Comments on: Another pro-choicer rejected for Vatican ambassadorship.

By: novimir

novimir — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:49:30 +0000

Obviously you believe that to take a proactive action to solve a problem is beyond the capability of Russian people.

The theory presented does more to explain what happened in 1991 and the world as it is in 2009 than that book ever will.

It’s hard to put a puzzle together if you don’t have all the pieces.

By: scottbomb

scottbomb — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:47:18 +0000

Remember his speeches in the Dem primary about “putting aside our differences”, “bringing people together”, “people are tired of the same old partisan politics”?

And now that he’s been elected, the most polarizing president in recent history (according to a recent poll) can’t even bring himself to appoint ONE pro-life person.

By: john_barry

john_barry — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 12:07:53 +0000

Firstly one cannot be “pro choice” and be a Roman Catholic. I fail to see how you can have a choice to kill the innocent unborn child in the womb. Pro choice means pro murder. Lets stop using euphemisms. Lets call a spade a spade. Stop sanitizing language. By supporting abortion you exclude yourself from the Church. To pick a pro abortion ambassador is the ultimate insult to the Vatican. Obama is so used to a fawning media in America that he just does not get it.
Obama has relentlessly pursued a pro-abortion agenda since his election. He has no regard for the law of God on this issue. To the pro aborts I say: For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his eternal soul. We are all answerable to God for our actions.
The Vatican is upholding the law of God on this issue. To accept a pro abortion ambassador would be a signal that the Vatican was comfortable with Obama’s policy on the issue. Under no circumstances can the Vatican accept a pro abort.

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 11:59:43 +0000

The fall came not in the mid-70s though. It came AFTER Reagan buried them.

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 11:57:47 +0000

By: Hammer2008

Hammer2008 — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 07:11:33 +0000

I spent Easter week vacationing away from the Masters here in Augusta, GA to return to news, the internet and thunderstorms. I did hear a blurb about this on the drive back from Disney Orlando on Friday.

Moe, thank you for the details.

Happy Easter one and all. A blessed Passover (Pasch a/k/a Easter in some European parts)

~Andrew

By: DONTREADONME

DONTREADONME — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 05:36:03 +0000

you have to know that the Vatican would have a problem with a supporter of abortion. Just like you would have to know that Mel Gibson would be a bad choice for ambassador to Israel. No doubt a point is being made if it continues to happen three times. Oh, and your point about doing away with ambassador to the Vatican is valid since we were having an argument with ophite above saying the same exact thing.

By: dalec

dalec — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 05:31:20 +0000

Obama may be arrogant and yes he stumbles all over the place with rookie mistakes, but I never thought he was actually stupid! Give him a pass the first time for not realizing that the Vatican is serious about its anti-abortion position. The second time the nominee is rejected for the same reason, you have to take note. The third time, one begins to wonder if there is another agenda at play here.

Perhaps “the one” is wanting to do away with the Vatican ambassadorship altogether. This would be much more consistent with his Marxist ideologies. This way he can say :

Well, we tried as hard as we could to send an ambassador to the Vatican, but they just kept rejecting them. So what can you do? It’s not our fault!

By: novimir

novimir — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 03:20:31 +0000

If the Vatican uniformly applies the abortion standard, why is it actively pursuing a relationship with the People Republic of China which has a “one child” policy?

It is also pursuing a relationship with Vietnam. In both cases, the issue of abortion is not being pressed.

By: novimir

novimir — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 03:04:35 +0000

I have an alternate theory about what happened in 1991:

1. Russia has a very strong national identity associated with
being a Slavic Russian.

2. In the mid-1970s Russians were already noting that Slavic
Russians would be a minority in the USSR by 2010.

3. Demographers also looked at the growth rate of the Central
Asian republics and suggested by 2050 Muslims would be the
majority in the USSR.

So according to the alternate theory, in 1991 the Slavic Russians decided to keep the power, keep the military bases, keep the economic control, but get rid of the non-Russian republics.

Today, Russia has all the key military bases it had before 1991, has maintained its economic interests, but is no longer in danger of having Slavic Russians be outnumbered by Muslims within their own country.

Statistics are shown below. I used:

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/factbook/countrycompare/pg/1a.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

There are many other sources. The table shows country name, current population, and populations growth rate. Compare the five Central asian Republics to Russia.

Russia 141,850,000 -0.37

Ukraine 46,143,700 -0.63
Uzbekistan 27,488,000 1.67
Kazakhstan 15,571,50 0.3
Belarus 9,690,000 -0.09
Azerbaijan 8,629,900 0.59
Tajikistan 6,952,000 2.15
Kyrgyzstan 5,482,000 1.29
Turkmenistan 5,110,000 1.81
Georgia 4,382,100 -0.35
Lithuania 3,350,40 -0.3
Armenia 3,230,100 -0.25
Latvia 2,260,000 -0.69
Estonia 1,340,341 -0.65

By: mom2oneson

mom2oneson — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:22:30 +0000

It’s all over their books…even their kindergarten books are full of leftist ideology.

By: AKSteveB

AKSteveB — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:19:05 +0000

I was actually hoping/believing that he was all about power, that would have been Clinton term III, a lot less destructive.

By: Doc Holliday

Doc Holliday — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:17:19 +0000

you ask the average mall shopper why the war is ruining their life and they can’t say why. They have been indocrinated by the MSM, pop culture, NEA, and Communist run state colleges, and the Ivy League is the worst. It is sad how people can have such low self esteem that they become sponges that soak up whatever they hear the most.

And it is a blaspheme on those who actually are affected by the war, men and women who fight, suffer, and still want to win.

By: Achance

Achance — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:12:03 +0000

Three generations of leftist indoctrination in government schools has finally given the communists their victory without firing a shot. I always figured that if I lived to see America became a communist country, I’d be surrounded by rubble and dying of radiation sickness.

By: Doc Holliday

Doc Holliday — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:04:51 +0000

lives even though they were not affected and few if any knew anyone serving? One the election was over, the war stopped being so dire, it stopped ruining the average civilian’s life. The MSM tells them what to think and they follow. It sounds too simplistic, but many today are simplistic.

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:04:50 +0000

By: DONTREADONME

DONTREADONME — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 01:54:45 +0000

our pastors did the same thing, though they did it cryptically down here in the archdiocese of Arlington VA, but that was what torqued me. When the Catholic vote was shown, I said how many of these people around me voted for Obama. I did not see any Obama stickers on cars at the church parking lot, so I wondered, which Catholics voted for Zero-liberal? I just do not get it. Oh, when arguing with other Catholics about this they said war was more important than the abortion issue? I said you just equating the termination of the most innocent of all life against the termination of the enemy. Anyway, I just find myself in a quandry about the people around me in the churches.

By: mbecker908

mbecker908 — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 01:52:07 +0000

I don’t have a link and am relying on my memory (not even a good bet I can find my way to the bathroom without a map, so take this for what it’s worth), but I’m sure I remember seeing an article referencing the radical difference between “regular” mass attenders and the C&E variety. There was, as I recall, about a 30 point swing.

By: mbauer

mbauer — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 01:45:53 +0000

I’d willing to bet that 50% or whatever of Catholics that voted for Obama would not be in the pew next to you except for on Christmas and Easter. I don’t recall the last presidential election in which my current priest didn’t comment on the need to put our pro life principles first when we vote.

By: DONTREADONME

DONTREADONME — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 01:35:07 +0000

they will use any reason they can to justify there position to continue to vote for Obama. There is not much you can do other than say “Why are you Catholic again”? If the Pope does not know what he is talking about, then why do you go a Church that adheres to Popes commands? That is why I do not like going to the Catholic church anymore, including the Anglican church. Too many hypocrites sitting in the pew next to me.