I am continually struck by the number of people in this country who continue to try and be liberal and Catholic. It just flies in the face of any sort of common sense. You can not be both. The liberal agenda in this country is so far away from the values one should hold as a Catholic.

Yet liberals love to try and co-opt Jesus, love to try and cite him as the patron saint of liberalism. Yeah, not so much. Perhaps they need to go back to their Bibles and reread the Gospels. I have to give credit for today’s post to Rush (Limbaugh, not the rock band) listening to him on Monday really brought home the idea.

Liberals love to mock Jesus and Christians, except when they think they can use Him to push their agenda. As Limbaugh pointed out, Christiane Amanpour opened her Sunday news show with the popular question, What Would Jesus Do? But she had bastardized the question so badly it becomes almost mockery even as she tries to use it seriously:

“As Christians around the world celebrate Easter, we ask some of America’s most influential pastors.  In these turbulent times, has America lost its way?  Taxes and budget cuts.  What would Jesus do? Amanpour, This Week aired 4-24-11″

Clearly she is using the question to distort Jesus’ social welfare message. Which the left always abuses into the idea that we need to somehow use the government to create a dependent class. Rush answered her quite well

“You talk about what would Jesus do? Would Jesus approve of politicians spending money we don’t have on programs we don’t need?  Jesus warned against sloth and self-bondage.  Would he approve of the Democrats creating an entire underclass dependent on government?  They think so.  That’s how they define compassion.  Would Jesus approve of people wasting their lives sitting around blaming all their problems on everybody but themselves?”

Jesus was all for helping the poor and the downtrodden, to be sure, but he wanted the help to come from fellow men not from a monolithic, confiscatory government structure. Hence the whole discourse on doing to the least in Matthew 25:35-46.

I know that there are some out there saying but what about (Matt. 22:21, Mk. 12:17, Lk. 20:25). Look I am not saying we shouldn’t pay our tax burdens, of course we should. Just that our tax burdens shouldn’t be used to create dependence on government in order to live.

Even the chief architect of the American Welfare state Franklin Roosevelt knew that dependence on government was a terrible evil. Little consolation considering the damage that has been done by his New Deal policies but still…let’s look back at a quote from his 1935 State of the Union address:

“A large proportion of these unemployed and their dependents have been forced on the relief rolls. The burden on the Federal Government has grown with great rapidity. We have here a human as well as an economic problem. When humane considerations are concerned, Americans give them precedence. The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.

To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of a sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers.

The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief.”

Well here we are 76 years on and the Federal Government has only done more to grow “business of relief.” And people wonder why this country is on the wrong track. We were warned at the start, by the man to blame, that this would happen.

Instead the government continues to ensure more and more future generations will be reliant on the government to keep their lights on, and food in the fridge, and pay their bills. Sure, that sounds like “When I was naked, did you clothe me; hungry did you feed me?” In reality, I don’t think it’s quite what the Lord meant.

This is just a look at the social justice/welfare differences between Jesus and liberals, I plan to look in depth at the other areas where they differ as well. Consider this part one of a multi-part series

Crossposted from my blog: http://michaelcmorris.blogspot.com

The near shutdown of the federal government has perhaps shown the GOP-led House of Representatives the way to pass any future spending bill until they take back the other branches of the government. Follow me on this one for a second.

The Democrats initially refused any spending cuts in the budget, pushing us closer and closer to the shutdown. It wasn’t until late Friday when they finally blinked and by then they had shown their colors. In getting the Democrats to agree to the 38.5 billion in cuts, the GOP had to give up their rider that would defund Planned Parenthood. That rider would have saved another 318 million dollars.

Now in giving it up, they forced the Democrats to at least vote on it in the Senate where it likely won’t pass but can likely be used in some 2012 campaign ads. More importantly as we watched Harry Reid and his caucus draw their line in the sand, it showed a way to get if not everything we want at least a lot of it.

The House should submit every spending bill with that very same rider attached to it. In doing so the Democrats will have to compromise somewhere and the GOP can say, “we take away the rider, you give us these spending cuts.”

When Paul Ryan submits the 2012 budget he should ensure that it has the Title X rider, as well as riders to defund NPR, the NEA and all these other ridiculous wastes of tax dollars. Then to inch the Democrats closer to the numbers we need to get to we slowly peel away riders. Now eventually these things will have to get through but they can wait for a year and a half until we get all three branches of the government back. As of right now we only control as Speaker Boehner said “One half of one third of the federal government.”

Now perhaps, the GOP should have shut the government down and pushed a little harder to get the things they really wanted; perhaps now it’s too late to have real ammo for the coming battles of the debt ceiling and the FY 2012 budget. Who knows? Let’s see how things shake out from here, I think Boehner, Cantor and Ryan can still make some hay with these coming battles.

They better, we gave them the House to do just that and so far they have if not let us down entirely, certainly left us with a bad taste in our mouths. I was rooting for the shutdown and was sad to see it not come to pass I think the GOP lost a good chance to win the PR war and really show whose side they were on.

Call this one strike one Mr. Speaker. Let’s hope you learned something from the story of the Mighty Casey.

Cross Posted from: http://michaelcmorris.blogspot.com

Did you happen to see President Obama’s speech on Libya last night. I refused to watch it as I feel my brain cells die every time he opens his mouth. If it sounded as dumb as it reads then I am sorry for anyone who sat through it. But let’s investigate the adminstrations waffling and ineptitude.

I missed Meet the Press this weekend, should have tuned in, because evidently SecDef Gates said and has said many times we are in Libya with an eye toward “Regime Change”. He started to repeat himself to David Gregory and SecState Clinton cut him off and changed that tune in a hurry. Evidently Gates (the only grown-up in the Administration) didn’t say much else the rest of the show.

So beyond the fact that his administration can’t get on the same page, BO decides to befoul the airwaves with his simmering ineptitude. Schedule to air early enough so as not to upset people wanting to tune in to “Dancing with the Stars,” I guess, House was a rerun so Monday’s TV was lost anyway, why not let BO impress us with his legendary oratorical (reading) skills.

Can the man appear before a camera and not take shots at President Bush, I have yet to see it. Even when those shots are unfounded and inaccurate. It came late in the speech, probably he was hoping folks would have nodded off by then, and missed it. I missed this one until Rush pointed it out this morning but he even took a shot at President Clinton about Bosnia.

Compare Obama bumbling and stumbling around; only giving speeches after things have happened and even then muddling his words until they mean nothing with President Bush’s speeches during the lead up to the “Shock and Awe” campaign which opened the Iraq war. One of the two was a real leader; the other a real idiot. Not to mention Bush went to the UN got resolutions, shared information with Congress, got their approval and had something like 80% popular approval before the first bombs fell.

Obama in his speech mentioned his coalition (smaller and less enthusiastically supportive, especially in the Arab world) than the “Coalition of the Willing” that joined us in invading Iraq. He mentions how we are transferring the lead role of the Operations in Libya to the UN and NATO. Never mind that the US for all intents and purposes runs NATO. To quote my favorite WWE superstar the Miz “Really….Really Mr. President?”

Does he think anyone who pays attention doesn’t understand that NATO is the international equivalent of Diana Ross and the Supremes (or maybe Gladys Knight and the Pips).

Returning to his speech, sorry but that is what I am writing about, Obama insists that the “Regime Change” in Iraq took 8 years. For such a “brilliant” man he sure is an idiot. By the time there were American boots on the ground in Iraq the regime had changed. Uday and Qusay were about to be killed and Saddam was hiding in a spider hole.

The parallels between how the left views President Bush’s supposed hurry to go into Iraq and President Obama’s bumbling into Libya, are sickening. Bottom line we have no real goal or reason for being there; we have no exit plan; we have no timetable for our actions. All charges lobbed against George Bush without merit and yet I don’t see the media taking Obama to task for these things.

If this were purely a humanitarian effort as Obama tried to make it out to be, why aren’t US troops in Darfur, North Korea, China or any of the other places where there are equally atrocious human rights issues. Try again Bambi.

Someone wake me up when the administration gets their act together and decides what our goals are. Depose Qaddafi? Support the opposition? Humanitarianism?

And if you don’t think Americans will put boots on the ground in Libya, I have some wonderful ocean front property in Arizona I would like to show you.

Crossposted from my blog: http://michaelcmorris.blogspot.com/

On April 9, 1986, Ronald Reagan called Moammar Qaddafi, “The Mad Dog of the Middle East”. Yesterday, his successor couldn’t even be bothered to name the man accused of strafing his own citizens with the military assets of their own country. Yet Barack Obama always tries to push some sort of connection to Reagan. It makes me want to vomit every time I hear someone bring those two names up in the same breath.

President Reagan believed very strongly in peace. Peace through strength. He didn’t feel the need to go pick a fight with anyone, but we would damn sure be ready should someone pick one with us. Obama on the other hand has spent his time in office, apologizing for America and continually weakening us at home and abroad.

As it is it was nine days, nine, seriously nine days before Obama could even be bothered to mention that there was something afoot in Libya. His handlers claim there were some scheduling conflicts….. WHAT!!!! You are the President of the United States, when the world is on fire it behooves you to clear some time from your schedule to address it Mr. President. Could be worse it was what three weeks before he acknowledged the oil spill last summer.

Seems when his buddies/donors are in trouble he sure has lots of scheduling conflicts preventing him from addressing those issues. Remember the vitriol hurled at George W. Bush for not wanting to terrify a group of third graders by running out of the room on 9/11. Where are those voices decrying Obama’s lack of mentioning Libya.

The greatest fighting force in the world has not been sent to a forward area to project our force. We could easily put a carrier group in the Mediterranean Sea and also put some assets near the Persian Gulf. Yet, we haven’t done any of that.

The Middle East is on fire from our allies to our enemies and we are sitting on our hands and hoping that nice things happen….really…We could with just a little effort likely turn what could potentially be a bad situation into a positive and create stability and democratic ideals in the region.

Yet we sit on our hands and weakly condemn violent force used by a man who was once the world’s number one terrorist. A man who was responsible for ordering the bombing of the La Belle Disco in 1986; The Pan Am Lockerbie bombing in 1988. These two events killed nearly 300 people and injured almost as many.

I have said since he was elected that Obama was a second term for Jimmy Carter, but that isn’t even a strong enough criticism. Carter was woefully inept to be sure, but I don’t think he was trying to weaken the US intentionally, he was just overwhelmed by the job. Obama’s foreign policy decisions make Carter look almost hawkish by comparison.

Watching the election results in 2008 as it became clear Obama was going to win I became very sad for the US. I wondered how bad things would get during what I tried to assure myself would be a single term. Now we are getting our answer.

Here’s looking forward to the next Reagan, whoever he (or she) will be.

Cross posted from my blog http://michaelcmorris.blogspot.com/2011/02/americas-chihuahua-in-chief.html

I’m starting this discussion by ignoring the dissonance of whether it was right or wrong for the US to initiate combat in Iraq. I thought it was then and I think it was now. Regardless of all of that in the last month we have seen populist uprisings all through Northern Africa and the Middle East. I don’t think it is coincidental that as Iraq has gained more self-control and seen several successful elections, that the rest of the Arab Street is taking notice and attempting at least to throw off the chains of dictators and tyrants.

Throughout his administration President GW Bush said many times a free and independent Iraq would indeed change much in the Middle East. His words are being borne out on the streets of Cairo, Tripoli, Tunis, Manama and Beirut. Tehran is also bubbling with protest fever. Admittedly some of these protests have been against “pro-American” leaders, but so what. The bottom line is these people want the right and the ability to make their own choices and not have governments foisted on them from anyone else.

I remember watching President Bush’s second Inaugural address and being touched by this passage:

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it.”

The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.

And all the allies of the United States can know: we honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help. Division among free nations is a primary goal of freedom’s enemies. The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies’ defeat.

Clearly he saw something the rest of us didn’t yet see, call it the reverse domino theory.

Here’s the thing about all of this, the media, well the mainstream media anyway will come up with a whole host of reasons for all of this rioting and desiring of freedom from these countries, and I almost guarantee none of it will mention that President Bush said for the last five years of his administration that Iraq’s freedom would lead to other nations demanding the same thing.

They will come up with any thing they can to attribute this sweeping change, but none of the credit will be placed at the man’s feet where it belongs. The media HATES George W. Bush, they can’t stand him. There is no way they will have the stones to write columns praising the Bush Doctrine.

Meanwhile the despots are vowing to “fight until the very last bullet,” as Libyan strongman Moammar Qaddafi’s son recently pledged.

It is now in the hands of Bush’s successor, Barack Obama to see to it that these protests are heard; that voices are not silenced; and that all that can be done to end these oppressive regimes is done. I am not advocating America show force or attempt to use these moments to install further puppet governments. Rather the last remaining super power needs to merely let the world know we see what is going on and we will as another president said more than 50 years ago “……We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

On the one hand all of the turmoil scares me a little from a geopolitical world view that we could be seeing the beginnings of the next and possibly last great war of mankind. On the other hand, though it could even if there are some bumps in the road, be the stepping stone to some real change in one of the most violent, turbulent regions in all the world.

Here’s hoping that the peaceful toleration of Egypt’s Muslims and Christians wasn’t a one-time affair. We can all hope that this changing climate brings much peace to the Cradle of Civilization and that indeed civility is returned to such a historically rich part of our big green marble.

And here’s hoping that someday the man who saw all of what could happen with the ouster of one terrible regime will be recognized properly. George W. Bush might have done with one limited war what thousands of years and hundreds of people could not. Bring peace to the Middle East.

Cross posted from my blog at http://michaelcmorris.blogspot.com