Pope Francis: The Catholics’ Commie Pope Problem is Growing

With his third major address infused with socialist buzzwords, it seems to be official. Pope Francis is the first Commie Pope. And this is a big problem for the Catholic Church and they’d better get a handle on it.

First of all it is disgusting that any member of the cloth would advocate for communism like this Pope seems to be doing. Communism and its sister ideologies socialism and Nazism are responsible for the deaths of more humans than anything man has ever done. Yes, even more than religion–In fact, more than all religions combined. If you are in favor of communism/socialism/Naziism (and there is no material difference between them), then you are an apologist for mass murder. It really is just that simple.

Now, the Catholic Church has enough of a bad history instigating mass murder, so glomming onto communism is not a good PR move.

In any case, this week Pope Francis issued yet another speech filled with communist rhetoric. This time he all about “redistribution” of wealth using the Biblical story of Zacchaeus.

Some Catholics are bending over backwards to explain away this, the third time Francis has indulged socialist rhetoric. For instance, ever the dutiful Catholic, Ed Morrissey at HotAir.com, is saying that there is more to it than just being alarmed at the socialist buzzwords that Francis used.

“In this case, the term “legitimate” is a limiting factor when redistribution is placed in the context of the Gospel story of Zacchaeus,” Morrissey insists.

“This may not be the most conservative or libertarian expression of economic policies, but it’s basic Catholic teaching on economics for decades, if not centuries.,” he continues.

Morrissey concludes saying, “Just remember–when the media provides only small soundbites of Pope Francis, it pays to read the entirety of his remarks, and to know and understand the teachings behind them.”

But all that ignores that Pope Francis insists on using the key communist rhetoric. And that rhetoric has a specific, modern definition. It isn’t a part of Catholic history at all. And in using those key terms, it seems pretty clear that Franics means them in the modern sense.

If he didn’t he’d not use them at all and would stick with that same terminology that Catholic teaching on economics has used for decades.

But Francis insists on using communist terminology, not Catholic rhetoric.

His socialist-styled mode of speaking is why Time magazine made him their Person of the Year in 2013. It wasn’t because he’d done anything–after all he’d been in his office for only a few months. No, it was because he speaks like a commie.

I think we are seeing that this Pope is a communist before being a Catholic. And this is a disgusting thing that the Church needs to tamp down and quick.

Educator Called 'Model for Racial Harmony' Hit by Lawsuit of Sex/Racial Harassment
Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
  • Lawrence Westlake

    Hell, the only way Francis could wig out the country club Internet WASP demographics any further is if he gave a speech saying that vaccinating kids against deadly diseases is A-OK and that Ronald Reagan was spot on in granting that huge amnesty to Latino illegal immigrants. Were that to happen most of the so-called conservative blogsphere would explode into bits and pieces. In any event, what the Cardinal Electors figured out is that no longer is there an Iron Curtain to tear down and that even Communist countries don’t actually practice Communism anymore. Look at China. In 20 years or less they’ll be the world’s loan shark. Speaking of which, churches full of old people who are done reproducing are not growth opportunities. You get that, right? The next Pope probably will be from China, Africa or the Philippines, and he might be even further to the left on economic and fiscal issues than Francis. It’s all about growing the church, von Dopey, not fiscal and monetary policies. Francis and his successors won’t be appointed to the Fed, to the World Bank, or to the ECB. While the Protestant churches continue getting old and dying off, and of course as always further splitting apart over doctrinal issues, the Catholic church is poised perhaps to double its ranks over the next few decades. Go figure.

    • Rhonda_May

      umm efftard, you do know that the Evangelical Churches are the fastest growing Christian denomination. While flocks are leaving the commie left wing throw back Catholic church most are finding refuge in Evangelical Churches. Check your fact retard!http://wendythomasrussell.com/catholics-protestants/

      • Commander_Chico

        In a choice between a foul-mouthed right-winger female and Lawrence, I’ll take Lawrence’s side.

        • Rhonda_May

          “Newsflash” A whiny liberal is offended by a conservative black woman…

          • Commander_Chico

            How can you be a true conservative and play the race and gender card at the same time?

            Tits or GTFO

          • http://www.traveLightgame.com/ ljcarolyne

            They all are, you go Rhonda! This Pope is a dope along with Obama. Two peas in a Godless Pod.

      • Tape Operator

        Hmmm, that might have been worth noting if you’d been able to get it across without being a complete and total cunt.

        • Rhonda_May

          1. it is noteworthy
          2. Cunt? Really? Is that how your mother raised you?
          3. Last I checked what slang efftard is not a real word it is a made up word, it’s insulting but not a bad word moron

          • Tape Operator

            1. Only to mouth-breathing idiots.
            2. No, it’s how my grandmother raised me – I was taught to never hesitate to call a dumb bitch a stupid cunt.
            3. You continue to parade your ignorance and babble stupidly, am I supposed to be impressed?

          • Rhonda_May

            Your still an efftard. Try that on for size !

          • Tape Operator

            Get back on the hoe stroll, bitch.

          • Rhonda_May

            inbred piece of shit!

        • http://www.traveLightgame.com/ ljcarolyne

          How, hateful and rude. Some sub human you are.

          • Tape Operator

            I’m sorry, I can’t make out what you’re saying when you talk around my cock like that.

            Gimme a few more minutes, and don’t bite.

  • jim_m

    gloaming onto communism is not a good PR move.

    Neither would glomming onto it. Unless you really meant gloaming, as communism may be reaching the twilight of its existence, but then your sentence construction is all messed up.

    /Bruce.

    • warnertoddhuston

      I can’t win with spelling this week. I didn’t even catch that! But good thing you have a relevant comment otherwise .

      • jim_m

        Spell check is a tool of the devil

        • warnertoddhuston

          I blame the stinkin’ Papists.

          • jim_m

            I blame Booosh!

  • jim_m

    The Catholic Church in Latin America has long flirted with the communists. The left wing elements that do so are very much like the lefties here that flirt with the islamists. In both cases the objects of their affection will destroy them utterly. In both cases they are merely appeasing the enemy:

    “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” – Winston Churchill

  • Commander_Chico

    What about that commie Jesus, he said that rich people are going to hell. Even Pope Francis never said that.

    • jim_m

      No He didn’t. Only the ignorant make that claim. Oops, I forgot who I was speaking to. Of course you believe that.

      • Commander_Chico

        Sure he did. Matthew 19:24 and Luke 16:19-31.

        • jim_m

          You lie once again. Let’s look at the actual text:

          Matt 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”

          This does not say that all rich people are going to hell. Plain and simple. It DOES teach that wealth can be an obstacle to receive salvation.

          Your second text is the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. This too does not teach that all wealthy people are going to Hell. It does not even teach that wealth is an obstacle to salvation. It points out that the rich man ignored Lazarus’ suffering and even contributed to it by allowing his dogs to lick Lazarus’ sores. The rich man is in Hell because he ignored the suffering of his fellow man, an indicator that he also ignored the teachings of God, not because he was rich.

          Once again we see that Chico is totally unfamiliar with the truth and is willing to back any lie.

          What else should we expect from the guy who backed the bogus video story on Benghazi all the way up to last week?

          • Retired military

            And who cant answer simple questions.

          • jim_m

            I assumed that Chico’s question was rhetorical because the obvious answer is that he is.

          • Retired military

            I was talking about the questions Chico has yet to answer. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

          • Commander_Chico

            I knew you would come back with the sophistry that maybe it’s possible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, like if you ground it up finely, or something.

          • jim_m

            That was a metaphor. SO are you here to argue that the military is now taking the mentally retarded? Are you really that thick as to not be able to distinguish metaphor from a direct description? Or are you simply so dishonest that any argument will do and you will twist any words to suit your dishonest agenda?

            It’s really hard to tell which.

          • Commander_Chico

            I am just looking at the plain words. What Jesus said was much stronger than anything Pope Francis said, so if the Pope is a commie, Jesus is more commie.

          • jim_m

            No. You are lying about what was said. You are obtusely misinterpreting it to suit your own ends. Your argument is dishonest and multiple people have already chimed in to explain that.

            The only commie here is you.

          • Commander_Chico

            And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

            http://biblehub.com/matthew/19-24.htm

          • jim_m

            Congrats you can post a link. Now find a source that say that this is only to be interpreted in a literal fashion and not as a metaphor. We’ve already had others post comments supporting the interpretation as a metaphor.

            Tell us, Oh omniscient one, what you have to support your position other than you are a fucking bigot?

          • Commander_Chico

            People who rely on the plain words of a text always have a better rhetorical argument than those who say a text is a metaphor.

            Is the Constitution a metaphor? What about your employment contract? What if your boss said it was a metaphor and didn’t mean what the words said?

            People who use a metaphor argument to evade plain meanings are pussies. They can’t deal with the truth of a text.

          • jim_m

            Chico goes with “Oh look, a shiny!”

            The constitution is a different kind of document so your comparison is completely irrelevant. You want to compare legal documents and laws to a religious text.

            WHile there are arts of the Bible that can be interpreted literally, the sermons of Jesus are replete with metaphors and parables. To suggest that EVERY word must be interpreted literally is foolish in the extreme.

            As I said you are both a liar and a bigot and you have proven that assessment correct once more. I asked you to provide a single link in defense of your position where I linked to a search showing thousands in favor of mine.

          • jim_m

            I see that after 11 hours you are still incapable of furnishing a single link that backs your position so you are now trying to change the subject.

          • jim_m

            Come on dirtbag. Pony up something other than your worthless, bigoted, atheist opinion on what the Bible says.

          • twolaneflash

            The “eye of a needle” referred to in Matthew was not a sewing needle. It was a small side door of a gated city that was so low that a camel would have to get on its knees to crawl through without anything on it: difficult, but not impossible. The camel could get through, but not piled high with goods. So it is with the rich and heaven: you can get in, but you can’t take your riches with you.

          • jim_m

            Chico is convinced that everything in the Bible is to be interpreted in a wooden, literal fashion without any respect to the cultural context.

          • Brucehenry

            No. It was a common expression of the time among Jews and other Middle Eastern peoples, used to refer to anything difficult or impossible or rare.

            Which is why that small side door of a gated city was called that, not the other way around.

            http://biblehub.com/matthew/19-24.htm

          • jim_m

            3 things:

            1) it begs the question as to which Jesus was referring to. Anyone serious about studying the Bible understands that it cannot be understood with out reference to the culture of the time in which it was written.

            2) It still does not make the claim that rich people are all going to Hell.

            3) Either way it is still a metaphor. And only the intolerant try to force such wooden, literal meanings on the Bible; both the intolerant believers and the intolerant bigots like Chico.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes you are right there is “controversy” about it. Some say this, others say that blah blah.

          • jim_m

            Chico has denied the interpretation that wealth is only an obstacle and has not quarreled with my interpretation of his position. Furthermore he has denied that the passage could be a metaphor and insists that it should be taken literally.

            While your interpretation crossed my mind some time ago, Chico’s subsequent responses have removed any doubt of his meaning. I have interpreted him correctly.

          • Brucehenry

            Actually he HASN’T denied your interpretation, he has mocked it. He hasn’t insisted the passage couldn’t be a metaphor, either, only asked how you’re so sure — “Who made you ayatollah?”

            Have you considered you might be being fucked with a little, genius? Perhaps it amuses people to see you get all winded showing off to us all your edumacation.

            Not everyone takes their Wizbang personas as seriously as you do, Jim.

            EDIT: Looks like I spoke too soon. Chico is indeed denying the existence of a metaphor here. Sorry, just woke up.

          • jim_m

            I’ve considered that you and Chico are bigots.

          • jim_m

            I also never claimed to be any arbiter of the truth of the Bible. I have even posted a link demonstrating that many, many people hold this passage to be a metaphor.

            Chico holds his position for the sole reason of being able to criticize the Bible and Christians. Only by being obtuse is he able to create a reason for his bigotry. He has to believe something that no one else does in order to fuel his prejudice.

          • Brucehenry

            Let’s see, holding a position for the purpose of criticizing others, purposely being obtuse, believing something no one else does in order to fuel prejudice…ain’t there any mirrors in your house?

          • jim_m

            Yeah there are. They don’t show me that. (then again I never see myself in the mirror, ever since that weird chic bit me…)

          • Brucehenry

            Probably why you’re up all night arguing with Chico (except when you’re hunting.) Good luck…I guess.

          • Commander_Chico

            Who made you Ayatollah to say it’s a “metaphor?”

          • jim_m

            For cryin’ out loud. You have definitive proof that it is not you outrageous bigot?

            Do you have any reason for insisting upon this interpretation other than your own bigoted hatred of Christianity?

            No you don’t, so fuck off.

          • jim_m

            Come on Chico. Show us the host of people saying that this was meant to be a literal translation.

            It isn’t just me. I actually do have at least 131,000 who agree with me.

            So amaze us all with your proof, jackass.

          • Commander_Chico

            You are making an argument for cultural relativism and “the Living Constitution” there and you don’t even know it.

            The latter is a good example. “Progressives” want to interpret the Constituion, e.g. First and 2nd Amendments in respect to the current “cultural context,” to say that semiautos and hate speech should be banned. I guess you would agree that Constitutional literalism- plain words – should be eschewed.

          • jim_m

            Lying sack of S**t.

            You know damned well that there are significant differences between the Constitution and the Bible. Show me one passage in the Constitution where the text is a recording of a conversation between two people.

            Your argument is the ploy of a desperate bigot.

          • Commander_Chico

            I just don’t get the vituperation. This is a comment board on a blog, not mortal combat. I know people like to act out their hostilities and neuroses online of course.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL

          • jim_m

            Pony up a rational argument and not bigotry and you will get a civil response.

          • Commander_Chico

            Sounds like a rationalization to me. Do you have a citation from Scripture for that? All translations say “eye of a needle,” not “side door.”

          • Retired military

            Gee Chico how about the biblical references to homosexuality being an abomination.

          • Commander_Chico

            Jesus never had anything to say about that.

          • jim_m

            God did and you are the one demanding a literal interpretation of the Bible.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah and God thinks eating shrimp cocktails and wearing polyester are abominations too. He’s right about polyester.

          • jim_m

            Not sure where you get the text for polyester, but I cannot disagree with you. Even my son refused to wear anything polyester when he was a baby. I just figured he had good sense.

          • Brucehenry

            Actually polyester is fine, but a polyester blend isn’t kosher, so to speak.

          • Commander_Chico

            Jesus was a historical person. Whether the myths and legends known as the “Torah,” Old Testament,” or in repackaged form the “Quran” had anything to do with a “God” has no objective evidence to support it.

          • jim_m

            Actually, scholars have suggested that from a historical standpoint the Bible has been quite accurate. The peoples described in the Bible really did exist. Even when modern academics scoffed at the Bible it has been proven reliable from that standpoint. In fact it has been at least as reliable as any ancient writing such as Homer.

          • jim_m

            I’ve posted a search link where you can find exactly what Twolaneflash is talking about. Funny how you have yet to post a link backing your interpretation despite multiple requests for you to do so. Instead we get BS accusations that we are being “ayatollahs” while you are some beacon of truth, all this despite the fact that we can point to many people and scholars agreeing with us and you have just yourself.

          • Brucehenry

            I went through many of the links you posted. While you are right that the passage is a metaphor, it appears that Twolaneflash is a victim of wishful thinking. There is actually no evidence, archaeologically speaking, of the existence of such a gate. It is apparently a 15th century (perhaps even a 9th century) “urban legend.”

            In either case the point of the metaphor is that the wealthy must rid themselves of their wealth if they want salvation. Apparently the reason the disciples were so amazed Jesus would say such a thing is that conventional wisdom at the time was that the rich were blessed, otherwise they wouldn’t be rich. This metaphor was an overturn of conventional thinking.

          • jim_m

            Agreed, I cannot find a good source for his claim, but it is better than Chico’s BS.

          • Brucehenry

            Apparently the claim is often made by those who embrace “prosperity gospel” thinking.

          • jim_m

            Well, if you fall for the BS that “Jesus is gonna make me rich!” you’ll pretty much fall for anything..

    • Retired military

      Jesus never said that rich people are going to hell. As usual you are wrong

      • Commander_Chico

        Another one seeing camels galloping through the eyes of needles.

        • Retired military

          Another idiot that changes words into what they want them instead of what they mean.

          Speaking of words Chico.

          “As I said before, try answering what people say, and not try to put words in others’ mouths, debate goes better” – Chico, Famed Wizbangblog poster

          How about practising what you preach Chico.

          1 Oprah,the Lamestream media, Reid, Pelosi, and other major dems have called people racist simply because they oppose Obama’s

          policies. Yet when they oppose those same policies when espoused by Bill, Hillary. Reid, Pelos, Gore, Kerry, etc etc they weren’t considered racist then by Oprah, etc etc (I don’t know isn’t good enough)

          Do you feel that it is because the left is just playing the race card?

          2. People were called racist anarchist terrorists when they tried to delay Obamacare yet Al Franken who did the same thing wasn’t called Racist. Do you feel that it is because he is a democrat and the people doing the call just playing the race card because that is all they have?

          3. People were called racist anarchist terrorist when they called for the delay of all or part of Obamacare and Obama who is unconstitutionally doing the same thing is not called a racist anarchist terrorist. Do you feel that it is because he is a democrat and the people doing the calling are just playing the race card because that is all they have?

          4. Chico stated ” They (duck dynasty guys) were clean shaven before they pitched the TV show.” yet you provided zero proof of this statement. Please do so now.

          Examples of statements 1, 2, and 3 (since you reject the premise)

          Salon writer Joan Wals

          It’s simply stunning: Longtime Republican imagemaker Ailes figured out how to make sure that our twice-elected Democratic president, backed by a coalition that represents an emerging, multiracial America, must periodically be checked and hopefully shamed by a representative of the angry right-wing white male minority that barely considers him a legitimate leader…

          O’Reilly and Ailes and their viewers see this president as unqualified and ungrateful, an affirmative action baby who won’t thank us for all we’ve done for him and his cohort. The question was, of course, deeply condescending and borderline racist. Obama has been afforded “so much opportunity”? What about O’Reilly, who pretends he’s a working-class son of Levittown, Long Island, when he’s actually the kid of an accountant who grew up in Westbury and went to private high school and university

          ]——-

          Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore: “This is still a pretty conservative country and people are upset about the policies in Washington and they don’t think the politicians are listening.”

          Host Chris Matthews: “Okay, I think, I think some of the people are upset because we have a black President.”

          Talking about the town hall protests against ObamaCare on MSNBC’s Hardball, August 11, 2009.

          If racism is not the whole of the Tea Party, it is in its heart, along with blind hatred, a total disinterest in the welfare of others, and a full-flowered, self-rationalizing refusal to accept the outcomes of elections, or the reality of democracy, or the narrowness of their minds and the equal narrowness of their public support.”

          — MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on Countdown, March 22, 2010.

          “The Republican Party in this country has been running on hate and division for the last 50 years….What black person, gay guy or girl, immigrant or Muslim American in their right mind would vote for the Republican Party? They might as well hang a sign around their neck saying, ‘I hate myself.’”

          — Fill-in host Cenk Uygur on MSNBC’s The Ed Show, August 26, 2010

          Clip from RNC ad: “Stop Obama and his union bosses today. The Republican National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.”

          Host Lawrence O’Donnell: “The Republican Party is saying that the President of the United States has bosses, that the union bosses this President around, the unions boss him around. Does that sound to you like they are trying to consciously or subconsciously deliver the racist message that, of course, of course a black man can’t be the real boss?”

          Ex-Governor Jennifer Granholm (D-MI): “Wow, I hadn’t thought about the racial overtones….”

          — MSNBC’s The Last Word, February 25, 2011.

          “The interesting question is: what is it about this President that has stripped away the veneer of respect that normally accompanies the office of the President? Why do Republicans think this President is unpresidential — unpresidential, and shouldn’t dare to request this kind of thing? It strikes me that it could be the economic times, it could be that he won so big in 2008, or it could be, let’s face it, the color of his skin.”

          — MSNBC political analyst and ex-Newsweek reporter Richard Wolffe talking about the brief contretemps over scheduling Obama’s speech to Congress, The Last Word, August 31, 2011.

          “I get out of all of these things that many of these [Republican] candidates would rather take legislation to build a time machine and go back in time to where we had, you know, no women voting, slavery was cool. I mean, it’s just kind of ridiculous.”

          — Daytime anchor Thomas Roberts on MSNBC Live, September 23, 2011, talking about the previous night’s GOP debate.

          “Plus, what Mitt Romney has in common with the KKK. Details on a rare Romney campaign blunder ahead….So you might not hear Mitt Romney say ‘keep America American’ anymore. That’s because it was a central theme of the KKK in the 1920s. It was a rallying cry for the group’s campaign of violence and intimidation against blacks, gays and Jews.”

          — Anchor Thomas Roberts on MSNBC Live, December 14, 2011.

          Host Chris Matthews: “How does this guy [Mitt Romney] go from hard right, severely conservative, to this new regular mainstream character he’s portraying himself as?…He ran as a full mooner, Michael. You know, he was saying ‘There’s no such thing as science.’… How can he go from Flat Earth, ‘I don’t believe in evolution,’ to all of a sudden, ‘I’m teaching biology’?… It certainly was in the Grand Wizard crowd over there, okay?”

          Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele: “Wait, I resent that! No. Come on, what is this ‘Grand Wizard’ nonsense? Are you saying that we’re Ku Klux Klan?”

          Matthews: “Okay, I’m just saying, the far-right party.”

          Steele: “Give me a break! Don’t go there with me on that.”

          — MSNBC’s Hardball, April 23, 2012.

          You notice he [Romney] says ‘anger’ twice. He’s really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the angry black man. This is part of the playbook against Obama. The other-ization, he’s not like us. I know it’s a heavy thing to say. I don’t say it lightly. But this is niggerization, ‘You are not one of us,’ and that ‘you are like the scary black man who we’ve been trained to fear.’”

          — Co-host Touré on MSNBC’s The Cycle, August 16, 2012.

          Host Martin Bashir: “Of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s forthcoming oration, can I quote something [to] you? ‘For four years, Barack Obama has been running from the nation’s problems. He hasn’t been working to earn re-election. He’s been working to earn a spot on the PGA tour.’ How about that?”

          MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell: “Well, we know exactly what he’s trying to do there….These people reach for every single possible racial double-entendre they can possibly find in every one of these speeches.”

          — MSNBC’s Martin Bashir, August 29, 2012, talking about McConnell’s speech at the Republican National Convention.

          They hate Obama. They want him out of the White House more than they want to destroy al Qaeda. Their number one enemy in the world right now, on the right, is their hatred — hatred for Obama. We can go into that about the white working class in the South, and looking at these numbers we’re getting in the last couple days about racial hatred in many cases. This isn’t about being a better president. They want to get rid of this president. That’s their number one goal and they’re willing to let Romney go to the hard center, even if it’s to the left on issues, as long as they get rid of this guy.”

          — Chris Matthews during MSNBC’s post-debate coverage, October 22, 2012

          “I look at Obama as a perfect American. I don’t mean politically. We can disagree left and right on him. You can argue about the drones. Argue about the fiscal policy, all that stuff. But as a citizen. The guy went to school, he never broke a law. He did everything right. He raised a wonderful family. He’s a good husband, a good father. My God I don’t think he’s ever gotten a speeding ticket. The guy does everything right and these right-wingers — and he’s really been pretty moderate on guns until the horror of Newtown — and I don’t know what they’re so afraid of, except that he happens to be black.”

          — Host Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball, March 6, 2013

          What does your study tell you about the nature of the racial piece here of the Tea Party?…Is it sort of a resumption of the Old South, of the way things were before the Civil War, for example? Is it like that old dreamy nostalgia you get in the old movies, Gone With the Wind? Is it that kind of America they want to bring back or what? When there were no gays, where blacks were slaves, Mexicans were in Mexico? I mean, is this what they want?”

          — Chris Matthews to author Christopher Parker on MSNBC’s Hardball, March 20, 2013

          The problem is there are people in this country — maybe 10 percent, I don’t know what the number, maybe 20 percent on a bad day — who want this President to have an asterisk next to his name in the history books, that he really wasn’t President….They can’t stand the idea that he is President, and a piece of it is racism. Not that somebody in one racial group doesn’t like somebody in another racial group. So what? It is the sense that the white race must rule. That’s what racism is. And they can’t stand the idea that a man who is not white is President.”

          — Chris Matthews appearing as a guest on MSNBC’s PoliticsNation, May 15, 2013

          “The IRS is being used in exactly the same way as they tried to use the President’s birth certificate…Despite the complete lack of any evidence linking the President to the targeting of Tea Party groups, Republicans are using it as their latest weapon in the war against the black man in the White House….This afternoon, we welcome the latest phrase in the lexicon of Republican attacks on this President — the IRS. Three letters that sound so innocent, but we know what you mean.”

          — MSNBC host Martin Bashir, June 5, 2013.

          ¦ “At least back in 1939, when Marian Anderson had to sing here, ‘My Country ‘Tis of Thee’ rather than at the Constitution Hall, because — they said the reason was she was black. At least they were honest back then….[Today] you’ve got people talking about nullification of the law of the land [ObamaCare]. You got people talking impeachment like [Senator Tom] Coburn. You got Ted Cruz out there. They never say their problem with Obama is that he’s black, but look at the pattern….At least the Daughters of the American Revolution knew what they were saying and they said it out loud: ‘He’s black, she’s black, she can’t sing here.’ These guys today use all the techniques of nullification and talking about illegitimacy and accusing the President of being a crook, basically, for even being president, because he’s here illegally. And then they talk about impeaching him on grounds they can’t even come up with. At least in the old days they were honest about it. Today, they’re not.”

          — Chris Matthews during MSNBC live coverage of the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, August 28, 2013.

          ¦ “I want to talk today about a controversial word….A word that was originally intended as a derogatory term, meant to shame and divide and demean. The word was conceived of by a group of wealthy white men who needed a way to put themselves above and apart from a black man, to render him inferior and unequal and to diminish his accomplishments…. Y’all know the word that I’m talking about: ‘ObamaCare.’”

          — Host Melissa Harris-Perry on her MSNBC show, December 8, 2013.

          Host Ed Schultz compared Tea Party activists to Nazi brownshirts and said that the Republican Party stands for racism; and accused Texas Gov. Rick Perry of referring to Obama in racial terms when he described the national debt as a “big black cloud” hanging over the heads of the American people.

          Reporter Lawrence O’Donnell accused Republican U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell of using a “racial double-entendre” when McConnell complained that Obama spends too much time golfing;

          Daytime anchor Thomas Roberts famously claimed that Republicans want to go back to a time when “slavery was cool;”

          Contributing analyst Toure – so self-important that he goes by only one name – accused Romney of participating in the “niggerization” of Obama;

          PRESS: I just think the whole thing is outrageous. I hate this apology, I think it was unnecessary and just, just played right into their hands. And, I mean, they won’t (laughs), they’re not going to let conservatives watch MSNBC, fine! You’re not even going to notice that. How many conservatives, seriously, are watching Ed Schultz or Rachel Maddow, you know, or Al Sharpton every night?

          JEREMY HOLDEN OF MEDIA MATTERS: Yeah, yeah, I don’t know, but, uh, I’m just …

          PRESS: It’s silly.

          HOLDEN: I want to see how this probation looks and when it ends. (Alluding to RNC chair Reince Priebus’s response to Cheerios ad tweet). And what, you know, is there going to be a soft landing from the probation? This is kind of silly at this point.

          PRESS: It is and, you know, first of all, good for Cheerios for bringing that spot back and not bowing into the pressure and as far as this tweet goes, again, “maybe the rightwing will hate it, but everybody else will go awww: the adorable new #Cheerios ad w/ biracial family,” that’s the truth. That is the truth! The right winger, the racist right winger will hate it. Everybody else will like it. It’s a beautiful spot.

          —————————–

          Hunter – Daily Kos

          MSNBC bending over themselves to apologize for someone in the network thinking the American right wing was made up of people who pore over the nation’s television commercials to find companies acting Not Bigoted Enough is, and there’s no other word for it, pathetic. As are, of course, the predictable reactions from the right wing themselves. You would think that people who get so very, very, very mad whenever someone suggests that they might be bigoted simpletons would be able to go at least one weekend without proving to be exactly that, but no. Never quite works out that way.

          ————

          Ron Fournier – Twitter

          The GOP argument on Obamacare has more than a whiff of Reagan-era racial “welfare queen” politics —>

          ————

          Ron Fournier – Twitter

          In light of today’s #Obamacare column, a little background: “How and Why Romney is Playing the Race Card.”

          —————-

          “There are certain elements of the party who go out of their way to demonize people who don’t look like the way they’d like them to look like or came from some other place,” Powell said. “I think

          the party has to deal with this.”

          ———–

          Markos MoulitsaS

          …[T]he GOP has a problem. It can’t win national elections without getting some support from immigrant demographics—Asians and Latinos, the fastest growing in the country. Yet conservatives hate brown and different-looking people. They speak foreign languages and eat weird stuff and play strange music and vote Democratic. Those are all unforgivable sins.

          ————–

          GERALDO

          “What we had here with you and President Obama was a culture class… It was the president of most of the white guys of America, that’s you. And, Barack Obama the president of almost everybody else. And the discussion was at that level… To watch it was some ways unsettling to me… What you did was strip him of his majesty…”

          ———

          ——————

          From An examiner story about congressman Cummings

          In fact, the authors of the very report cited by Cummings, Devin Burghart and Leonard Zeskind also “exposed” alleged links between “certain Tea Party factions and acknowledged racist hate groups,” for the NAACP in 2010, as reported by Jack Cashill at the American Thinker, who writes wryly that Zeskind “could find racists in each of the nine choirs of angels and feel comfortable designating at least three of those choirs as hate groups.”

          At the time, Burghart and Zeskind wrote in part that Tea Party members were

          “defending their special pale-skinned privileges and power.”

          ——————-

          HOWARD FINEMAN (on MSNBC): And as if that’s some kind of explanation, some kind of explanation for the weird phenomenon of the fact that the Republicans didn’t win. There was this extraterrestrial force out there of African-Americans and Hispanics.

          =========

          CHarlie Crist – ““Sadly I think another part of it was that he was a Democrat, but not just a Democrat, an African-American.””

          ———–

          MSNBC interview regarding rejection of union.

          WAGNER: – nails this a little bit. And he talks about the UAW has, or the idea of organized labor and finds, y’know, great welcome in NYU and in bastions of sort of liberal, progressive thought. But then when it comes down to it, here you have workers on an assembly line in Chattanooga, Tennessee, who have turned down the option. And he makes a point that, “As many unions have discovered, generally to their woe, the politics of race and culture often eclipse those of class in the United States.” [1]

          NOAH: Right.

          WAGNER: And these sort of cultural means around unions, um, distracted from the actual economic benefits of them. [2]

          NOAH: The South has always been hostile territory for union organizing. Y’know, as Harold said, the culture war in the South trumps the class war. [1] You already have in a number of Southern states right to work laws, which means that even if they had unionized the plants, those who benefitted from the presence of that union wouldn’t have had to pay union dues if they didn’t feel like it.

          So you’re in an overwhelmingly hostile climate. And the opposition I gather, through, portrayed this as a kind of northern invasion, a refighting of the Civil War. [3] Apparently there are not a lot of, uh, black employees in this particular plant. [4] And so, that kind of, uh, uh, uh, waving of the Confederate flag was an effective strategy. [5]

          WAGNER: That would explain also the sign, “United Obama Workers,” which speaks volumes [6] in terms of the, uh, cultural differences in certain parxts of the country. Author Timothy Noah, thank you as always for your time and thoughts.

          —————-

          In May 2010, he told guests at a private White House dinner that race was probably a key component in the rising opposition to his presidency from conservatives, especially right-wing activists in the anti-incumbent “Tea Party” movement that was then surging across the country. Many middle-class and working-class whites felt aggrieved and resentful that the federal government was helping other groups, including bankers, automakers, irresponsible people who had defaulted

          Harry reid – ““We’re not going to bow to tea party anarchists who deny

          the mere fact that Obamacare is the law. We will not bow to tea party anarchists who

          refuse to accept that the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare is constitutional,”

          ============

          Former Wash Post Editor Robert Kaiser

          “The base consists principally of white evangelical Christians who, the pollsters tell us, fear that their America is disappearing. Of course they are right; it has probably disappeared already. Their America would not have elected a black president.

          ————

          From Wash times regarding Obama appointee

          A furious Mr. Reid hinted that Republicans’ opposition was based on racism, pointing to to several other black nominees that GOP senators had opposed earlier. But in the case of Mr. Adegbile, his defense of Abu-Jamal was too much for even some Democrats

          ===========

          Andrew O’Hehir Salon.com

          When you think of the face of white rage in America, it belongs to a red-faced Irish dude on Fox News.

          ===========

          Paul krugman NY Times

          Indeed, race is the Rosetta Stone that makes sense of many otherwise incomprehensible aspects of U.S. politics.

          We are told, for example, that conservatives are against big government and high spending. Yet even as Republican governors and state legislatures block the expansion of Medicaid, the G.O.P. angrily denounces modest cost-saving measures for Medicare. How can this contradiction be explained? Well, what do many Medicaid recipients look like – and I’m talking about the color of their skin, not the content of their character – and how does that compare with the typical Medicare beneficiary? Mystery solved.

          One odd consequence of our still-racialized politics is that conservatives are still, in effect, mobilizing against the bums on welfare even though both the bums and the welfare are long gone or never existed. Mr. Santelli’s fury was directed against mortgage relief that never actually happened. Right-wingers rage against tales of food stamp abuse that almost always turn out to be false or at least greatly exaggerated. And Mr. Ryan’s black-men-don’t-want-to-work theory of poverty is decades out of date.

          ======

          Huffington post 8 apr 2014

          There has been a long-simmering controversy about whether supporters of the Tea Party are more racially prejudiced than the average American, with some solid public opinion evidence suggesting that they are. However, well beyond the Tea Party hard core, there is evidence that race does play a role.

          Is the problem of relentless partisan animus in the Obama era one of lingering racism?

          ==========

          Candy Crowley: Do you think your Republican colleagues are racist?

          DCCC Chairl Steve Israel: Not all of them, no. Of course not. But to a significant extent, the Republican base does have elements that are animated by racism.

          ===================

          Pelosi : Racist GOP won’t deal with immigration.

          ===================

          WAPO article entitled “Democrats are talking about race and the Republican Party an awful lot lately. Is it a smart midterm strategy?”

          ======

          The New Republic – The Right’s Racial Blinders What really explains the politics of the Obama era

          =====

          Dana Milbank – “Let’s compare Holder to Kathleen Sebelius, who has presided over Obamacare, which is the thing that has most antagonized the Right and the Republicans over all these years. You’re not seeing calls for her impeachment, you’re not seeing the same level of personal vitriol.

          I think, that’s why, again, it’s fair to ask the question, and let every individual say why it is that they have that particular antipathy toward this attorney general, toward this president, and why not, say, toward Kathleen Sebelius, who they’re obviously much more at odds with.”

          ——-

          Salon: ABC News ‘Bending Over Backwards’ to Offer Laura Ingraham a Platform for ‘Vile Racism’

          ==========

          WAPO article

          “Baseball great Hank Aaron is catching hell for telling the truth. Actually, the Hall of Famer is catching hell from racists because he had the temerity to point out that racism still exists. Those who think otherwise are delusional and willfully ignorant of the racial state of play in the United States.

          Aaron’s alleged offense occurred in a USA Today interview with sports reporter Bob Nightengale. Aaron explained why he still has the racist hate mail he received as he closed in on breaking Babe Ruth’s all-time home run record 40 years ago last week.”

          ========

          Hank Aaron

          “Sure, this country has a black president, but when you look at a black president, President Obama is left with his foot stuck in the mud from all of the Republicans with the way he’s treated. We have moved in the right direction, and there have been improvements, but we still have a long ways to go. The bigger difference is back then they had hoods. Now they have neckties and starched shirts.””

          =========

          Yahoo news article by Matt Bai

          So now it’s out there. After five years of studied reticence (unless they were talking privately to one another or their supporters), Democratic leaders in Washington finally went public last week with what they really think is motivating Republican opposition to Barack Obama. As Steve Israel, one of the top Democrats in Congress, told CNN’s Candy Crowley, the Republican base, “to a significant extent,” is “animated by racism.”

          =========

          Leonard Pitts – Indy Star

          Race plays part in how Holder, Obama are treated

  • Brucehenry

    Yes calling for “legitimate redistribution of wealth” in some vague fashion is “glomming on to communism.” What an alarmist kook.

    Also it’s funny that when someone objects to the pope’s rigid stand on abortion or against the ordination of women they are accused, by Jim and his Voices, of “anti-Catholic bigotry.” When you object to the pope’s new take on capitalism, we hear crickets.

    • jim_m

      There is no such thing as “legitimate redistribution of wealth”. In any non-Orwellian language it is called theft.

      • Brucehenry

        Well when wealth is allocated in a corrupt fashion in the first place, when those at the top have pulled up the ladder behind them, it needs to be redistributed. The “legitimate” part would be making sure the incentive to work harder and innovate doesn’t disappear.

        Redistribution of wealth isn’t necessarily theft, although it can be redistributed that way. There are other ways and arguably they need to be explored.

        • jim_m

          Funny that the people working the hardest to pull the ladder up behind them are also the ones demanding that we redistribute wealth and, Surprise! they are the ones who demand to be in charge of that redistribution so it is “fair”. Pretty much it just means that they want to redistribute wealth in a manner to punish their enemies, enrich themselves and keep everyone else poor.

          Name one dem program that has ever succeeded in its aim. The dems and the left aren’t interested in making anything better, if they did then they wouldn’t be able to demagogue the issues.

          • Brucehenry

            Social Security and Medicare, both Dem programs, both castigated at their respective births as the end of the American Way Of Life, have been fairly successful. Or do Republicans want to end them now?

          • jim_m

            You named 2 programs that are for the elderly and therefore not targeted at helping anyone “up the ladder”. Try again.

            Also, People could do far better by investing on their own than Social Security does. SS is essentially a cash flow apparatus of the federal government that victimizes people by reducing their retirement income below what it otherwise could have been.

            Medicare is a program that shifts costs from the elderly back onto the working classes because Medicare pays less than 50 cents on the dollar for most procedures. Medicare also refuses to pay for many of the most advanced and useful therapies. Most doctors refuse to accept new Medicare patients because they are huge money losers, so what Medicare really does is limit your healthcare choices and it doesn’t pay for the treatment you really need.

          • Brucehenry

            Yada yada yet both parties trip all over each other to be seen as defenders of Social Security and Medicare.

            Because they have obviously been successful.

          • jim_m

            Nope. Both parties want to be seen as defenders because they want the image of being the dispensers of government largesse.

    • jim_m

      Point of fact that Catholic doctrine has had precious little to say about economics for 2000 years. The teachings on contraception and abortion have their roots in Aquinas and are therefore date back to his Summa Theologica in 1274.

      When you go after the Catholic Church on these doctrines you are going after religious teachings that are over 700 years old. By contrast how old is communism? What great works of Catholic teaching address the concepts of communism? I seem to have missed what Augustine and Aquinas said about Marx. Perhaps Iranaeus or Polycarp had something to say but I must have missed it too.

      The assertion by the left that Catholicism has anything to say of import on economics is fatuous at best.

      • Retired military

        Part 2 since proof of Dems calling republicans racist have outstripped the capacity of a DISCUS reply.

        ==========

        Frank James NPR “Social scientists who have studied voters have found that voter participation rises when voters are emotionally engaged,” he noted. “For some voters, suggestions that some of the opposition to Obama and his policies is more than just honest disagreement – and is indeed racially based – could help do the trick.”

        ===

        Pelosi tweet – Over 50% of food stamp recipients are people of color. The GOP Budget takes food out their mouths

        =========

        Brent Terry, professor at Eastern Connecticut “If racist republicans win than colleges will start closing up”

        =========

        Jonathon Chait “”America’s unique brand of ideological anti-statism is historically inseparable…from the legacy of slavery,”

        —————-

        WAPO columnist Jonathan Capehart “republicans extolled the wonders and the virtues and the beauty of slavery,”

        ==================

        Dem Ill Gov Quinn “Black republicans are like Jews (who) collaborated with the Nazis during World War II, helping them to round up their own people in the hopes they’d be the last to go.”

        ===

        Ed Schultz MSNBC

        “So the president goes to the other side of the world and that’s what he gets asked about, racism. How sad is that? But you know what? When you’re the first, you always get picked on. And I have to tell you that this president, I think, is very bold, very strong, very well guided, and has a moral compass. And there’s absolutely no question about it that he has been picked on because of the color of his skin. And there’s no doubt that he has been called many names by conservative talkers in America, many names. He has been targeted, he has been obstructed. And I think that the way this president has been treated empowers jokers like this (alluding to Sterling), like, well, the government does it, we all see it. I guess we can say whatever the hell we want and act however we want. That’s my take on it. I, I, I think that this is a scab that’s been ripped off again and it’s a scab that really, undoubtedly is gonna happen again and again on America. But I believe, I pin this attitude that we have in society being inflamed by right-wing talkers who hate this president, that embolden people such as this guy to go on and act disrespectful against society.”

        ==========

        Dorian Warren, Columbia professor “There’s a distinction we should make between racist words and speech, and racist practices and policies. We should be focused on the policies and the racial impact of policies that those Republican leaders frankly stand for,”

        ———–

        MSNBC’s Touré “Some of these folks who own these NBA teams, and this is breaking news, Ari. Some of them are not the most savory folks. Some of them are bankrolling anti-gay marriage initiatives. Some of them got rich off of fracking. Some of them are Russian oligarchs.”

        =============

        Dem Rep. Bennie Thompson “Let’s face it, pretty much all criticism of Obama is racist”

        =========

        Eugene Robinson WAPO ” This worldview has found a home in the tea party movement, which harbors — let’s be honest — a racist strain.”

        ==========

        Democratic Congressman Bennie Thompson ” Justice Thomas is an Uncle Tom” “Sen. McConnell is a racist”

        =========

        “Voting Rights Erosion Is Greater Racist Outrage” Albert Hunt Bloomber

        ========

        New York magazine Jonathan Chait, “America’s unique brand of ideological anti-statism is historically inseparable…from the legacy of slavery.”

        ——–

        Theatlantic.com

        Dem Rep Bennie Thompson told a radio show. “That Mitch McConnell would have the audacity to tell the president of the United States … that ‘I don’t care what you come up with we’re going to be against it.’ Now if that’s not a racist statement I don’t know what is.”

        For good measure, Thompson added that Clarence Thomas “doesn’t like black people, he doesn’t like being black.”

        ———-

        “I think not raising the minimum wage is a racist policy,” stated Ed Schultz

        ======

        Charlie Crist “Crist: Race Motivates GOP Opposition to Obama”

        =======

        Speaker at Democrat sponsored White Privilege Conference

        “The longer you are in the Tea Party, the more racist you become.”

        ==============-

  • Retired military

    Quickest way to shut a liberal up when they start quoting the Pope is to ask them what does the Pope say about abortion.

    • Brucehenry

      And the quickest way to shut up a conservative on the same subject is to ask what he says about the death penalty and preemptive war.

      • jim_m

        No. We just ignore the Pope on those issues because we are protestants and are not beholden to his ideas. Also, because the Bible does not pose an injunction against either war or capital punishment.

        • Brucehenry

          Again you can’t fucking read. The back and forth was about “when they start quoting the pope.”

          So eager to make your little rhetorical sword thrusts you stuck yourself in the foot.

          • jim_m

            Most conservatives don’t go running around quoting the Pope, period, so your supposition is based on a false premise to begin with. Also, people do not quote the pope on abortion so much as they point to Catholic dogma, which as I have pointed out many times, comes from the 13th century.

            Perhaps if you were not an uneducated buffoon you would understand these things.

          • Brucehenry

            It was RM’s supposition not mine and you still can’t fucking read.

          • jim_m

            No. I believe that leftists like to play gotcha with Papal pronouncements under the unfounded and ignorant belief that people still believe that the Pope is infallible. This mistaken notion is still quite common on the unchurched left.

            Idiots and bigots like you try to shove in our face the pronouncements of the Pope, asserting that we must agree with everything he says simply because he wears a funny hat. You have no clue about religious doctrine because you have dismissed it as foolish from the start so you make yourselves into bigoted asses by making statements like the ones you have already made here tonight.

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t know why some people point out the Church is against the death penalty and preemptive war. I can’t speak for other folks.

            I only point it out when someone who supports those things on the one hand is trying to appeal to authority by quoting church doctrine on abortion on the other.

            And you can’t fucking read.

          • jim_m

            I take it therefore, that with every person you have ever quoted, you agree with them on absolutely every issue.

            What a dishonest ass you are.

          • Brucehenry

            Not only can’t you read, you can’t fucking write.

          • jim_m

            I write better than you, my uneducated friend. I cannot wait to see you quote someone so I can hold you to your claim that a person must agree with everything that the person they quote has ever said.

          • Brucehenry

            Okay. Diagram that sentence above, lol. The one beginning with “I take it…”

          • jim_m

            Sorry if my sentence construction is beyond the 2nd grade reading level. I may have missed a comma, but the sentence works.

            Once again you only show your unlimited ignorance and your jealousy of people who actually have an education and a vocabulary.

          • jim_m

            Too bad you can’t actually debate on ideas and instead have to resort to impotent gotchas and dishonest argumentation.

          • Brucehenry

            And once again you demonstrate a misplaced snobbery, along with the fact you can’t fucking read or write.

            If a militant anti-abortion advocate is throwing quotes at me from John Paul II, and I ask said nut what John Paul II thought about the death penalty and preemptive war, said nut generally shuts the fuck up.

            That’s because, as a rule, the same people who get all red in the face about abortion have no qualms with the death penalty or with, say, invading Iraq. Not a perfect match, but they’re quite often the same folks.

            That’s all I’m saying, dude.

          • jim_m

            Again, because Church doctrine does not say anything about war and capital punishment is not forbidden in the Bible. Did you not get that point that I made? Are you so incapable of reading simple English that you missed it?

            I cannot help that the average person you debate is some drooling moron with as much education as yourself.

            Again, I suggest that your demand that people agree with everything that someone has ever said in order to quote them on one issue is dishonest in the extreme.

          • Brucehenry

            Take it up with RM. He is the one who brought up quoting the pope. Neither he nor I were talking about church doctrine or Thomas Aquinas or yada yada.

            He said you can shut a liberal up about the pope’s quotes on income inequality by asking him what the pope thinks about abortion. I said you can do the same to a conservative about the pope’s thoughts on abortion by asking him what the pope thinks about the death penalty.

            It’s pretty simple, dude. Those of us who can read could follow the back and forth pretty easily.

          • Brucehenry

            No what’s dishonest is insisting that someone wrote something he never wrote.

            Then again maybe it’s not dishonesty but the simple fact that you can’t fucking read.

            Or a third alternative, and now that I think of it the most likely one, is that you can read words that are not actually visible to others — words The Voices insist are there.

          • Retired military

            Bruce
            In my experience I dont see many anti abortion folks quoting the pope unless the subject is brought up by the person they are talking to.

            I dont believe I have ever quoted the pope on any issue on this board. My faith’s beliefs yes, my beliefs yes, but not directly saying “the pope said XXX”

            However, many on the left do it whenever the Pope says something that they happen to agree with but yet totally ignore what he says on matters like abortion and write it off as a an old man trying to control a woman’s body.

          • Brucehenry

            No you never have. That’s because you are a reasonable conservative, not a nut.

      • Retired military

        Bruce

        As a Catholic I admit to having issues with the Church’s view on the nescessity of the death penalty and preemptive war (in some cases on both subjects).

      • Brian_R_Allen

        …. ask One Who Is Right what he reckons about the death penalty and preemptive war ….

        I’m One.

        A: The death penalty is abhorrent. Medieval. Barbaric and;

        Preemptive war is the only intelligent kind!

        “If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

        – Well known and later to be even better-known anglo-American, Winston Leonard Spencer Jerome Churchill

        • Brucehenry

          The question wasn’t what Churchill thought but what the pope thought, you lunatic.

  • Paul Hooson

    I spend many years in the Catholic faith, where this historic message of fairness to the poor isn’t much different than it ever was. Traditionally, the Church has combined elements of socially conservative values in areas of sexuality, but with a more liberal sense of values towards justice and fairness to the poor probably inspired by Jesus, Mother Teresa, St. Francis and St. Vincent De Paul who founded a mission to the poor. – I used to volunteer my services as a TV repairman to the St. Vincent De Paul Society thrift stores to repair their broken TV donations to help feed the poor and provide them clothing and bedding.

    • jim_m

      The difference between the message of the RCC and leftists like Chico and Bruce is that traditionally, the church has admonished people to help their fellow man and encouraged acts of personal charity. Personal acts of charity bless both the giver and the receiver and that is the point.

      Contrast the authoritarian left point of view which is that people should help their fellow man via government coercion. This is predicated on the assumption that people are irredeemably greedy and only through the intervention of enlightened leftists can they be forced to do what is right.

      There is a difference between volunteerism and abusive government. Too bad so many are so morally stunted as to not be able to see the difference.

  • Paul Hooson

    One more issue. Traditional Catholic doctrines of fairness to poor go back way before any secular radicals like Karl Marx. Marx was a wealthy man because he received money from Friedrich Engels where Marx even had a servant girl he hired, and may have been having sexual relations with as well. – Many times the Catholic Church operated in societies such as South America where there was a huge divide between the wealth of the powerful and the poverty of the huge mass of the peasants.

    • jim_m

      Again, the Bible supports people giving of themselves both financially as well as their time and effort. The Bible does not say that this is the job or purpose of government. The point is that people should take responsibility for taking care of each other and for helping those less fortunate than they are.

      I think this is a good opportunity to point out the well documented fact that liberals donate to charity far, far less than conservatives. Leftists seem to think that their obligation to give to others is relieved if they are able to force others to give in their place.

      Every religion places the burden of giving on the individual. Leftists abuse this idea to force others to give so they can then direct where those monies go and they use that forced giving as an excuse to exempt themselves from their moral duty to others.

      As to the bogus concept of income inequality, it is not always evil. If it is the result of corruption and cronyism, as is supported by the American left today and embodied in the obama administration, and as has been seen in many place in South America and throughout the third word that the left so wants to emulate, then it is a problem. But it is not the inequality that is the problem it is the mechanism by which it is achieved.

      • Paul Hooson

        Unfortunately, but pragmatically, even Jesus once lamented as recorded in Mark 14:7, “The Poor You Will Always Have With You…”. – However, of all the economic systems, capitalism offers the best opportunity of any economic system towards providing some fairness as well as upward mobility to the poor. There are many social safety net programs as well as private charity efforts that offer help to single mothers and children, while single men are less likely to qualify for these services and stand the best chance of becoming homeless on skid rows. – A Communist system like Cuba will afford the average person a very basic life for about $20 a month, which includes a place to live, basic medical care, some food, etc.- But, it’s not a great lifestyle. Many of the products that appeal to the wealthy such as new imported automobiles are very heavily taxes to pay for these services. A new French automobile might cost close to $124,000 in Cuba, but around $30,000 if imported into the United States.

        • jim_m

          “The Poor You Will Always Have With You…”

          That is because poverty is a relative condition. Compared to the rest of the world the poor in the US are extremely well off. The only places where poverty has been “eliminated” is in communist countries where they have succeeded in making everyone poor. Cuba is what the left wants to bring to the US. Mind you, they will protect themselves and keep their wealth (and get far wealthier by impoverishing the rest of us).

          Ideologies like this attract leeches like Chico because they maintain a fantasy that they will somehow be allowed into that inner circle of wealth. Not a chance.

          • Paul Hooson

            While Cuba may have free medical care. hospitals are so poorly equipped that the family of patients often have to buy bandages or medicines to bring to the hospital where the supply shelves are often bare to empty.

            I’m a strong advocate of the capitalist, which I believe often works best without overbearing government regulations. – My favorite example of over-regulation was the establishment of a wrestling regulation bureau set up to regulate one single small time professional wrestling league that operated once a week from an old rundown flea market building, also only used once a week.

          • Paul Hooson

            Warner has a point in that the Catholic Church at times in history did work too closely with some governments heavily in wars and mass murder. The Bible even predicted much evil done in the name of religion and even the Apostle Paul wrote about the spiritual differences between the Seven Churches, where some were more spiritual than others in the eyes of God. – But, in modern times the Churches main power to influence some leaders or governments not to behave as tyrants was to warn them of eternal damnation, which only works if they actually subscribe to these things. – The Churches main role these days tends to be as a spiritual influence and inspiration. – This new pope has done wonders to elevate a newfound respect for the Church, and a breath of fresh air from the previous pope who lost control because of age, health and scandals. – Many Catholics were critical of me when I called for the previous pope to resign over the last few years in blogs. – But, indeed it was the right call. – This pope has been an incredible new leader for this faith, very well respected and uplifting. Maybe some nonCatholics don’t get that, but most Catholics do.

          • jim_m

            I agreed right up to the point where you say that this pope has done wonders… Yes, he has done wonders to bring respect form the leftists who seek to twist his words to their benefit on political issues while they ignore every last word on moral issues.

            I would suggest that the biggest reason that he has been notable is simply because he is the first Pope from S America. Nothing of what he has done or said has been that worthy and his paeans to communism will soon come back to bite him in the ass.

          • Paul Hooson

            Catholics were becoming demoralized by the last pope. At least he was prayerful enough to recognize that and give up power. That was the right choice. – This new pope may hold up examples of fairness as values he believes in. But, whether anyone actually chooses to act on these values will be entirely up to them. Probably, some faithful who are wealthy might be encouraged to make some better private donations, but beyond there will be no sea changes by governments anywhere in the world. A pope speaking of his values has no power of law anywhere, but may encourage a few to act with more charity towards others or the poor.

          • jim_m

            Benedict was a terrible choice as he was not a man with any charisma or connection to the people. He was more of a scholar and not suited for today’s demands on the Papacy. If Francis is “a breath of fresh air” it is only by contrast.

          • Paul Hooson

            Mostly agreed here. – Benedict seemed to be an authoritarian type who some hoped would provide discipline and structure, yet the sex scandals and other problems only worsened under his watch, and with his declining health and advancing age, his power to reign in problems evaporated. He simply lost control, and realized it.

  • ackwired

    Wealth is constantly being redistributed, whether by lefties or righties. Since 1976 the top 1% in the US has increased it’s possession of wealth by 78% (from 19.9% to 35.4%) while the bottom 99% has reduced it’s share of wealth by 19% (80.1% to 64.6%). It seems kind of silly to place a value judgement on this. But we need to bear in mind that at some point a disproportionate distribution of wealth will lead to revolution.

    • jim_m

      This is true. Every time you make a purchase you are essentially redistributing wealth. And yes if wealth becomes too unevenly distributed it can lead to unrest.

      However, it only leads to unrest if people are cut off from being able to obtain wealth. Revolutions occurred in the age of enlightenment because people had enough of a hereditary aristocracy where people had no access to upward mobility. The Russian Revolution was the same. We see revolution throughout Africa constantly because all they have is kleptocracy after kleptocracy where the only way you have the ability to become wealthy is if you have the right political connections.

      That last part is exactly where the dems are headed. They have made it clear that the society they want to create is one where if you know the right people you can make millions but if you don’t then you will be driven into poverty by a rapacious federal government (if they don’t manage to imprison you for your political beliefs).

      Income inequality when driven by corruption leads to unrest. Inequality when it is gained through productivity and contribution to society and the marketplace it does not lead to unrest. In that case it more often inspires others to succeed. That is the reason why people have flocked to the US for over 2 centuries. Sadly, that is exactly the society that obama promised us that he would change forever.

      • ackwired

        Interesting interpretation. Certainly if those on the lower end can be convinced that they have opportunity, that goes a long way to preventing revolution, and I think we have seen a lot of that playing out in the changes since the mid 70′s. Obviously, both parties have contributed equally to the redistribution of the last 40 years, as the Democrats realized that they had to compete with the Republicans for corporate dollars. The result, of course, is that the corps now write the legislation and politicians have to court them if they can have any chance to be elected. As long as the two parties can keep those at the lower end convinced that they have the opportunity to escape, they can hang on to power. But you have to wonder how long that can last.

        • jim_m

          As long as people can have a reasonable expectation of success through their own efforts there should not be a problem. When you make success dependent upon being part of the in crowd (such as is the case with obama just like his friend Mugabe), you immediately shut off any possibility of success for 99% of the population. This will always bring unrest and always has historically.

          • ackwired

            Unfortunately, that expectation is becoming less reasonable. Employees are being paid less and increasingly find it difficult or impossible to save. There are fewer opportunities for entrepreneurs as big boxes squeeze out traditional mom and pop shops. Finding a niche that is not dominated by big money is becoming increasingly difficult. Naturally, there was more opportunity for Americans in the 30 years following WWII. America was the only (initially) or the dominant manufacturing power. We have seen that change and we need to think about how to adjust to the new reality. Unfortunately, we will not see that thinking in either of our two dominant political parties. They will just blame each other for the difficulties in their quest to gain and retain power.

          • Brucehenry

            Absolutely correct

  • Phoenix Urban

    It is refreshing to see an author who recognizes the similarity of communism, socialism, and nazism, rather than maintaining the impressions of political spectrum created by the National Socialists by placing their men on the right side of the Reichstag to present themselves as conservative.

    It is not refreshing to see an author who blows over a critical analysis of the entirety of a speech and the tradition that underlies it. Unlike the media blips and rhetoric of today, men of the Church speak with carefully discerned words, and with full meaning. It may simply be because English rhetoric depends so much on nonessential elements such as sound, and has more synonyms than most languages that it loses a real sense of terminology, but with religious leaders – Muslim, Christian, and Jewish, it is the opposite.

    I think socialist terminology is what the world speaks right now, and the pope can make himself understood in those terms. If any action is to be taken, consensus among the different groups has to occur on action that is agreeable to all parties. It’s likely that the pope simply knows who he is dealing with, and for that reason has not spoken as a Catholic speaks to Catholics.

    Socialist terminology is naturally what the world speaks because the conversation is global, and globalism is partly a result of communist thought, as the ideology inherently seeks to expand its control to the entire planet. So when a man speaks to the world, does he use his own language, or does he use the language that everyone else understands?

    • warnertoddhuston

      The Church handles charity. Government do not and should not.

    • jim_m

      Words mean things. Socialism imbues words with specific meanings that are distinctly tied to that ideology. If you choose to use the language of socialism you are accepting the connotation of the words that you are using as well. This is not about outreach it is about accepting a socialist world view that is antithetical to freedom and human welfare.

      One can speak words that people understand without accepting their ideas. Since we are talking about the Pope, a relevant passage would be Acts 17:22-34, where Paul speaks before the Areopagus. In that instance Paul acknowledges where the people come from without having to accept their beliefs, in fact he takes their beliefs and uses them to show where they are wrong. The Pope does not do that. Instead he gives an endorsement of socialism.

      As others point out, it is not the place of government to supplant the individual as a provider of aid to his fellow man. By relieving the individual of the need to give a damn about his fellow man we have seriously damaged the ties that hold society together.

      • Brucehenry

        I read the verses you mentioned and lo and behold (so to speak) Paul sounds just like YOU, taking a 4 word inscription on an altar and extrapolating all he thinks he needs to know about these people’s religious beliefs from that.

        What an asshole.

        What a huge surprise this is apparently one of your favorite Bible verses. Paul argues just like you do — evidently he was either dishonest or deluded, just like you.

        LOL.

        • jim_m

          It isn’t even remotely one of my favorite Bible verses and I never made any such assertion. In fact I made no statement about my feelings with regard to that passage at all.

          Who is reading things that are not there? I suggest that all you complaints about my reading into things are nothing more than projection on your part.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes my mistake. Apparently though you found it memorable, but there is no evidence it is your “favorite.”

            In any event Paul sounds like you, at least on this visit to Athens.

          • jim_m

            I found it relevant to the discussion and said so specifically in my comment.

            I find another quote from this thread relevant to you: “What an asshole.”

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I guess you did find it relevant, lol. Paul finds four words carved on an altar and proceeds to lecture the townspeople about how “superstitious” they are.(KJV Acts 17:22).http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+17:22-34&version=KJV

            Seems exactly like what you would do. Constructing elaborate and verbose arguments, based on assumptions made on very little information, to advance a rigid ideological or theological agenda.

            “I suggest that all you(sic) complaints about my reading into things are nothing more than projection on your part.” Of course you suggest that, it’s one of the symptoms of your disorder.

          • jim_m

            If you think that Acts 17 is a complete transcript of all of Paul’s words and actions you really are a fool and worthy of the contempt in which I hold you.

      • Phoenix Urban

        That is derived from the idea that the government is an independent entity that controls the state.

        According, at least, to the American notion of government, it is a body of servants who represent and execute the will of the people, as expressed in their constitution and their channels of communication with their representatives.

        The concerns of the people dictate that the impoverished must be aided. Because of the amount of poverty in the country, they respond through the more unified apparatus of government.

        That could be a valid course of action, even if it is socialist – so long as the aid rendered is for the re-establishment of the poor as dignified members of society; no longer poor. Socialism is wrong where it negates the dignity of the person, insisting on pampering him without depending on his contribution.

        But that is open to debate and the way the current American government works is certainly not that way.

  • RichFader

    “Consequently, I do not hesitate to state, as did my predecessors…”

    And they did.

    If Francis is a communist, so is every pope for at least the last hundred years or so, including John Paul II. I ask this not only because I’m a new Catholic, but because I’m a conservative and want to steer my fellow conservatives away from saying brain-damagingly stupid things: Would you like to take that back?

  • Constitution First

    If Pope Francis is so enamored with the “redistribution” of wealth, then he can start by redistributing the riches of the wealthiest and largest landowner on the planet: The Catholic Church.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE