Snarky and bleeding heart liberals
First we have Jen Psaki, State Department spokesperson and former spokesperson for President Obama, “answering” some questions from James Rosen, Fox News correspondent and recent Justice Department investigatee, about the capture of the Benghazi suspect:
“There are a range of factors that are taken into account”—yes, indeed. And “in terms of the right timing for operations along these lines, the President made the decision with the support of the National Security Team about the timing.” Yes indeed, again. Timing is everything, I hear.
I wonder why there is that slight smile on Psaki’s face, considering what extremely serious business this is. It is characteristic of what I referred to as “the sophomoric administration” in this post, where I described another State Department spokesperson, Marie Harf, in this way:
There’s something much more profoundly disturbing about her, as though she’s a bad actress miscast in a role for which she’s learned only some of the lines. The director has given her poor advice on how to play it,…what voice quality would be suitable. To say that she lacks gravitas it to say the obvious. But she lacks even the appearance of gravitas; there’s no attempt at gravitas, except perhaps the glasses.
Psaki lacks even the glasses.
Let’s move to the second clip. Now we have Kirsten Powers, Democratic pundit on Fox, explaining to Bill O’Reilly that our Judeo-Christian tradition requires that we must take in and provide for all the children that might come here illegally:
I wonder how common Powers’ attitude is.
I bet with her salary she could easily afford to adopt about 20 of the children–especially the ones with gang tatoos.
Jesus didn’t go around making hs disciples pay for the money changer’s profiting ways. He ran out the money changers he saw.
Does that go for every kid named Jesus in this wave of beggars and peons?
E-mail, sent to O’Reilly last night:
“Bill,
The solution is to have Kirsten and any other Democrat who wants amnesty to adopt as many of these children as possible at no expense to the taxpayer. For once let the Democrats actually do something rather than just have good intentions.”
Judeo Christian values place duties on individuals to use their own resources to do what Kirsten Powers wants to do. The 8th and 10th commandments say she can’t use somebody else’s resources to do it.
In any case we are under no obligation to destroy our ability to take care of refugees by taking care of every single illegal alien who wants to come here.
Powers is ignorant of moral hazard.
Such as the immorality of breaking up families via the economic incentives that instant American welfare provides.
&&&
Sixty-years ago do-gooders came up with welfare exclusively for women with children — without fatherly financial support.
The (predictable) result was that poor fathers (Black and White) moved out of the house so that the wife and kids could tap in. They never came back.
Three generations later, the Black family is almost extinct. A frightful percentage of Black births occur outside marriage.
Whites are following the same track in a belated way.
%%%
Powers is turning America into an orphanage.
The rejection issues that these kids are destined to have will keep therapists engaged for a lifetime.
Here we see the decadent influence of leftist Catholic liberation theology.
Keep the Pope out of the voting booth.
Liberation theology is from Nation of Islam, not Catholicism.
Y
I thought that Liberation Theology was a KGB construct.
The KGB did a bang-up job fulsomely corrupting the Orthodox Church.
They then had a handle on how to trash the Roman Catholic Church.
( And did a bang-up job on trashing Judaism… which see… )
Nation of Islam was allied with the Left. Horowitz is one source for that. Although if they were back in 1930, Bella Dodd would also be a source for it.
One of the Left’s 1930 methods to destroy or damage the RCC is to infiltrate homosexuals or Leftist agents into the church hierarchy, so they become the priest authorities. Since the RCC uses a hierarchy where you have superiors and subordinates, it’s easy for someone in power to dictate policy without pushback.
The Left’s use of the Nation of Islam, was more specifically tailored to the black American churches, which were mostly Protestant if I recall.
I consider them different operational fields.
For one thing, blacks hate homosexuals, they think it is a sin against Christ or something. That, I think, comes from the Nation of Islam influence and other “black church” influences.
While the Roman Catholic Church has similar policies, the Left could not really have infiltrated a bunch of homosexuals into the black churches. It would be very difficult to do. Thus “liberation” theology.
Snark seems to be about the only thing the Obama Administration does well. Perhaps we shouldn’t deny them this one success.
First line from the “Liberation Theology” Wiki page:
“Liberation theology[1] is a political movement in Roman Catholic theology which interprets the teachings of Jesus Christ in relation to a liberation from unjust economic, political, or social conditions.”
IOW, a malign confluence of religion and socialism.
Matt- IIRC, the priests pushing Lib Theol were/are primarily Latino, and the movement was/is strongest in Latin America.
And the Wiki is WRITTEN by whom again, in the footnotes? Leftist agents?
Verify your sources via triangulation. Do not merely accept whatever pap the world’s propaganda throws around.
‘Liberation Theology’ was definitely an ideology Catholic priests used in Central/Latin America to push communism.
Here’s another one:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/349432/pope-francis-and-liberation-theology
Is National Review written by leftist agents?
@Don Carlos,
That’s my understanding of the movement, too, though I’m no expert. Still, I believe there are strains of it outside Latin America.
In the U.S., the number of practicing Catholics that are also hard leftists must be small, hence the reason it never caught on here (?)
“I wonder why there is that slight smile on Psaki’s face, considering what extremely serious business this is. It is characteristic of what I referred to as “the sophomoric administration”…”
You mistake a diabolical smile for sophomoric one.
The devil has no fear. He smiles because he knows what his enemies are – weak and pitiful creatures who are miles beneath him in power and cunning.
I understand your reluctance to face reality. There is “diabolos” and liberals are embodiments of the spirit of Satan.
Read Rene Girard if you want a sophisticated take on it; or the Bible or any old children’s story if you want the normal truth of it.
Obama is the face of anti-Christ. Those who work for him are on the same team. That’s the power we face.
Must be dealt with or we’ll lose.
Is National Review written by leftist agents?
Is it? Do you even know.
Must be dealt with or we’ll lose.
Certainly, although I haven’t seen evidence Ps over there is a higher devil or demon. More like an imp, with a silly zombie grin.
Liberation theology developed mainly in Latin America and was very influential in the ’60s and ’70s. It was weakly opposed by Pope Paul VI but strongly opposed by Pope St. John Paul II; Benedict XVI opposed it as well, though by the end of the 20th century it had lost much of its cachet. It is inherently heretical as it grafts Marxist dialectics on to the Gospel in such a way that God is omitted from the equation. It views Christ as a model revolutionary who saves by means of revolutionary acts. The only real sin is “oppression” broadly understood. It has adherents today, but they are nowhere near as numerous or influential as previously. Aspects of Liberation theology have been adopted by leftist Catholic groups in the US, fortunately with less of a disposition to use gunpowder and lead as a sacramental.
Are we supposed to believe Latin America is pulling not only the Pope’s strings but America’s churches as well? Is that what people are trying to prove here.
And how many will Ms Powers take into her home? She is typical of the folks who want to ease their conscience by saying “we” have to do something when they really mean “someone else.”
I am not a big fan of O’Reily, who I see as a pontificating blowhard. But I have to agree – when is enough enough, Kirsten?
We can take care of these children, make sure they are fed and cared for, and then send them back to whence they came. Of course we will first ask Ms. Powers to foot the bill, since she is so adamant about these children’s well being.
What we can’t do is signal the rest of the world that the US borders are to be ignored, and that the US taxpayer will pay for the entire planet’s population.
I say