move was to save money and increase security.

            http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/27/vatican-knocks-down-controversy-over-u-s-embassy-move/comment-page-10/

          • jim_m

            I have read several articles claiming that the reason was security, so I stand corrected. It was both.

          • Commander_Chico

            No problem, just another edition of “Never Mind, it’s just Warner’s BS.”

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Perhaps you should find a blog to comment on that offends you less.

          • Jwb10001

            Speaking of BS a couple of days ago you accused me and my ilk of spitting on veterans while you were saving the world from communists. As was pointed out then I am a Vietnam era vet that would never spit on a veteran. Care to retract that bit of bull shit? Or are you as is typical just going to ignore your typical disrespect for a fellow veteran? You’re support of the beloved troops and veterans seems to have a bit of political bias. Probably because as has been pointed out, you’re only in it for the retirement and socialized healthcare.

          • jim_m

            He will answer RM’s questions first. Which, of course, means never.

            And it isn’t just that people point out that he was only ever in it for the bene’s. He put that one out there himself.

      • Brucehenry

        Or why not address what the author of this piece said and why he is right (he’s not) or wrong (he is).

        NO COUNTRY has their embassy in the Vatican City itself. Including the US. So the author is stating an untruth when he asserts that the Obama is dissing Catholics by “moving the US embassy to the Vatican out of the Vatican.” It’s simply not true, and I suspect the author, and you, both know it.

        Let’s not even get into the other wingnut drooleries espoused here, where Obama is blamed for “siding with al Qaeda” because he is putting pressure on Assad — something wingnuts were in favor of until he started doing it. And griping about the deal with Iran, thereby depriving them of another opportunity for a quagmire.

        • jim_m

          Fair enough, no one has an embassy in the Vatican City. But I was not making the argument that this was a cost savings measure, Chico was. I have seen several stories that stated the reason for abandoning the separate embassy was security concerns and not cost savings. (cost savings being a real laugher since obama creates a new record for deficit spending each year)

          [edit] my comment above was that Chico is changing the subject and asserting something that the admin never claimed. He may be right that it will save money but that was never posited by the admin as a reason for doing this.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yah, security is also a concern – the embassy to Rome is a lot more “formidable” a target than this palazzo for the Vatican embassy. Also, how many guards, DSS agents and Marines can you have at a little mission like that?

            You people don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • Brucehenry

            The State Dept says the move will both increase security AND save about $1.4 million a year.http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/11/29/State-Dept-Criticism-of-Vatican-embassy-move-based-on-myths/UPI-14641385740862/

            So, to sum up, more ginned-up outrage about nothing at all. Another teapot tempest from Wingnuttia.

          • Commander_Chico

            Only $1.4 million? I’d say a lot more just looking at that place.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, that’s what the link says.

          • Commander_Chico

            When you consider the cost of security, facilities maintenance, at least 2 IT networks, one secured to at least SECRET, probably some food service facility, $1.4 million is a very conservative figure.

            That also looks like prime real estate if you sold it.

          • Brucehenry

            Apparently the $1.4 million figure is just in lease and operating costs.

          • Commander_Chico

            There would be more. For example, there would be a Management Officer position that would be redundant and could be reassigned elsewhere. Obviously the local-hire guards would not be necessary.

          • jim_m

            OK . I stand corrected. I have seen several articles that only repeated the security claim.

          • Brucehenry

            Read more widely, I suggest.

          • jim_m

            That’s what I have you for.

          • Brucehenry

            Glad to help.

          • Commander_Chico

            So, now that you know the facts, don’t you think it’s a good idea? If you want to cut government spending, this seems like a very easy choice.

            The stories say that the US Embassy to the Vatican will be in a separate building on the US Embassy to Italy grounds. The US Embassy to Italy is in a massive old palace with more than one building. It’s closer to the Vatican and in a better area, right on the Via Veneto.

          • jim_m

            Then I would say that this is another example of how incompetent and inept obama is at international relations because he has managed to piss off the Vatican, and Catholics in general, regardless.

            The fact is that the admin did emphasize the security aspect and de-emphasized the cost and proximity aspects. If what you say is true then he managed to take something that was neutral and deliberately turned it into an affront. obama never passes up an opportunity to piss off a traditional ally.

          • Commander_Chico

            I don’t know what you mean by “emphasize” if you say “save money and increase security” seems that is at least neutral.

            Also, for the third time: the US Embassy to the Vatican is in Italy, not on the territory of the Vatican state. How the obvious security issue of having a redundant facility would be an affront to the Vatican, I don’t know.

            The former ambassadors like Flynn only want a place to visit, maybe sleep over and reminisce about their glory days while being called “Ambassador” by the FS-4 sent to have tea (or in Flynn’s case, a sambuca) with them.

            It seems to me that if anything were to be cut in the Department of State, this facility would be on the top of the list. Of course the hypocrisy of “conservatives” who continually bleat about cutting government spending is in full display.

          • Brucehenry

            Except the move DIDN’T “piss off the Vatican and Catholics in general.”

            http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/27/vatican-knocks-down-controversy-over-u-s-embassy-move/comment-page-10/

            The move was an opportunity for certain conservative Catholics, who already dislike Obama, to have willing tools like Warner here advance a falsehood that sheep like…well, you know who I mean….could lap up.

            Connoisseurs of ginned-up outrage love this kind of crap and you apparently are no exception. That’s what these certain conservative Catholics and other critics of the President are counting on. Even after being debunked, this hogwash will still be trotted out months from now as part of the litany of anti-Obama complaints you geniuses keep adding to.

          • Commander_Chico

            You know, if I was reading sources that omitted significant facts to advance an agenda, I’d wonder about those sources.

          • Brucehenry

            Some people read and cite, say, Gateway Pundit, even after ADMITTING and ACKNOWLEDGING that Hoft, the owner, often goes off half-cocked and accuses the administration of this outrage or that offense, only to find out he’s ummm, incorrect.

            That’s because some people just want to read that Obama sux, whatever the truth of the specific matter at hand is.

          • Sky__Captain

            That is largely because 0bama does suck, and proven by his failed and failing programs and policies.

            And his polls numbers are beginning to reflect this as more and more people realize the real meaning and lies behind the (un)Affordable Care Act come out.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL, so it makes sense to continue to read and repeat nonsense from anti-Obama websites that one KNOWS exaggerate, lie, and omit pertinent information, because “Obama does suck.”

            You guys are priceless.

            EDIT — Regarding poll numbers: It’s a Preference Cascade!

          • Sky__Captain

            Not nearly as priceless as your devoted worship of your 0bamamessiah.

            The SCOAMF does suck, unless you can to name ONE thing about the (un)Affordable Care Act that actually lives up the the promises made.

            And no, the poll numbers are not a “Preference Cascade”. It is more of a case people realized the ACA is a “bait-and-switch” sold by a snake-oil salesman.

          • Brucehenry

            One thing? OK, I can continue to cover my older daughter on my insurance until her 26th birthday, more than 3 years hence.

            One more? The pre-existing condition thingie.

            And whether or not Obama “sucks,” that doesn’t mean that websites which exaggerate, lie, and purposely omit pertinent facts should be listened to or cited as evidence, now, does it?

          • Sky__Captain

            Sorry, but covering your “children” until they’re 26 is a fail – they are no longer minors at 18. And the insurance marketplace could have handle that without 0bamaCare. Thanks for playing, but I knew you couldn’t name one.

            And as for Obama not sucking, that doesn’t mean that websites which exaggerate, lie, and purposely omit pertinent facts should be listened to or cited as evidence, now, does it?

            So don’t cite any MSM stories then, OK?

          • Brucehenry

            EDIT: Self-deleted repetition of joke that wasn’t that funny to start with.

          • jim_m

            Yep. I wonder about every comment you post.

          • Sky__Captain

            Some of us do not.

            Wonder, that is.

  • westcoastwiser

    Give him a break! At age 52 he’s still searching for his inner-self which he thinks he lost at a pot party in Hawaii.

  • ljcarolyne

    Obama is hated with a vengeance, may it all come home to roost on his ugly head, and it will. You reap what you sow. He will receive a 100 fold on his evil doings.

  • ljcarolyne

    Oh don’t forget how he is disrespecting tax paying Christians here in America. Obama is a Muslim pig that hates America, well guess what – no love loss here.