The Gospel Truth

Catholic Stewardship in an Obama World

August 29, 2011
11 Comments

While Barack Obama is short on reasonable fiscal policies he is long on sinister political strategies.

I just wish someone in the media, other than the National Review‘s Stanley Kurtz, would delve into the Cloward-Piven Strategy for breaking down a capitalist society.

I have written about it before but I have seen very little about it, even in the conservative media.

This strategy was devised by Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, who were both Columbia University professors in the early 1980s when Obama attended.

Image Detail

Does their strategy reign in Washington?

The essence of their strategy was simply over burden the financial resources of a capitalist country by forcing it to live up to the moral rhetoric in their political promises.

In his book, The Radical-in-Chief Kurtz ends the book by saying, Barack Obama is a Socialist.   You could save the price of the thick volume, just by reading its prescient last statement.

"Barack Obama is a Socialist!"

Kurtz spends the other 300+ pages developing his thesis.

Early in the book, after Frank Marshall Davis had instructed his son to go to Occidental University in California because of its radical climate, Kurtz points out how Obama, now at Columbia was fully exposed to the radical ideas of Cloward and Pivin.

Does the mere exposure to such a radical, anti-West, anti-capitalist thesis prove that the president was or is a socialist?

No, but given the fact that in three very long and controversial years in office, this president has added $5 trillion dollars to the national debt, certainly fits in well with the Cloward/Piven socialist methodology.

But when George W. Bush left office, the national debt was just $10 trillion.

To put this into better perspective, the nation’s first 43 presidents accumulated a grand total of just $10 trillion, while this president has raised it over 50%.

Can we and our grandchildren their grandchildren really afford another term with this budget-busting, bone-fide Social Democrat?

To any honest observer, this says that he is either a compulsive spender who can not control his desire to help poor and indigent people or intent on playing a break-the capitalist bank gambit.

Or Kurtz is absolutely correct and this is Obama’s dedicated attempt to destroy the wealth and prosperity of a nation, one can only assume he hates as did his mentor Frank Marshall Davis, an actual card-carrying Communist.

Image Detail

His mentor gave Barry some leftist advice

This brings me to the Catholic Bishops who have been far more supportive of this administration than reason and morality would seem to dictate.

I believe that a recent op-ed for the St. Louis Catholic Review, written by an Archdiocesan consultant named Dan Conway is perfectly illustrative of the Catholic bishops views on what good Catholics must do with regard to the current fiscal crisis.

After the usual statements about the dignity of the human person, he proceeded to define Catholic stewardship, which I believe is term that most Catholics are not fully aware of.

According to Conway all that we have as individuals, families, communities and as a nation have been given to us to nurture, develop and share  generously with others out of gratitude to God and our sense of responsibility….

It is funny when Bill Clinton was president I believe he felt that all the money in this country belonged to the government and they were just letting us use it until they needed it.

That sounds like Secular Stewardship to me.

Then maybe it is not surprising that both the Church and government seem on the same page about health care, the poor, entitlements, draconian cuts and tax increases.

What Conway failed to include is the fact that Catholic stewardship has three parts–time, talent and treasure.

Is it just my imagination but why does it always seem like the Church can only ask me for the third one?

I think you get the point.

First of all, I do agree everything I have is part of God’s will for me.

But I do have temporal ownership of everything that I got from my parents, my work, smart business decisions and the like.

Barack Obama is working hard every day to try to relieve me of that awesome burden.

This would include my dwelling, automobiles, clothes  and furniture.

To offer some kind of ethereal community claim to my largesse is more Marx than Jesus.

While I do have an obligation to help those in real need, not the millions of people whose life decisions, such as dropping out of school, promiscuous drug and sexual behaviors and a general disregard for traditional social norms have brought them into poverty, I get to decide who is needy of my largesse…not the Church and certainly not Barack Obama, who would just use my money to foster his misanthropic agenda.

My first responsibility, given to me by God, is to care for the needs of my immediate family and all the truly needy people who God has put in my path.

This includes the domestic help, that I have employed over the years, many of them working poor and struggling single mothers, and more recently a woman with an unemployed spouse.

I did the responsible thing—the moral thing.

I gave them a job with a fair wage, despite the efforts of government to over-burden me with rules, regulations and bureaucratic red tape.

It my my equivalent of teaching them to fish, instead of handing them a fish, courtesy of Uncle Sam.

I think Conway implies that to live up to our God-given responsibility, we must support higher tax levies—only on the people who are probably the biggest supporters of Catholic programs and then double our donations to the Church.

I once asked a former pastor of mine when he talked about the tithe, if that was before or after I paid my tax bill.

He said before of course.

Conway also relegated the heroic efforts of the Tea Party Republicans to an ideological struggle.

I think this is a false sense of moral equivalency.

Any simpleton can see that the problem of government is that it spends too much.  Its revenues are about the same and would be improved if Obama took a long holiday and let business do what it does best—make money and create jobs.

The faucet of red ink has been freely flowing since the last four years of Bush.

It has only intensified to a stream, comparable to a Red Sea under Obama.

Drowning in a president's agenda of debt

To call legislators who want to stop the flow of money and chide them for callous, mean-spirited and insensitive cuts is to betray serious signs of optical delusion.

I really don’t believe that Conway wrote this paean to Obama’s policies.

It was probably speechwriter Jon Favreau, who was my Holy Cross’ valedictorian  a few years ago or maybe Jay Carney, who has trouble reading his talking points.

A Holy Cross enabler?

Some other liberal wag living in a fantasy world of his own making, recently opined that Obama is too good for America!

My question is just what did we do to  deserve this president?

                           BE CERTAIN TO LOOK FOR PART II

Advertisements

Forrest Gump at the White House

August 22, 2011
4 Comments

It was a risible moment during the movie, Forrest Gump, when he told President Johnson that he won his medal because they shot him in the butt-ocks.

One of the great lines from the movie was Stupid is as stupid does!

Since Forrest was basically a simple child in an adult’s body it had almost an embedded Biblical wisdom to it.

Given the state of the economy and our president’s inepitude with financial affairs, it might be time for Forrest to go back to Washington and give them the wisdom of his thoughts.

Should make another visit

Ever since she could talk and I think that was just a few minutes after her birth, my eight-years old granddaughter was not allowed to say the word, stupid because her parents told her it was a bad word.

Yet she freely uses the word Obama which is a bad word in her grandparents’ home.

Pundit James Carville got a lot of mileage out of his phrase, It’s the economy stupid!

Some might say that it summed up the reasons that George H. W. Bush failed to retain his public office in 1992.

I am really surprised that more people have not resurrected Carville’s slogan for this upcoming election.

Image Detail

Recognized 41's weakness

Economy and stupid have been hermetically paired these past three years with the Obama administration.

Clueless is another word that comes to mind.

Everywhere you read, someone is talking about the economy and like the weather, no one is doing anything about it, thanks to the obstructionist in the White House.

I wonder if someday my granddaughter will see the connection between her old offensive word and the current occupant of the White House.

While on the subject of of stupid billionaire Warren Buffet worries that he has not paid enough in taxes, giving comfort and ammunition to the Obama forces who lust for more money, like a vampire lusts for more blood.

Perhaps that explains the ubiquity of movies and TV about vampires and other blood-suckers.

expecting a bite

Future bureaucrats in training

Buffet paid only 17% of his unstated income in taxes.  He thinks that he should pay a lot more.

Then he should start by paying himself a huge salary from his tax-sheltered foundation like most working Americans.

The truth is Buffet already has enough money for the rest of his life.

He wants government to stop others from becoming as wealthy as he is.

It is always apples and oranges with Obama.  They cite the deficits as a reason why they need to raise taxes on millionaires…most of whom only make $200,000 a year.  Can’t Americans do math?

Harvard said women couldn’t but then that was before Larry Summers went to work for Obama.

Image Detail

Women and math don't compute

What Obama is saying is that he would use that additional revenue to address the deficit.

By creating a larger deficit?

If anybody really believes this man is capable of reducing anything, I have some prime oceanfront property here in Southeast, Missouri I can sell you.

Thanks to Uncle Sam who flooded it last spring.

He will pour it all down the special interest sinkhole that he has already wasted $5,000,000,000,000.

Implicit in his senile pandering to Obama is his belief that he owes his $58 billion wealth to Big Government for his wealth.

Unless Buffet is a crony capitalist like the executives at GE, he has forgotten how it has been his own uncanny knack of picking winning stocks that allowed him to amass such a fortune.

Were government to someday confiscate his entire fortune, it wouldn’t do any real good to address the economics problems of this country.

Image Detail

Should pay himself a salary

Pope Benedict XVI has also weighed in on economics, before a Spanish audience in hoping to ease strained ties with the Socialist government of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero in Madrid.

I don’t even like the leader of my Church having anything to do with any kind of Socialism, let alone give the appearance of appeasement.

And appeasement is what it sounded like when the pontiff urged business leaders to use ethics to work for mankind and not just be concerned with profits.

The pontiff failed to understand that economics is indifferent to humanitarian causes, except when they try to buy public good will through philanthropy.

It is an imperfect system but it is far better than any of the alternatives, especially the Socialist government he was trying to salve.

Businesses are created, first of all to make money for the risk-takers who invest their time and their money in new ventures that employ millions of people.

Where would the world be without free enterprise?

In the Gulag?

Humanitarian projects have been historically the work of churches and philanthropists.

The moment government got into the charity business they abused it to the extent that they used humanitarian interests to extort trillions from businesses around the world.

It is primarily socialist governments, like the one in Madrid that are responsible for the excessive poverty in the world and for running the global economy near the brink of total collapse.

Just once I would love to hear a leader of my church talk or even preach about the responsibilities of government toward property owners and the successful.

Have governments been good stewards of the largesse they confiscate from their subjects?

And what do the rich get in return?

They have to build gated communities to protect their families and their properties from the brigands and marauders that liberal societies have encouraged to prey on them.

Unfortunately it is always the lower classes that suffer the most…but this is because of big government and not the denizens of  gated communities.

I would just love to hear a priest preach about violations of the Seven Commandment, which for Catholics is Thou Shalt Not Steal.

Benedict XVI

What about the 7th Commandment?

No, so many of prelates are blinded by false notions of social justice, which emanates from Karl, not Jesus.

This reminded me of a clerical admission in grade school about papal infallibility that said that the pope was not infallible in science …or economics but only in faith and morals.

This sounds as if he is trying mix both.

The real trouble is that most people hate economics.

This gives charlatans like Obama almost a free rein.

According to a Wall Street Journal article, they hate it because so much economic theory violates common sense.

Nothing so far Obama has done has boosted this reputation.

One of their biggest canards is the fallacy that by extending unemployment insurance to people who have lost their jobs, is a good way to stimulate the economy.

They are earning any money, so by government giving money they didn’t have, they will spend it.

Brilliant logic if money great on trees.

I’ll have to ask the Fed about that.  

While it is a perfect Keynesian theoretical answer, it is practical nonsense.

According to the WSJ‘s Stephen Moore the White House is telling us that the more unemployed people we can pay for not working, the more people will work.

And this will really stimulate us out of an approaching double-dip recession.

Milton Friedman said that the more you subsidize something, the more of it you will get.

Image Detail

Want more unemployment--subsidize it

If I, who  had just a pair of what FDR used to call Gentleman C’s in Economics at Holy Cross understand it, how stupid does that make the rest of the country who doesn’t?


Loopholes for Catholics

August 15, 2011
2 Comments

One of my favorite lines is from what maybe an apocryphal scene involving the deathbed of famed comedian, W. C. Fields.

He was said to have been interrupted in his hospital room by a friend who asked him why he was thumbing through the Bible.

His patented response looking for loopholes.

Hope he found some

I am not certain if this is the case with the Catholic Church in America and its United  States Conference of Catholic Bishops, but I often wonder if one of their prime functions is to give a protective salve for the collective consciences of its many liberal and socialistic members who have no trouble in advancing the causes of abortion, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research.

This was true when Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was sitting in the chairman’s seat and professing his famous seamless garment principle that has done more to harm the pro-life movement than anything Planned Parenthood ever could have done on its own.

Left loopholes for Catholic liberals

In 2008 the Catholic bishops have been publishing a document entitled Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.

Ideally this was designed to help Catholics form their consciences in light of the Church’s teachings, so they can make moral and wise voting decisions.

One would also like to think that it was designed to help Catholics find those candidates that resonates a proximity to Catholic moral teaching

Given all the working myths in this country about the so-called separation of Church and State, the Church cannot appear to endorse one candidate or another.

Did this separation ever stop Bill Clinton from singing in a black Baptist choir?

The fact that 54% of Catholics voted for Barack Obama can only lead to the conclusion that nobody took the time to read it or many totally ignored it.

Quite possibly the document was so generally vague that anyone who ever spent an afternoon withJudge Judy could have found an easy loophole to rationalize a vote for the most egregious advocate of unrestricted abortion in America.

Judge Judy - So What?
Enough law for loopholes

Catholic editors Deal Hudson & Matt Smith believe that the latter possibility was at work three years ago and they fear that virtually the same document will be approved at the bishops’ annual Baltimore meeting in November, allowing Obama to profit once again from the Catholic voters, who seem more intent on social justice issues than stopping the fetal death and destruction Obama and his party promote.

As Hudson points out:

 The 2008 version of Faithful Citizenship ccontains several passages (Sections 34-37) that are capable of overly broad interpretation. Groups like Catholics United and Catholic Democrats cherry-picked the following passage from Section 35 for prominent display on their web sites and in their printed materials.

Faithful Citizenship
Full of loopholes

There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.

They state of course that this would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons,  and not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences.

Anyone who objected to the implication of this passage could have been met with an equally confusing citation from the previous paragraph, Section 34, which states:

A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil.

At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

What this means is that a Catholic could vote for a pro-abortion candidate as long as he or she did not intend to support his pro-abortion position.

But the very fact of helping elect an individual who supports an abject evil, such as abortion, does in fact support his ability to be elected and further promote his intrinsic evil.

In essence it contradicts its own position.

The bishops add this statement, in making these decisions,it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions.

While this sounds so very logical and reasonable but it does not hold up under the bright light of scrutiny.

The average Catholic voter is usually not equipped to make these kinds of abstract distinctions.

If the candidate was a racist the bishops would probably make the argument that one belief so poisoned his soul that it would be sinful to vote for him because there was no way he would have a legitimately moral basis in other issues.

But with abortion the bishops don’t seem to see it the same way.

A pro-choice candidate can still be right on all the other humanitarian issues of social justice.

The bishops also say: these decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue.

I believe that if a politician sought election on the bodies and burned flesh of 50 million unborn children, it would tarnish his legitimate concerns for the poor and the indigent.

In essence the liberal bishops strangle on their own logic.

Thankfully not all bishops agreed in 2008.

During the 2008 campaign, many individual bishops attempted to address the confusion of Faithful CitizenshipBishop Robert Vasa, for example, pointed out that voting for a pro-abortion candidate is never justified when the opponent is pro-life.

Working against loopholes

Similarly, Bishops Kevin Vann and Kevin Farrell insisted there are no truly grave ‘moral’ or ‘proportionate’ reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.

Only those bishops that still hang on to the Bernardin toxin of moral equivalency could dispute this statement.

If the bishops republish the 2008 version Faithful Citizenship for the 2012 election — without changes — they will be providing Catholic voters with enough logical loopholes that will serve as a toxic salve for their consciences.

We all know that President Obama will be pulling for the toxins.


A Baker’s Dozen for Obama

August 8, 2011
Leave a Comment

After less than three years of President Obama’s regime one thing is clear, the American people are more divided than I can ever remember, except maybe the Vietnam War era.

His divisive attitude has created an atmosphere where bullet points and old bromides of contention have substituted for ideas and viable solutions to catastrophic problems.

His virtual absence from the political fray earlier this month stands in solitary indictment of his presidency.

His political mantra of Blame Bush, general mendacity and evasiveness has prompted me to raise a series of questions that I invite each and every thinking liberal to address with cogent arguments.

I do this because I know the government media will not press him on any of these questions.

BLAME BUSH

We all know whose fault it is.

Failure to do so will just convince people like me that liberals are mere automotons, who merely recite Democratic bumper stickers without any clear understanding what their empty slogans really mean.

Give it a shot because, who knows you might realize that you are dead wrong.

1) Bush’s fault–at what point if any will the sagging economy become Obama’s fault?

2) If indeed it was and still is Bush’s fault, how do you explain that President Obama has not only followed the policies of his predecessor but greatly exceeded his spending by adding five trillion dollars to the nation debt?

3) If you think Bush’s two wars are responsible, how come Obama didn’t just end them as he promised in 2008?

View Image

A cause of our economic woes?

Don’t forget about Obama’s War in Libya that was supposed to end in days and with little national purpose!

4) Obama says the Bush tax cuts in 2003 caused the economy collapse or something like that.  Please explain how this could happen. 

How does allowing people to preside over their own money cause an economic failure?  Do you really think government can make better financial decisions than you can?

5) President Obama wants the wealthy to pay their fair share.  If you accept the fact that the top 5% in the economic strata currently pay 59% of the gross total,  then just how much more should they assume?  60%? 75%? 90%?  100%? Or 110%?

We now have 51% of the American people who do not pay anything in income taxes.  Should they be made to pay something toward the total?  Or would THAT be UNFAIR?

As an after thought, Bill Maher said on HBO that things were better in the fifties when the wealthy paid as much as 75%.

If this was not a solid gold non sequitur, I don’t know what is.

View Image

Had to be kidding!

Bill, it was better in the fifties because there was no Vietnam, no women’s movement, no legalized abortion, no affirmative action quotas etc.

In other words the culture war had not started in essence and it had nothing to do with how much in taxes the wealthy paid.

The economy also was not that great.

And that man is considered a thinker by the left!  What a big joke he is.

6) Why do you think a 3rd stimulus package would work when the first two failed dismally?  Where would you spend another trillion dollars?  (See question # 12)

7) What positive or friendly steps has Obama taken toward businesses since he became president?

View Image

Telling small business leaders what he wants

Please don’t say extending the Bush tax cuts because everyone knows that if re-elected he will raise the tax rates through the roof.  His uncertainty in effect nullified any real economic value for the country.

8) With regard to civility, what steps has the president taken to lecture or criticize the denizens of the left-wing press for their constant vilification of the Tea Party members?

9) Do you think they really are terrorists, bomb-throwers and hostage takers?  The Tea Party, not the media!

10) Do you approve of the president’s near total disregard for the U. S. Constitution with his 34 czars, executive orders and EPA regulations, which have in effect enacted cap-and-trade against the explicit will of the Congress?

11) Do you agree with the president that we should model ourselves on the Social Democracy paradigm of Sweden  with its exceedingly high taxes and lack of economic freedom?

View Image

Oh say can we see?

12) If Obama can’t get his extra trillions from the rich, where will he find the money to pay our bills?

13) Is this the kind of change you hoped for in 2008?

Editor’s Note:  I could have asked why Obama doesn’t want America to be exceptional as if there were something wrong with this country’s success!  Well he got his way as our credit rating has dropped us to the level of Belgium and New Zealand.  If he is re-elected how does Zimbabwe and Somalia sound?

Please don’t be shy.  I really want to know how anyone who still supports him will answer these questions.  Our very future depends on your clear understanding of this questions.  Send them to my comments page.


Our Stepford President?

August 1, 2011
2 Comments

It is always easy to play the blame game.

Our politicians have been adept at this sordid aspect of the game of politics for centuries.

An old high school classmate recently raised the issue that in my last post I might have assigned too much blame to the executive branch.

I responded by saying that it is a safe and historically accurate bet that since the days of FDR the power of government had shifted perceptively to the Oval Office.

The Watergate Affair did for a short while transfer the power back to Capitol Hill.

View Image

A brief encounter with legislative power

However with Obama he might have a point.

I have been reading, writing and thinking about this man for three very long years.

I have covered every aspect of his personal and public life by reading everything available about the man and what do I know conclusively for certain?

Nothing! Zilch! Nada!

His aloofness and skills of verbal legerdemain and fact obfuscation have made him the most enigmatic person of the 42 two men who had preceded him.*

I am not certain who his father is…what country he was born in…if he is an American citizen..what religion he believes in…if any…

I know nothing about his years at Pepperdine, Columbia or Harvard.  I don’t know if he actually wrote his two best-selling books or not.

Sometimes I am not even certain if he has come from this planet.

For all I know about him he was the Martian candidate.

I was more certain that Al Haig was in charge of the White House in 1981 that I am of this president.

I have seen him shot some hoops on TV.

While he is totally inept from a baseball mound, he does have a fine shot…at least when not guarded.

That I know.

View Image

Can shoot

So for me to blame Obama for this mess might be a stretch.

His uncanny ability to lead from the rear makes me wonder if he is in control of anything.

His career in both Springfield and Washington were distinguished mainly for his lack of distinction or accomplishment.

Is it possible that a George Soros type might be pulling his wooden limbs through an invisible set of strings?

Soros

The real force?

The focal point of this serious crisis that his non-presence has wrought has been Speaker John Boehner and the non-consequential Senate leader Harry Reid.

Compromise: US Speaker of the House John Boehner (R) and U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (L) continued discussions today

Reid and Boehner with Obama

The two main principles that we have heard from the White House and they have been repeated by so many different talking heads that it makes me wonder if the robot in the Oval Office might have had an equipment break-down.

Those two vague principles have been–compromise and balance, which have replaced hope and change.

Now I still don’t really know what he meant by hope.

The last unpleasant three years have taught me what change was on his data board.

By compromise, I think he probably means surrender.

His inability to offer anything that looks and sounds like a true compromise must rest with is programmers whomever they may be.

Just what has the president offered to compromise on?

The Republicans have asked for very few cuts and have virtually agreed to add another two trillion dollars to our immediate debt.

Senate leader Mitch McConnell has correctly stated weeks ago that beating Obama in November is the only way that we will ever get a handle on the long-term debt.**

View Image

All hinges on 2012

And this doesn’t even include the unfunded future obligations to our population in pensions, medicare and retirement benefits.

I think that one could be as much as 70 trillion.

Ever wonder where that is going to come from?

Can anyone say Wisconsin or maybe even Greece?

View Image

America's future?

Now as for balance, the president always reverts back to the rich paying their fair share.

Maybe if we were ever to see one of his college transcripts, we might find that he aced his Deconstruction course on Michel Foucault because he has given a new meaning to the word fair.

View Image

Aced his course?

When the top 5% of our population–the movers, shakers and employers of this economy–already pay 59% of the gross total of income taxes and this president thinks that is not enough and they should pay more…just to be fair makes me wonder if this president even speaks the same language as I do.

Charley Gibson pointed out to Obama that taxing the wealthy more would not bring in any more revenue.

That’s a fact of financial life.

The higher taxes would cause a change in behavior that would virtually nullify any increased revenue.

Obama said that he knew that and it was a matter of fairness.

And what about the 51% of Americans who don’t pay anything in income taxes?

Is it fair that they have no financial stake in this country, other than the fact that millions of them are living off the largesse of the working members.

But again that their entitlement, isn’t it?

And now since we have crossed that magical number, the have-not or the pay-nots can now vote to take all of the money of the haves.

That’s not democracy but tyranny and this president has robotically brought us to this brink.

And even if a 100% of the top 5-10% were confiscated, would it solve our economic woes?

How many jobs would be lost when the rich had to live like ordinary people on a dwindling income?

Servants would lose their jobs.  Department stores would lose billions and the president would spend their money in a few weeks.

All this makes me wonder if Obama is really on our side?

He has tried to knock America off its pinnacle of exceptionalism since his inauguration.

Obama wants to lead us to the back of the pack.

For what—punishment for our racial and economic crimes?

Even Bill O’Reilly, my favorite pinhead, said the other night that he thinks that Obama hates the capitalist system so much that he deliberately wants to crash the economy and bring us to financial ruin.

Is that a hard idea to fathom?

Now believes the worst

Those were strong words from the master of fair and balanced.

 Of course fairness to the Catholic-educated O’Reilly means something entirely different.

But then again it sounds as if I am laying blame.

Maybe Obama’s wires have just gotten crossed.

Could Obama be the Stepford President?

I guess I will have to read Ira Levin’s 1972 book or see the two Hollywood adaptations to really understand this president?

View Image

Cut from the same Radio Shack components?

* Grover Cleveland is counted as the 22nd and 24th president, which makes Barack Obama the 44th president.

** The tentative deal agreed to by Congressional leaders will not satisfy anyone.  It will second McConnell’s point that 2012 will be for all the marbles, matching the Great Debate of late 18th century America.


About author

After graduating from Holy Cross, Bill Borst earned an MA in Asian History from St. John's University and a Ph.D in American History from St. Louis University. (1972) A former New Yorker, he taught for many years in the St. Louis area, while also hosting a weekly radio show on WGNU from 1984-2006. He currently is a regular substitute for conservative Phyllis Schlafly on KSIV radio. (1320) He is the author of two books on social history, "Liberalism: Fatal Consequences," and "The Scorpion and the Frog: A Natural Conspiracy." He just retired as the Features editor of the Mindszenty Foundation Monthly Report. In his 11 years from 2003-2013 he wrote nearly 130 essays on Catholic culture and world affairs. Many in St. Louis also know him as the "Baseball Professor," because of a course that he offered at Maryville College from 1973-74. It was arguably the first fully-accredited baseball history course in the Midwest.The author of several short books on the old St. Louis Browns, he started the St. Louis Browns Historical Society in 1984. In 2009 his first two plays were produced on the local stage. "The Last Memory of an Ol' Brownie Fan," ran six performances at the Sound Stage in Crestwood and "A Perfect Choice" ran for two performances at the Rigali Center Theater in Shrewsberry. His third play, "A Moment of Grace," ran six performances at DeSmet High School in January of 2011with First Run Theater in January of 2011. He is currently working on a 4th play, "A Family Way," which is a comedy about a happy dysfunctional family. He can reached at bbprof@sbcglobal.net

Search

Navigation

Categories:

Links:

Archives:

Feeds