The Lies and Deadly Incompetence of President “One-Term Proposition” (Qualifies as “Part IV”)

I’ve done three previous posts on things Obama has done or said that directly contradict things he had promised: Part I, Part II, and Part III.

Here are a bunch more. I do not pretend that this is an exhaustive list of the lies, flip-flops, failures, and dangerously incompetent things Barack Obama has done as president, but I do think it’s a good sampling.

Let’s get right to it:

While campaiging In 2008 Barack Obama decried adding $4 trillion to the debt over Bush’s 8 years* to get it to the lofty heights of $9 trillion as “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic.” Now, after fewer than four years of Obama the debt is $16 trillion.

Bonus second lie on this one is that also during the 2008 campaign Obama said he would not question the patriotism of anyone. He promised it. Ah, well.

Then there was the follow-on lie (or indication of gross incompetence, either way it ain’t attractive) that came once he was president: “I am pledging to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office.”

He was already president, so the economy was already in the tank, he already had grand designs for the Stimulus and a health care overhaul, and he already knew he was dealing with the war on terror and ongoing wars. Yet he still pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. And yet, each of his years has had a deficit in excess of $1 trillion. One might use words like “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic” to describe such governance if one were so inclined.. At the very least, even if we cannot call it a “lie” because he really believed it at the time, it is gross incompetence.

That leads us to his claim that if he didn’t have the economy turned around in three years he’d be a “one-termer proposition“, which doesn’t jibe with his recent comment that it will take more than one term.

On the stimulus. It was sold to the American people largely on the strength of loads and loads of “shovel-ready jobs,” public works projects, we were informed, that were ready to go—designed, scheduled, entirely ready to go—but were merely waiting for the funding. The stimulus didn’t work and the economy isn’t turned around in part because those shovel-ready jobs “were not as, uh, as shovel-ready as we thought.” (A laugh line, apparently.)

He lamented gasoline prices, and they’ve gotten worse.

He said he would not allow lobbyists in his administration. He has.

And then there’s this video. You really should watch that one and just sit agape at how bold and sweeping his plans for government transparency were. They were inspiring, really, they were. The problem is that the promises didn’t seem to last beyond the point when the sound waves dissipated in the arena. He promised to let bills passed by Congress be online for five days before he signs them (he hasn’t); he promised to root out earmarks and porkbarrel corporate welfare (he’s done quite the opposite, and frequently); he promised to put meetings between lobbyists and policy makers online (hasn’t happened — they frequently meet in a nearby coffee shop to avoid all scrutiny); he promised to make it harder for lobbyist cash to influence government (his own campaign has the most lax standards possible, making it impossible to know if donations are coming from overseas or from people who have already maxed out their giving); and he promised to make government more open and transparent (The Fast and Furious coverup, the Benghazi coverup, and the process that cobbled together the healthcare law say otherwise).

And then there’s Libya.

It wasn’t the movie. They knew it wasn’t the movie from early on. At the very least the evidence that it most definitely *was* the movie, which was their claim for more than a week afterward, was tenuous at best. They continued to insist it was the movie until they simply could not any longer. And that sordid affair just keeps getting worse.

Eventually we found out that they knew within 24 hours that it was an assault by organized terrorists. We found out that Stevens had been requesting beefed up security in Benghazi, to no avail. Then we found out there never was a protest before the attack that simply “turned violent.” Next we find out that the administration knew within 2 hours of the start of the 7-hour attack that the White House had information about the nature of the attack and that a terrorist group had claimed responsibility. Today it comes to light that the CIA guys on the ground requested military backup while it was happening, and was denied 3 times, leaving Stevens and Smith to fend for themselves, and forcing Wood and Doherty to disobey orders in order to go to the rescue of their fellow Americans under attack.

The question becomes, at what point do people begin to recognize that President Obama is a pathological liar, grossly (and now fatally) incompetent, or both?

———–

*If you go back and check, more than half of the debt Bush racked up was after the Dems had taken Congress in 2006. The Dems controlled the purse strings in the House of Representatives, so while Bush’s presidency did add a whole lot to the national debt the congressional Dems share the blame on that one.

1,438 views

Categories:Uncategorized

114 thoughts on “The Lies and Deadly Incompetence of President “One-Term Proposition” (Qualifies as “Part IV”)

  1. John son of John says:

    another thing against obama administrations claims concerning the Terriost attacks was that the video spoken of had less than 300 views at that point in time and that both obama and holder possibly lied about the many memos, reports, and emails they recieved/sent that they were supposed to read/send.

    Shalom

    God Bless

  2. Robert Morin says:

    Svjatyj Bozhe, pomiluj Sietse i blahoslovi Tvoje narod (Holy God, have mercy on Sietse, and bless Your people). Maybe my Slavonic needs some work.

    Ahem, anyway, perhaps you are in need of a Confession tomorrow for that vote, and I pray that He will have mercy on you, and that you will find it in your conscience that you should become more Pro-Life, and Pro Traditional Marriage in time.

  3. Marty says:

    Sietse, Repeat after me: “O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended, Thee, . . . . “

  4. MARA says:

    Thomas, bad day at the office?

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      Not nearly as bad as Chris Stevens’ had on 9/11/12 or Barack Obama has had every day since the first debate.

      1. MARA says:

        I think your tirade is basically accurate and I plan to vote for Romney even though his running mate seems to be lacking. It’s your anger that continues to interfere with your data transfer. You’d make a much bigger impression if you weren’t so violent.

        1. Bob Z. says:

          I must admit, Mara, that I haven’t agreed with you much in the past; however, I’m with you 100% when you say that it is time to turn down the rage.

          1. Tom Crowe says:

            What rage? I presented what he said and how he has followed up. Show me where I’m wrong.

          2. Bob Z. says:

            I didn’t say you are wrong.

          3. ragingcatholic says:

            I did not see any rage. And I would know rage if I saw it.

          4. abadilla says:

            What “rage” are you writing about? So, when we forcefully disagree with Mara, we are engaging in rage? Now you are sounding like Obama who goes all over this country talking about a “civil” discourse as he keeps calling Romney a liar.

        2. Tom Crowe says:

          tirade? I presented the guy’s own positions and later record. How is that a tirade?

    2. Toni says:

      Mara, I beg of you: stop this.

      1. MARA says:

        Toni, stop what?

        1. Toni says:

          The unkindness that you show in your words.

          1. Georgia Hedrick says:

            I suspect that Mara is a very unhappy individual. I know that she is misguided. She can never say anything positive. She can never say anything loving. Most importantly, she can never say anything respectful towards religion- or God.

          2. Toni says:

            Thank you, Georgia. We pray for Mara.

          1. Too Much says:

            So much for the dignity of that child. Let him or her rest in peace. What choice did s/he have in being displayed in such a manner?

          2. Tom Crowe says:

            None. Of course, I’ll bet she would prefer not being mutilated in that manner. But nice placement of your outrage.

          3. Any Decency Here? says:

            Betting makes it even worse. Murder, indignity, and gambling. A Trifecta of evil.

          4. Christine says:

            In your opinion, showing this picture of this innocent angel destroys her dignity- but the abortion has not destroyed her dignity along with her life? What choice did she have being destroyed in such a manner?

          5. abadilla says:

            I teach a course on the Holocaust, but the students don’t get the gravity of what the Holocaust is until they read “Night” or see “Schindler’s List” or see pictures of concentration camps and what was done to Jews. Perhaps people like Mara MUST see the ugliness of abortion before she gets the message of what she is talking about. I am convinced most people talk about abortion without “fully” understanding what Blessed Mother Teresa meant when she called it, at the White House, the “butchery” of the unborn. Sorry if “reality” offended you!

          6. Dignity says:

            Are you going to post a photo of a brutalized raped woman next?

            Allow human beings some dignity, please.
            BTW, do you show your students the large group photo of the German priests heiling Hitler?

          7. abadilla says:

            I was not the one who posted the picture of an aborted baby, so, why would you think I would post a picture of a raped woman? BTW, in our society we don’t seem to need pictures of raped woman because everyone understands the ugliness of the crime, but when it comes to abortion, not everyone gets the picture, “literally” the picture.
            I still do support people showing pictures of ugly realities because some people don’t get it, Mara being a prime example of someome who defends abortion and has no clue of the crime she is defending.

          8. abadilla says:

            So, you think raping a woman or destroying the unborn is allowing human beings some dignity? Really!
            No, I show them a movie where our priests were tortured and butchered for opposing the Nazis, and I would not show them the propaganda the Nazis wanted people to believe in Europe regarding priests. I do warm them, however, that in college they will find folks like you who will lie about our priests.

        2. abadilla says:

          Accusing people of “rage” or anger when you are the one coming in here with your insults!

    3. Toni says:

      So unkind, Mara.

    4. abadilla says:

      Mara, reading you definitely provokes a bad day at the office and in my case, in the classroom!

    5. abadilla says:

      Tom wrote the article, not Thomas!

  5. Sietse says:

    This Catholic proudly voted for Obama this morning.

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      Pride goeth before the fall.

      1. MARA says:

        Tom, false pride goeth before the fall. Real pride is a joy. Which pride do you have?

        1. Tom Crowe says:

          I imagine you think you know.

        2. abadilla says:

          Mara, is pride the opposite of humility, because humility is a virtue, and pride is the opposite. When you defend abortion, the murder of the unborn, do you think we read “pride” or “humility” in your words?

          1. MARA says:

            abadilla, is there not personal pride in a job well done? Is there not personal pride in upholding one’s ideology if that ideology is ethical? A person who runs out and tells everyone how great they are is not experiencing personal pride but rather boastfullness. Haven’t you ever experienced personal pride without being boastful? If yes, then you know what I’m talking about.

          2. abadilla says:

            “is there not personal pride in a job well done?” Yes, there is, but that is not the type of “pride” we were discussing! “A person who runs out and tells everyone how great they are is not experiencing personal pride but rather boastfullness.” Correct again and boastfullness is the opposite of humility, a virtue. “Haven’t you ever experienced personal pride without being boastful?” Yes, I have exprienced pride when my students do very well, or when my daughter became a lawyer etc, but that is not what we were writing about.

        3. joecatholic327 says:

          I think you are mistakenly calling false humility false pride. I have never heard of false pride. False humility is, for example thinking yourself humble. Or it could also be when you think you’re doing something useful by pointing out the splinter in your brother’s eye before removing the big wooden beam in your own.

        4. chris1616 says:

          Pride is excessive belief in one’s own abilities,
          that interferes with the individual’s recognition of the grace
          of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise.

    2. Fr. Charles says:

      Dear Sietse, I imagine that I don’t know you. But, as a priest for almost 25 yrs., I would like to tell you in a loving and patient way that if you voted for the President knowing and wishing that he would continue his toleration of and promotion of abortion “rights,” then you must go to Confession before receiving Holy Communion so as not to commit a sacrilege. Please know of my prayers.

      1. MARA says:

        Fr. Charles, forced birth is a denial of a woman’s right of choice. Wouldn’t it be shocking to find out that God holds that right of choice higher than the right of a fetus to exist? Either way, He’ll forgive us for not knowing.

        1. Tom Crowe says:

          “forced birth” is one of my favorite Orwellian phrases of the pro-abort crowd. As though the natural processes of nature FORCE the woman to give birth to her child.

          1. Jacques says:

            So in the event of a rape, and the mother wants to abort the fetus, wouldn’t you want to force her by law to give birth to the child? Who’s being Orwellian?

          2. Tom Crowe says:

            I don’t think you know what “Orwellian” means. Or how the inextricable processes of nature work.

          3. Tommie is tired says:

            OOOH a psuedo-intellectual.
            What an________!

          4. Kenny Jay says:

            Dear Tommie is tired, Please contribute meaningful comments. Tom Crowe could “eat your lunch”.

          5. No, he wants to force her to incubate the baby. He wants to keep her in indentured servitude for 9 month of HER life. He wants to make her decisions for here instead of allowing the woman the right to make her own decisions.

          6. Tom Crowe says:

            Really? You really think rapists’ first thought is impregnation of women rather than getting their jollies and asserting their forceful domination? You really think pregnancy is “indentured servitude”? What of the life of the child in the womb? While it may have been conceived in rape, which is a horrid crime against the dignity of the woman, the child who may be conceived is innocent of that crime, and is equally the mother’s child as it is the rapist father’s. Do you deny biology and deny the conception of a new human life in those unfortunate circumstances? Do the circumstances in which the child was conceived make it any less than a new, unique, unrepeatable human life?

          7. ^^^Mean Men^^^ says:

            How many rape victims have you talked to, let alone consoled, in your life? And if you feel so strongly about this issue, why in the world are you supporting Romney and Ryan, both of whom support abortion rights in the case of rape?

          8. Tom Crowe says:

            Considering there are women who have been raped who agree with me I don’t need to regard your first question as worth responding to. On your second question: It’s the difference between making progress politically and not making progress politically. While Romney may actually support abortion in the case of rape, I’m confident Ryan does not. But I’m also confident that as a matter of policy making an absolute ban on all abortions is impossible in the short term. So while an absolute ban on abortion is my goal, intermediate goals can be set on that route. Limiting abortion to the very rare cases of pregnancy after rape would be great step in that direction. All progress is incremental, not all increments are progress.

          9. Today's Poll says:

            getting their Jollies – did he really say that. Are all republican men just stupid or should they never speak in public?

          10. abadilla says:

            No, whoever “he” is, wants to uphold life, that’s all. If your mother had the same mentality you do, you would not be in this forum defending murder!

          11. MARA says:

            abadilla, forcing a woman to give birth is anything but upholding life. The existence of a fetus does not take a woman’s free choice, a choice given by God to all women, away. God did not give a fetus the power to enslave women. Your Church may be attempting to do that, but not God.

          12. Daisy says:

            Would you call this a fetus or a baby?

            http://www.hyscience.com/abortion_22_weeks01.jpg

          13. abadilla says:

            “abadilla, forcing a woman to give birth is anything but upholding life.” It’s not a matter of “forcing” anyone to do anything, it’s a matter of taking responsibility for one’s actions. The Church is clear one cannot separate the unitive aspect of marriage (which brings pleasure) with the pro-creative aspect of marriage, bringing children into the world. Thus, the Church is utterly clear that the sexual act must take place within the boundaries of marriage because it has a purpose that goes beyond pleasure. When a woman ends up pregnant and has the child she is saying loudly, “I had sex, I had pleasure, but along with that pleasure came the responsibilty of a new life.”

            “The existence of a fetus does not take a woman’s free choice, a choice given by God to all women, away.”
            God, the God of Life, can’t possibly contradict Himself in all His perfection and give women a right to destroy their unborn children. Here is where your idea “borders” on blasphemy. The existence of a “fetus,” unborn child, immediately puts limits on the freedom of the woman to get rid of an entity which is separate from her although still depending on her for nutrition and life.
            You blamed my Church for wanting to deny a woman’s right to murder, but I don’t know of a single major religion in the world that upholds the so-called right you write about. Do you? Do you see. let’s say the Muslim religion or the Jewish or Buddhist or Hindu religion advocating for abortion? I can tell you who or what advocates for abortion, the secular world we live in, the pagan forces in the West, not the Church of Christ.
            BTW, you never replied to my pesky question, “Did your mom feel force to have you?”

          14. Jan says:

            The existence of a fetus does not take a woman’s free choice

            Yes, it does. Thou shalt not MURDER – He’s the one who gave us the rules to play by.

          15. MARA says:

            no it doesn’t.

          16. abadilla says:

            In the care of rape, a tragedy, a woman is only adding another tragedy by murdering her own child, flesh of her flesh. The child is “ALWAYS” innocent of the circumstances in which she or him were conceived so why should he or she pay with his or her life for the horrendous crime of rape?

          17. Daisy says:

            How about adoption? Do you think this “fetus” would have prefered that option?

            http://www.hyscience.com/abortion_22_weeks01.jpg

          18. Nut of the day says:

            Did you ask it when you took the photo for your album?

          19. How about forced incubation?

          20. MARA says:

            Tom, if you take the right of abortion away from a woman, she has no choice but to give birth. You have enslaved her to give birth. How is that not forced birth.

          21. Tom Crowe says:

            I know: giving birth. Scourge of humanity, eh?
            ————
            Mara, nature doesn’t enslave. Giving birth is the natural thing after conception unless some other natural process intervenes. Women who get cancer are not thus “enslaved” by the cancer, even if it kills them.
            That is, unless you’re going to say the child in the womb is no different than a cancerous tumor. Women who abort treat their child as they would a cancerous tumor.

          22. MARA says:

            Tom, giving birth is a choice. An animal doesn’t have that choice. Human beings do. By taking away choice, you make humans no more than animals. You make all of us victims of nature. We are not victims of nature because of our ability to overcome natures’ urges within us, such as anger and fear. We have the ability to deny the urge to eat too much, which is a natural urge within us. We have the ability to not strike back at someone who disagrees with us, which is a natural urge. Therefore your analogy makes no sense because it assumes that we don’t have free will.

        2. Steve Bormas says:

          Mara, God doesn’t hold the right of choice over the right of the child to exist. Once the child is conceived, there is no right of choice to destroy it. He will forgive us if we had no chance to know but He won’t forgive us if we refused to accept the opportunity to know. Please, Mara, accept the Church’s Teaching. This is all so very clear. Steve Bormas

          1. abadilla says:

            “Please, Mara, accept the Church’s Teaching.” I hate to tell you Steve, Mara will accept the Church’s teaching when hell freezes over and pigs fly!

          2. GOP Instead of GOD says:

            Please remember Steve. Catholic Teaching is not allowed at CV. The only God here is GOP.

          3. John son of John says:

            have you actually read anything on this site?

        3. Mark says:

          Mara, I thought that you said you were voting for Romney. Then why defend voting for Obama who has promoted and defended abortion at every turn? What’s wrong, Mara?

          1. MARA says:

            I’m voting for Romney for economic reasons. I believe Roe v Wade will never be over-turned so I’m not concerned with that. I defend anyone’s right to vote for whomever they want to. I defend a woman’s right to choose whether or not to bring a child into the world.

          2. Daisy says:

            How can you defend this? Please answer me- how can you defend this?

            http://www.hyscience.com/abortion_22_weeks01.jpg

        4. JoeMyGod says:

          What choice do you think God would make? How come your “choice” is always to choose abortion? Do you also complain about not having the “choice” to choose what light bulb, toilet, drink size, school, etc… that you want?

          1. MARA says:

            JoeMyGod, I don’t choose abortion, I don’t promote abortion and I don’t cheer for abortions. I promote, as best I can, a woman’s right of choice even though I know that that may lead to abortions. I won’t enslave women simply because I know some of their choices may not be what’s best for them. If they choose abortion, at least they do so with the recognition that they have not been forced into that decision but rather have experienced their freedom to choose. They then accept the consequences of their choices and then can choose to make different decisions in the future knowing that they are responsible for their own lives. Taking a woman’s right of choice away from them creates the feeling in them of being a victim and a denial of their belief that they are the architects of their own lives. This can lead to depression or even worse.

          2. Daisy says:

            How about the rights of this female?

            http://www.hyscience.com/abortion_22_weeks01.jpg

          3. abadilla says:

            “If they choose abortion, at least they do so with the recognition that they have not been forced into that decision but rather have experienced their freedom to choose.”
            How convenient. A woman has sex choosing to have sex using her own free will, then when the consequences come, an unborn child, she destroys it in order not to have the responsibility for a new life.
            Mara, you don’t get it. No woman or man has the choice to destroy innocent human life, period. A male doctor who performs the horror of abortion is no less guilty than the woman who aborts knowing she if murdering her own child, period.

        5. abadilla says:

          Mara, there is no such a thing as “forced birth” unless you are willing to admit your mother was “forced” to have you! The Supreme Court in 1973 “invented” that right in order to justify the unjustifiable, period. How else could the Suprem Court legislate the butchery of the unborn in this country if not by calling it a “right” woman suddenly have in the constitution? Talk about twisting the Constitution to say what it does not say at all!

        6. Daisy says:

          What do you think God thinks about this?

          http://www.hyscience.com/abortion_22_weeks01.jpg

          1. MARA says:

            I personally think it’s sad. That’s why I promote the re-parenting of parents so they will have the tools to bring up children with high self-esteem who will make better decisions for themselves. This is the only ethical way to end abortions, in my opinion.

          2. Daisy says:

            I don’t think having high self-esteem will make people more prone to avoid abortion. I think having high morals and values might help, and a belief in a higher being (God). I also believe that knowing what an abortion really does- as this picture demonstrates- might sway some individuals away from it. I find it odd that the pro-choice crowd doesn’t really want women to be informed (they oppose ultrasounds and would never post a photo such as this in an abortion clinic). Maybe women need to see what is being aborted in their abortion. Maybe that is the path to ending abortion- at least for many.

          3. MARA says:

            Daisy, it’s unfortunate that you have a limited knowledge of what self-esteem really is. You also don’t seem to know what moral means. I would rather raise a child with high self-esteem who will naturally avoid unwanted pregnancy than to shock them with pictures. I hope that if you have children that you will consider this if it isn’t already too late.

      2. True Catholic says:

        Dear Father Charles,

        You should also understand and explain in a loving and patient way that Catholics should not compromise with intrinsic evil, that there is no lesser evil when intrinsic evil is involved, that Catholics should not vote for ANY candidate who supports abortion rights even in cases of rape, incest and the health of the mother. You may also want to familiarize yourself with what actually constitutes a sacrilege.

        1. Fr. Charles says:

          True Catholic, I have never advised or would ever advise any Catholic to cooperate in evil wherever it may be found or to vote for any candidate who supports abortion. As to your gratuitous comment that I don’t know what a sacrilege is, I forgive you. You hurt your noble cause by resorting to such false remarks.

          1. Common Cause says:

            Fr. Charles, I’m truly heartened that you are not advising Catholics to vote for Romney, who supports abortion rights in the cases of rape, incest or the health of the mother. But voting for one or the other of candidates of the two major parties, both of whom support abortion rights,is not a sacrilege as you gratuitously suggested above, however morally incorrect and sinful it is to cooperate in support of an intrinsic evil. And I find it disingenious to claim as you do that either major party candidate “supports” abortion, differentiated from abortion rights. Indeed you harm our common noble cause by making such remarks. But I forgive you and will pray for you.

          2. Fr. Charles says:

            Common Cause, what is your noble cause? Please read again. There is no right to abortion. Furthermore, I said that it is a sacrilege to receive Holy Communion when one has committed a mortal sin. Thank you for your prayers.

          3. Anti-Abortion Independent says:

            How is it a false distinction to differentiate between abortion rights and abortion? Women can have the right but can choose not to have an abortion – which allows people of all political affiliation to share a pro-life common cause. How does “Common Cause” above support abortion rights? It seems he or she is opposed to all abortion, unlike the candidates of the two major political parties. There is not a moral right to an abortion according to Catholic teaching but it cannot be denied that there certainly is a constitutional right. So Father Charles, are you saying it is a sacrilege if one receives Communion after voting for either of the two major party candidates who both support abortion rights? If so, kudos to you. May God bless and guide you in any event.

          4. abadilla says:

            Simple. That “right” is NOT a right because it was “invented” by 9 men in the Supreme Court January 22, 1973. No one has the “right” to butcher unborn innocent children, period!

          5. dr. t. says:

            Don’t you have any love in you to show anybody? I’m sure somebody in this world would welcome a little love from you.

          6. abadilla says:

            “Don’t you have any love in you to show anybody? I’m sure somebody in this world would welcome a little love from you.” This has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation we’ve been having about abortion, period, but if you need to know if I love anyone, yes, I love my wife, my daughters, my Catholic faith, my students, my friends, the unborn child, especially those who do not make it into this world because someone finds it expedient to murder them. The FACT that I have strong opinions and express them forcefully, does not mean I have no “love” for anyone, so don’t twist the meaning of this conversation.

          7. MARA says:

            abadilla, why do you love a fetus that didn’t make it into this world more than you love your children who did make it into this world?

          8. abadilla says:

            I reared two children with my wife so, I don’t understand why you think I don’t love children. I teach 124 children in high school and support them and try to guide them, so, I don’t understand why you would think I don’t love children. I have lots of nephews and nieces in Costa Rica and I love them very much and they show me their love when I go there once a year. I love the unborn child and I don’t use the word “fetus” because all that word indicates is a stage of development of the unborn child in the womb of her mother whose vocation should always be to protect that innocent human life within her. You use the word “fetus” not to indicate a stage of development in the womb of his or her mother, but to de-humanize him or her in order for you to buy into the destruction of that innocent human being.

          9. Laura says:

            Abidilla shows his love for his fellow man everytime he posts because he is trying to turn the commentor away from their sinful path. We know, if you die in a state of sin, you will spend eternity in hell with Satan. Abadilla loves you so much, that he is trying to save you from that fate. I am sorry that you are unable to see that. May Jesus shine His light into you and soften your hardened heart so you may feel His love and hear His word.

          10. Brandi says:

            Don’t tell me, Common Cause, that you, too, have bought into the fake distinction between supporting abortion and abortion rights. You do need prayers and forgiveness. What a disservice you perform towards women.

          11. MarkIV says:

            Common Cause, yours is a very noble cause. You defend abortion rights but you pray and forgive. Wow.

        2. Joe M says:

          True Catholic. I already pointed out to you that your claim is false.

          According to the Bishops, if both candidates are for an intrinsic evil, Catholics may vote for the person less likely to advance the morally flawed position.

          It is clear that Obama wishes to advance the availability and tax payer complicity in abortion. On the other hand, Romney wishes to LIMIT abortion from its current availability.

          On the basis of abortion, Catholic Teaching supports voting for Romney.

          1. abadilla says:

            “According to the Bishops, if both candidates are for an intrinsic evil, Catholics may vote for the person less likely to advance the morally flawed position.” I agree with your understanding of what the bishops are saying but I fail to see why Fr. Charles is not making that distinction. Do you think Fr. Charles “is” Fr. Charles or is it Rich pretending to be a priest in order to spread confusion?

          2. MARA says:

            abadilla, do you agree personally with the what the Bishops said or are you simply following them?

          3. abadilla says:

            I personally agree with the bishops, period. Mara, the Church is here to guide us through this sea of confusion. Our intelligence is not enough to sort out all the confusion of the secular world and you are a prime example of that confusion when you think murdering an unborn baby is a woman’s right. There would be no point for me to be a Catholic if I would refuse the Catholic Church to guide me through life, to aid my intelligence and will with God’s word and with her authority, Christ’s authority. What do you think the role of a bishop is? He preaches and teaches from his cathedra precisely because he is teaching the truth entrusted to him so he can transmit that truth to the rest of us. If I don’t respect that, well, there is no point on being a Catholic, is there?

          4. MARA says:

            Use your brain and don’t follow blindly. Bishops and Priests and Nuns and Popes are human and make human mistakes. Research rather than accept blindly. If not, you may be led in the wrong direction. Take ownership of what you believe rather than using “because the church says so.” Children follow blindly because they are dependent on their parents. Adults are meant to use their brains so they can decide for themselves.

          5. abadilla says:

            Mara, once again you show how poorly you understand the Catholic faith. When a Catholic listens to his/her bishops he/she is acknowledging the fact that he/she does not know it all and that we need spiritual assistance to understand certain issues fully. “He who rejects you, rejects Me” says the Lord and St. Ignatius of Antioch stated, “Without the bishop, do nothing!”
            The Church did not begin to teach us yesterday. She has taught us through the Scriptures, through the Fathers of the Church, through her bishops and saints, through her Popes, through great men like St. Anselm and his Prologion, St. Augustine and his Confessions and the City of God, St. Thomas Aquinas and his Summa Theologica, St. Theresa of Avila and her mystical writings, and I could go on and on. The wisdom of Roman Catholicism is a treasure a serious Catholic simply can’t put aside to embrace the fallacies of a secular culture and that has been your downfall. That’s why you believe such pagan ideas like the “fetus” has no rights, a woman can’t be forced to have a child. Accepting Church teaching is not the same as not using brains, etc. That’s why you are as lost as a puppy in the darkness of this world, in the culture of death, in the world of moral relativism. You want to be a good Christian yet you don’t see that the culture you have embraced is poison and that it opens the door to the powers of darkness that may envelop your life.
            I don’t follow anything blindly, but the Church is Jesus in space and time and therefore mater et magistra and she can teach me the path to salvation. To allow our Church to guide me through life, is simply to practice the virtue of humility. Don’t you see that Mara?

          6. Cinfusing Abadilly says:

            maybe ababilla is Rich and Joe is poor. Or Joe is abadilla and confused. Maybe Tom is Fr Charles. Maybe nothing is what it seems.

          7. abadilla says:

            No, abadilla is Antonio Alberto Badilla Monestel de La Trinidad and CV knows exactly who I am because I do contribute to CV with my money and my posts answering liars like you.
            I don’t use “anonimity” to attack people because I consider that a form of cowardice, that’s all.

      3. This is not true at all “Fr. Charles”. The democrats have funded a number of programs that help lower abortion rates. I work for one of the programs, and spend my days helping women that are considering abortion and providing them options and assistance so that they can choose to give birth to their child instead of getting an abortion. I have saved thousands of lives over the last four years and I can say, without hesitation, that you are wrong.

        1. Fr. Charles says:

          Raging Catholic, To vote knowingly and willingly for someone who is known to defend and promote abortion is a very serious sin. That person who shares in the candidate’s choice to defend and promote abortion may not receive Holy Communion until he or she has gone to Confession.

        2. Tom Crowe says:

          The Democrats insist on the continued government funding of the nation’s largest abortion pusher and provider, Planned Parenthood. Until the Democrats drop their fealty to Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry they, as a party, have no credibility on this issue.

        3. Barbie says:

          I did a Google search and was unable to find any programs that the Democrats have funded to lower abortion rates. Perhaps I typed in the wrong keywords. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, so would you please share with me the programs that you are refering to? I would greatly appreciate it. Any data to support the number of lives saved (I am assuming you mean babies who were not aborted due to these programs) would be appreciated. Thank you.

        4. George Mitterwald says:

          Hey, “ragingcatholic,” as Ray “The Crippler” Stevens used to say, “What of it?” Father Charles and Mr. Crowe have nailed it on the head. Your party and its fearless leaders have never met an abortion they don’t like. More abortions mean more money for them. With all that hate, no wonder you’re “raging.”

      4. Chuckie's Jesus says:

        Hey Chuck – how come you don’t follow the Bishops statement on Faithful Citizenship. I am sure that 25 years should have improved your reading.
        Methinks you is just a fraud. God help us if you are a real priest.

        1. Chuck says:

          Hey, C.J. You’re a blasphemer.

    3. Magy Stelling says:

      You won’t be so proud when you have to answer to God for your vote. Enjoy your smug victory while you can. Life is short. Eternity is forever. Seek mercy.

    4. abadilla says:

      I guess 55 million butchered unborn children are not enough for that “Catholic.”

    5. Hall Mirror says:

      Pride is excessive belief in one’s own abilities,
      that interferes with the individual’s recognition of the grace
      of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise.

      Well-meaning elementary school teachers probably told you to “believe in yourself.”
      Your punishment in Hell for the sin of Pride: You’ll be broken on the wheel.

  6. Goose Cooker says:

    There’s nothing like the smell of rabid desperation in the morning. The president has Ohio in the bag. Romney’s goose is cooked. Amen.

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      So sure of that? I’m suspecting the opposite is true. Time will tell.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.