Russia is Friend of Syrian Peace

http://news.yahoo.com/start-something-big-russia-pulls-hundred-citizens-syria-155610519.html

The rebels are armed by secret USA, British and French arms shipments. Look at map, These three nations are very far away from Syria. Russia is right next door. So the Russians are rightfully more interested in Syria than the rest. The talk on these pages is as though the cold war was not over. What do all those without sons and daughters in our military want…More war? The Russians have been very clear. Stop the secret arming of the rebels. Stop the millions of dollars of pay to the rebels. Stop trying to overthrow the government of Syria by international State sponsored terrorism, which is what such funding and arming of the rebels actually is, Then the Russians will support transition from Assad and international UN sponsored free elections in Syria. From the beginning, it has been the Russians who have pursued peace. The NATO allies, France, Britain and USA have pursued war. First, we helped overthrow our ally Mubarak, than Gaddafi, and now Assad. If Russia tried to overthrow the governments of Mexico, Costa Rica, and Panama, we would be screaming about it, rattling our swords and threatening World War. The way to stop the terrible bloodshed is for USA to affirm our commitment to peace. If USA State sponsored terrorism against Syria was stopped, the rebels would retreat. The Assad Regime would stop defending itself. The people would live and many innocent children would be ensured parents into the future.

Anita Hill and Hollywood

http://shine.yahoo.com/the-thread-hit-list/a-smiling-anita-hill-shows-up-at-sundance-204556971.html

The film’s angle, said the director after the screening, is all about “looking at the next generation of people, looking at the next generation of issues and getting it right,” in terms of gender inequality.
The director the film is telling us HIS problem. The people of the USA had it right then and have it right now. We, the people are for each other and as the saying goes we “have each other’s back.” It is the Hollywood crowd that has it all wrong. They think of themselves as “Stars” or as “Very talented” or as the ‘Hollywood Royalty’ or the “Elite”. Actually, they are actors and actresses making a living by performing for other people’s entertainment much like an automobile worker makes cars or a garbage person takes away the trash. No better and no worse. However, to hear them tell it, we, the people have it wrong regarding our values and they are going to show us the error of our ways and point us to the brightness of their light. (Funny, how they attack religion as being preaching when what they do, day and night, is preach, preach, preach.) For them, there are the super stars, the super rich, the super successful. For them, there are the “has beens, the B grade” actors and actresses. For them, there are those who are sought after and those who are shunned. Their inordinate pride is amazingly self-centered and therefore fundamentally narrow and most of the time unwarranted. Yes, we the people got it right years ago during the hearing for Clarence Thomas who was the first Black man to become a Justice of the Supreme Court and who was set upon by the bigotry of Senator Kennedy and his cabal of cronies in the Senate. And we get it right every day as we live, work and socialize with each other down here in the lowlands where the PEOPLE actually live. By the way, Mr Director, who set you up as the teacher who is going to show the rest of us how to get it right? Take a look at your own house first. How many women are Directors of movies, or heads of production studios? It seems to me that Hollywood’s Directors are predominantly white males, and that Hollywood administrative structures are exclusively white males.

By the way, Anita looks fabulous in the photo. Good for her and we are all glad she made a success of her life. However, sadly, she very publically tried to make a disaster of another person’s life. Funny that Justice Thomas, whose wife is white, should have been accused by the Kennedy cabal of being a sexist and racist?! For some perspective on those we once called our leaders, read Killing Kennedy by Bill O Reilly concerning John and Robert Kennedy. Sections of it also treat of The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his deeds of self-indulgence in the dark. The book is very factual, and very enlightening concerning those who would accuse others of misdeeds. The book restates an old adage that those who accuse others are probably doing it themselves and even worse than those they accuse.

Priest is not being Honest

http://ncronline.org//news/people/bourgeois-receives-official-vatican-letter-dismissing-him-priesthood

Amazing to me that this former priest cannot honestly admit that his offense clearly was pointed out to him by his superiors. He says that he is bound by his conscience. Well, he also is bound by his conscience concerning his profession of vocation, his vows of ordination, and his profession of obedience to the Bishops, Archbishops and the Holy Father. Furthermore, his conscience is bound by his priestly position as a teacher of the official position of the Roman Catholic Church. His removal as a priest does not stop him from speaking, teaching or writing. It merely recognizes the fact that he has removed himself from any participation in the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. He did this by an action of his own free will and it would indicate his basic honesty to admit the fact and move on.

Catholic Colleges and Bishops

http://ncronline.org/news/theology/bishops-colleges-find-good-collaboration-ex-corde-review

This writer attended several Christian affiliated colleges. Many times I asked myself if the school I attended was Christian in any sense other than an active Chapel life. It seemed that the philosophy, theology, ethics and morality of Christianity had no interaction with classroom presentations. Once a student left the Chapel, it was exactly like every other secular based school.

During the Pontificate of John Paul II the relationship of Roman Catholic colleges and universities was highlighted by two events. This author is presenting this from memory so minor details may be missing but the gist is the same.

Hans Kung is the name. A Roman Catholic priest, writer, theologian and holder of the official chair of Theology at a German university, Father Kung wrote several items that were called into question by the official teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church. He was required to clarify his positions and eventually, his explanations of what he taught were not judged adequate by the official Roman Catholic teaching authority. The case was refered to Pope John Paul II, who after review, decided that Father Kung could not accurately and sufficiently represent the official Roman Catholic theology on subjects under his purview. He was required by his bishop to relinquish the official chair of Roman Catholic theology. Father Kung was not forbidden to publish his thoughts. He was not stripped of his priesthood. He was not accused as a heretic. The narrow, and in this writers opinion, correct judgement, was that which was stated above. Father Kung was judged to be not sufficiently committed to official Roman Catholic teaching for him to remain the official teacher of that position at a university.

The second is similar but involves an entire university, namely, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA. The Pope warned Notre Dame and other official Roman Catholic Universities that they could not have it both ways. Namely, the university could not teach, promulgate, or promote distinctly unchristian or antichristian positions and remain an official university of the Church. Please note, that his Holiness John Paul II did not say that presentations of other than Christian philosophies, theologies, ethics, morals or whatever, could not be treated at such a university. What was required was a distinctly Roman Catholic analysis, critique and answer to those presentations which a reasonable Christian would regard as not in keeping with the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Also note, that the Pope did not require the school to stop academic freedom, however, if the school wanted to adopt, teach, promulgate and promote distinctly unchristian or antichristian positions, it should give up its affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church and become just another secular institution.

Considering that so many of our finest American Universities, such as Yale and Harvard and just about all the ivy league schools were founded by Christians and supported throughout their founding years by the Christian Church. And considering that if we were to look at the founding documents and charters of these school, the founders intended for the schools to teach, promulgate, and promote the distinct teachings of the Christian Church. It is a sad commentary on academic fraud that these very schools attack, degrade, and dismiss Christianity and Christian philosophy, world view, ethics, morals and theology and even personal worship as not even to be tolerated.

It would be delightful and I think a meaningful exercise for all Christian denominations to begin dialog with colleges and universities that claim affiliation with the Church. Since, it is my belief that most of these institutions do not subscribe in any meaningful way to the teachings of the denominations to which they claim affiliation, they should voluntarily give up that affiliation and declare themselves purely secular schools. By the way, any specifically Church owned property, endowments, Teaching Chairs, fellowships, etc. should be returned to the founders. If such things as property, and the like cannot practically be returned, a monetary amount should be appraised and the school pay that amount to the Church. Of course, it would be hoped that the schools could reform themselves along the lines by which they were founded. Although, this writer holds out little hope for this.

Gun Control is not a solution

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/bloomberg-advising-white-house-gun-legislation-190643237–politics.html

It is people like Michael Bloomberg who think that you solve the obesity problem by selling only sixteen oz. drinks instead of thirty-two oz. What stops a person from buying two 16 oz drinks? He also thinks that merely controlling free and law-abiding citizens will answer the moral decay evidenced in wanton acts of murder. It seems that the answer of Obama, Biden, Bloomberg and others is to have the federal government control everything, while ignoring the plain fact that these are moral, spiritual and behavioral problems which will not be solved by new regulations further controlling people who simply seek to defend themselves against rabid criminals or insane murderers.

General McChrystal and President Obama

http://news.yahoo.com/mcchrystal-regrets-magazine-flap-career-killer-122932698–politics.html

I am a vet of thirty years of service, honorably retired and I have only the highest respect for a soldier who achieved four star rank. I note here that many are stating things in absolute terms, such as you NEVER, or you SHOULD have known, or freedom of speech is yours when your enlistment is over, or that ANY insubordination to the civilian order is insubordination to the Constitution. WOW aren’t we all perfect little children all standing straight in line and doing everything we are told and never, never being naughty. Second WOW, saying anything derogatory is a matter of interpretation and is not forbidden in private conversation although some would say, but not the Constitution, that there is never private conversation in the military. Third WOW is that freedom of speech, which is a fundamental Constitutional right is somehow given up in the military, well, tell that to the Judge Advocate and get a lesson in the code of military justice which is not allowed to circumvent the Constitution. Final WOW, the idea that any insubordination to the civilian order is insubordination to the Constitution is absurd. All military personnel are taught that there are such things as illegal orders, unethical and immoral practices and shady dealings and they are required to be insubordinate to those who require such practices whether it be the President or a Sargeant. So the use of ANY is dead wrong. Final point, go back and read the Rolling Stone article which I don’t believe anyone here has done. You are all overstating the offense with terms that are inaccurate. General McChrystal resigned and the President accepted his resignation because of the political embarrassment caused by the inaccuracies of the RS article and because General McChrystal felt the uproar adversely affected the mission in Afghanistan.

Nixon was a Great President

http://news.yahoo.com/nixon-remembered-centennial-salute-california-birthplace-080129516.html

In a very good and under read book, titled, Silent Coup, the Removal of a President, by Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin, the Watergate Affair is looked at uniquely. It is a good read and may still be available via Amazon. Anyway, there were plenty of phoney’s involved and one of them may not have been President Nixon. It does need to be remembered that in the election Watergate gave President Nixon absolutely no edge over George Mc Govern. Nixon won his election, as did Obama, “Fair and square” And we all seem to forget that Nixon won forty eight States, or was it forty nine? So if we want to talk about a mandate, he definitely had one and he lied about nothing in order to win the confidence of the people. Rather, Watergate was the undoing of the people’s free decision. It was a Silent Coup. And by whom? By Senators like Sam Erwin, a professed hater of Nixon. Factually, it was revealed a few weeks ago that Judge Sirica of the Federal circuit court, shared private, privileged information concerning Nixon and other defendents with the Special Prosecutor, which I believe was illegal and required him to recuse himself from any further ruling in the case. When the Judge is willing to help the Prosecutor and consistently rules against you and is unethical enough to consider you guilty until proven innocent, well, that is plain wrong.

Comment on Obama Vacation

Yes, the President is entitled to a vacation. However, the question is one of money. He constantly says that we need “shared sacrifice” and also that the so-called rich, who he thinks are people who make over $250 thousand must pay more in taxes. Yet, he takes the Air Force One to go on vacation to Hawaii. I think the cost to the taxpayer for such a flight is $179,000 dollars an hour. An amazing figure. If this figure is correct and the flight from Washington takes ten hours than how much is that?? Does anyone know if the cost includes the secret service salaries and accommodations and the cost of the fighter jet escorts and the on the ground security at the hotel? I think one commentator estimated the trip at 2 million dollars to the taxpayer. To Bq2008, who stated that people have to stop complaining and get a job and realize that the election is over and that Obama won, I have a job. I have also served my nation in the military and my wife and all my relations and children have jobs. So Bq don’t shout at those who object to such extra ordinary expense. It may be time for some expense account cutting on the federal government including the office of President. And yes, other Presidents took vacations, but so what?! That was then and this is now. As you Bq said, the election is over and its time to move on and that includes that it is time to stop treating Obama as a rock star, or pandering to him for whatever silly reasons people use for pandering. If we need to be responsible and share the sacrifice, so does the President.

Obama and Reid Now Must do something and not just talk.

Yes. Since anything the House has already passed was Dead on Arrival in the Senate. And since anything the House may have been able to do was declared Dead on Arrival by Harry Reid. And since anything that was done or could have been done was declared to be a “…item I will veto…” by President Obama- Now it is the turn of the President to actually put something in writing. His proposals so far have been talk and speeches and sound bites. As we know, talk, speeches and sound bites are not proposed legislation and cannot be submitted to the House in that form. Therefore, it is now the President and the Senate who must propose something to the House.

White Americans Versus White Americans

0users disliked this commentFrederick • 1 day 7 hrs ago

“We are in the midst of historic cultural and demographic changes,” What does that mean? And if it is true, how is President Obama the architect of cultural and demographic change? Surely, he is not the father of all those demographic people and he is not the author of their culture. Is this a reference to President Obama’s race? Isn’t that racist? Is it a reference to the Muslim influences on his life? Isn’t that also stereotyping and could be considered prejudice? Didn’t the father of modern racial attitudes say that we should judge a person by the content of their character and not the color of their skin? I am wondering how many media people see President Obama as a black man? Would MLK have preferred us to see Obama as a man who is is black? What does Obama himself want? Does he think of himself as a black man or a man who is black? Can a white person think of themselves as a white person or a person who is white and what’s the difference?

3 View all 3 Replies

v1/comments/context/722c65d1-5ccf-33aa-8ee9-2f39cd35ce54/comment/1355943394839-0b995661-15b5-4c8c-a90f-793392323ace/reply/00004s000000000000000000000000-76b6c41e-e70d-4d64-86d7-732e8560ee90

0users liked this commentRate a Thumb Up Rate a Thumb Down0users disliked this comment

M • 1 day 6 hrs ago

He is not their father but their representative. He is actually the architect because he is representing all of the different races and idealogies, instead of any other presidents who has only represented white christian bigots. And yes he is happened to be black.–Or is he?
0users liked this commentThumbs Up Thumbs Down0users disliked this comment

Frederick • a second agoRemove

Sadly, you thing that White Christians are bigots. But that is the problems. White people are taught not to be proud that they are white and that they have a thousand plus years of illustrious history to include Christianity, Monasticism, the Universities, the hospitals, the Renaisance, the Enlightenment,Democracy, Industrial revolution, computer revolution, digital revolution and that white europeans are in the front of the latest innovations in every measurable field of human endeavor. But we are told to hand our heads down, and to stoop our shoulders and to recite the manta of Liberalism, namely, White and Christian is bad and black and Muslim is good.