Downfall XIII: Obamafail and the Democrat Shutdown (or Right Again)

Yesterday I asserted that Democrat politicos want and brought about the fed shutdown and that Obamacare is not ready for prime time.

Well, not only did we get a shutdown but Democrats in the House, Senate, and, yes, the White House have now rejected Republican efforts to fund portions of the federal government.  Why?  Because Democrats want this shutdown for perceived political gain.  Their flat rejection of yet more reasonable Republican compromises reaffirms that this shutdown is the Democrats’ desire and the Democrats’ doing.

As for Obamacare not being ready for prime time, not only was it very difficult to impossible to enroll on the Obama-trumpeted first day of the exchanges, but there was a security breach of people’s personal information.  Yes, on the very first day.

It’s not for nothing that Drudge for a time yesterday dubbed it “Obamafail.”

And your humble blogger is proven right again.

---------

Downfall is an ongoing series anticipating and tracking what I expect will be the self-destruction of Obama.

The first post may be found here.  The series may be found here.

Downfall XII: Why Democrats Shut Down the Govt (Or ads that write themselves)

Ignore the snooze media spin for a minute.  (And I happened to see the end of the NBC Nightly News last night.  It was so over the top.  You’d almost think all the animals in the national parks are gonna DIE!)  The EXTREMISTS of the House offered the Senate a reasonable compromise to avert a partial government shutdown – delay the Obamacare individual mandate for a year and no special Obamacare deals for Congress.

Several Democrats publicly and no telling how many privately want to delay Obamacare.  Whatever your views of it, it is not ready for prime time, and the fall out from that will likely hurt Democrats in 2014.  And voting against special deals for Congress is good politics and good policy.  Harry Reid and Obama would have taken that deal in a minute if they had any decency and common sense and did not want a shutdown.

But as I posted yesterday, they do want a shutdown.  Thus every Senate Democrat, including vulnerable ones up for election in 2014, voted for Obamacare now (again) and for special deals for Congress and for a shutdown.

Can you say “ads that write themselves”?

@brianjameswalsh AND Reid forced every 2014 Senate Dem to reaffirm support 4 special #Obamacare deal for Congress #AdThatWriteThemselves
— WannabeAnglican (@WannabeAnglican) October 1, 2013

(Yes, there was a typo in my tweet.  Pre-coffee?)

The rampant media spin is that this episode will hurt Republicans.  And – who knows? – there are enough stupid voters that it might.

But don’t be too sure about that.

If Obamacare and this foolish insistence on it NOW does cost Obama the Senate in 2014, he could be the lamest of lame ducks.  And he’ll only have himself, not Bush and not the FAR RIGHT, to blame.

---------

Downfall is an ongoing series anticipating and tracking what I expect will be the self-destruction of Obama.

The first post may be found here.  The series may be found here.

Democrats Lazy as Their Govt Shutdown Nears

Face it.  The Democrat politicos want this government shutdown.  And if there is a shutdown, it will be their doing.

Why can I be so dogmatic?  For one thing, the Democrat Senate’s work schedule – or lack thereof.  Whereas, the Republican House worked this past weekend and voted through a reasonable compromise on Obamacare, the Senate was absent . . . and doesn’t reconvene until 2pm today.

And Obama?  He played golf, of course

This is what happens when you ask too many questions in Obamerica.

A Maryland dog-and-pony show, complete with disallowed and edited questions (Only written pre-screened questions were allowed.), pushing the CORE curriculum was more than one concerned father could take sitting down.  So he rose up and dared to ask a real question.

Or perhaps I should say he tried to ask a question.  For he was repeatedly interrupted by the liberal fascists in charge and forcibly taken out of the meeting by a thug brown shirt policeman.  Watch for yourself:

As if that is not bad enough, because he did not properly kiss the brown shirt’s feet, he is charged with 2nd degree assault on a police officer, a charge which comes with a possible 10 years in prison.

So this is what happens if you ask too many questions in Obamerica.

How long are we going to take this from Obama and his allies and thugs?  How long?  Are we Americans or sheep?

Pope Francis Clarifies His Abortion Stance

As a helpful commenter alerted me, the day after his controversial interview became public (and the day I last posted), Pope Francis wisely clarified his stance on abortion:

“Every unborn child, though unjustly condemned to be aborted, has the face of the Lord, who even before his birth, and then as soon as he was born, experienced the rejection of the world,” he said.

Pope Francis condemned the “throwaway culture” abortion promotes, saying, “Our response to this mentality is a ‘yes’ to life, decisive and without hesitation. ‘The first right of the human person is his life. He has other goods and some are precious, but this one is fundamental –- the condition for all the others’”.

I could speculate that he saw (or was made to see) that his earlier comments apparently deemphasizing the abortion issue were a step too far.  But I’ll just say I’m glad to see his clarification. . . . And if my concern that he might be a liberal ends up being unfounded, I’ll be glad to see that, too.

Is Francis a Liberal Pope?

Once again, Pope Francis has made liberalizing noises.  And once again, conservative Roman Catholics, who understandably want their pope to be robustly orthodox, are coming out and saying he was misinterpreted and taken out of context; the press is spinning; what he really meant is etc.

I love my conservative Roman Catholic brethren.  But I am at the point where I think they are engaging in wishful thinking.  It is time to face up to the possibility that, in Pope Francis, the church has had a liberal Pope foisted upon it.

His views on the church’s opposition to abortion are close to a last straw for me.  Fromthe Wall Street Journal (where they may be a pay wall):

"We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods," said the 76-year-old pontiff, who came to power in March after the sudden resignation of Pope Benedict. "This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that.

"The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time," he said. "We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards."

His comments could signal dissatisfaction with the strong stance some church leaders have taken on the highly charged social issues. For instance, in an interview last week with a local Catholic newspaper, Rhode Island Bishop Thomas J. Tobin said that he was "a little bit disappointed in Pope Francis that he hasn't, at least that I'm aware of, said much about unborn children, about abortion, and many people have noticed that."

So to be balanced, the church should defend the unborn less?  The church should protest the slaughter of the innocents less?  Pope Francis should indeed be “reprimanded” for his lack of balance on abortion.  For a Pope to speak this way is distressing.

There is also this:

Francis also pointedly says, "I have never been a right-winger."

Sorry, but that sounds like a liberal to me.  Do orthodox speak about other orthodox publicly in this manner?

Now Francis hasn’t said anything heretical.  And I do not claim to know that he is a liberal pope.  But I am convinced it is past time for catholics in and outside the Roman church to face up to the possibility and stop making wishful excuses for him.

By the way, bad liturgy and bad theology go together.

The Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis

First, I hope I have not alarmed my readers.  I’m alive and in good health.  But I took a trip to St. Louis to watch an excellent chess tournament featuring none other than Magnus Carlsen.  (And kudos to the St. Louis Chess Club for putting it on very well!)  And I just did not have the time and energy to blog during my trip.

But I did walk over to the Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis nearby, having no idea what I was getting into.  I tend to turn my traditionalist nose up at modern architecture and so did not have high expectations.

Was I wrong!

The cathedral is just under 100 years old (and is about to celebrate its 100^th anniversary in 2014), but is an impressive jewel.  The Romanesque exterior is imposing and well proportioned, marred only by a rather silly statue in the garden.  But the massive Byzantine interior is what blew away my low expections.  Its glows with what is claimed to be the world’s largest collection of mosaics in one building.  Even in dim light (which is how I viewed it) the interior is luminous and awesome.

I am no expert on mosaics.  But I wonder how they found artisans to do such excellent work.  Most of it is does not have the cloying quality of modern church art, but seems to have been transported from the past.  I marveled at the excellence.  And the three domes, the massive proportions, and the luminous mosaics (particularly in dim light) inspired awe as cathedral architecture should.

A good collection of photos may be found here (although I can take issue with how they are photoshopped).  And here are two of my photos which I hope capture some of the atmosphere of the place.

Obviously, I do recommend a visit for those who happen to be in St. Louis.  I did not attend a service so I cannot venture an opinion on the worship there, but it seems to have a good reputation in that regard as well.  And seeing the 14^th Century choir book in the basement museum is worth the modest charge.  (There is no charge to enter the cathedral, which is open most of the day for touring on most weekdays.)