Category Archives: Conservatism

The Other Brother Bedevils Obama

Barack Obama, Celebrity, Christianity, Conservatism, Media, Race

“The Other Brother Bedevils Obama” is the current column. Read it on WND. Here’s an excerpt:

“‘The Bible,’ a popular new History Channel miniseries, is not my cup of tea—and not because of a lack of religiosity of which I am guilty.

This production may well work as a proselytizing device for the average reality TV consumer. Pop-productions, courtesy of the star of ‘Touched by an Angel,’ however, are less effective with those who’ve studied the Hebrew Bible—perhaps the greatest literary work ever—in the language in which it was written.

Interesting, though, are the recognizable facial features of the actor who plays the antagonist in the series.

James Poniewozik of Time magazine has pointed out, sarcastically, that ‘a raft of viewers–including noted Biblical scholar Glenn Beck–claimed that the show’s version of Satan bore a striking resemblance to’ Barack Obama.

Their dark foreboding excepted, the facial features of the actor who plays Satan in ‘The Bible’ do resemble Obama’s.

Moroccan actor Mohamen Mehdi Ouazanni is well cast in the role of ‘The Bible’s’ Prince of Darkness. As expected, Mehdi Ouazanni as Satan looks sinister. However, while the contours of Ouzaani’s face bear a striking likeness to Obama’s, the president usually takes care to face Americans—a people who take everything at face value—sunny side up only.

He may be a man of many masks, but President Obama’s face is generally bereft of the pall of evil that blankets Beelzebub’s face in ‘The Bible.’

There was an exception big media failed to notice, because of the providential prism through which they view (and filter) Barack Obama.

Quite recently, Obama let the very darkness that blackens Ouzaani’s face in ‘The Bible’ deform his own features. This happened during the National Prayer Breakfast, in the course of Dr. Ben Carson’s keynote address.

The Breakfast took place before the Republicans commenced a ‘slobbering love affair’ with Dr. Carson, an accomplished and affable African-American, who serves as director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. …

… Was anyone watching the president’s face during The Other Brother’s Prayer-Breakfast remarks? Well before Dr. Carson addressed the collapse of other ‘pinnacle nations’ before America, through ‘moral decay’ and ‘fiscal irresponsibility,’ an ugly expression enveloped the president’s features, Dorian-Gray style. See for yourself. …

The complete column is “The Other Brother Bedevils Obama,” now on WND.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION, AND DO BATTLE FOR LIBERTY BY:

• Using the content-sharing icons on Barely a Blog posts.

• At the WND and RT Comments Sections, and on Facebook.

• By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” WND’s “Return To Reason” , and RT’s “Paleolibertarian Column.”

UPDATED: Ann Coulter Becomes A Single-Issue Voter (Is Sally-Come-Lately To Mass Immigration Vexation)

Aesthetics, Ann Coulter, Conservatism, IMMIGRATION, Intellectualism, Republicans

Ann Coulter is late to blossom politically (otherwise she’s very pretty). At CPAC 2013, Ms. Coulter announced that she’s become “a single-issue voter against amnesty” (and has finally crossed the crappy Chris Christie off her list of candidates).

Having avoided the immigration vexation until recently, here are Coulter’s welcome remarks:

“What public policy will harm average Americans, drive up unemployment, change America permanently in negative way, and is supported by businessmen who will never vote for a Republican anyway?

Amnesty for illegal aliens.

Half of the elected Republicans support it, most conservative talk radio and TV hosts support it: You want the Republican establishment? That’s the Republican establishment.

There are many negative consequences to amnesty. The one that I think ought to concern this crowd is: If amnesty goes forward, America becomes California and no Republican will ever win a national election [IM: that goes for libertarian candidates too].

As it is, the state that gave us Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan will never elect another Republican.

I can see why Democrats would want amnesty, but why are Marco Rubio and the endless Bushes supporting it? [IM: that should be obvious.]

We cannot get the votes of a dependent society without changing our principles…”

[SNIP]

(Such an attractive woman is Ann Coulter; if wish she’d buy some high-end, decent clothes.)

UPDATE (3/17): A SALLY-COME-LATELY TO MASS IMMIGRATION. Read the text above (http://barelyablog.com/ann-coulter-becomes-a-single-issue-voter/), where I transcribed Ann Coulter’s immigration comments. Are they really “brilliant”? To hail these as “brilliant,” as some conservatives are, is a testament to intellectual malaise.

The definition of “brilliant” is: “Marked by unusual and impressive intellectual acuteness.”

To describe as “brilliant” Ann Coulter’s second-hand, belated realization about the US’ “IMMOLATION BY IMMIGRATION,” first chronicled by Peter Brimelow (note the date on my hyperlinked column), is to say all there is to say about the misuse of language and the dumbing down of discourse.

A Sally-come-lately to the issue of mass immigration is Ann Coulter. Look through her column archive; it’s all, for the most, “Liberals this, liberals that.”

The most you can say is this: 1) Coulter’s delivery is brilliant—but then she’s super bright, and has had practice as one of the monopolists of the ossified conservative movement. 2) She is perhaps the most powerful ally the immigration patriot movement (Peter Brimelow’s coinage) could hope to recruit.

UPDATE III: Will The ‘Pussy Riot’ Sisterhood Storm The Sistine Chapel? (Opus Dei Smears)

Christianity, Conservatism, Democracy, Gender, Pop-Culture, Religion, Socialism

The following is from the current column, “Will The ‘Pussy Riot’ Sisterhood Storm The Sistine Chapel?”, now on LRC.COM:

“NO TO A ‘SUPERPOWER POPE.’ Mercifully, the new pope is not the Archbishop of New York, Cardinal Timothy Dolan. Shortly after Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected as the 266th pope, Cardinal Dolan demonstrated why my prayers had been answered. The American had been bypassed.

Out of the papal conclave and into the limelight charged the vainglorious Dolan (who, it has to be said, harbored hopes of becoming pope). He then suctioned himself to the television cameras, American style. No other cardinal elector granted interviews on emerging from the Sistine Chapel; they were enjoined to secrecy.

Not the American cardinals. According to the Associated Press, these prolix self-promoters held daily press briefings near the Vatican to a room packed with reporters and television crews.

This was vulgarity, not transparency.

Not for nothing was the vow of silence once considered a test of character and spirituality in Christianity and in other faiths. This universal value has been inverted by American pop culture and pop religion. In the US, a deeply private person is considered defective; a blabbermouth who does and says anything on camera is canonized. …

… American public life is such that even our pick for pope (Dolan) struts his stuff like a “Jersey Shore” reality star.

MORE on why “THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS ON THE RACK,” in “Will The ‘Pussy Riot’ Sisterhood Storm The Sistine Chapel?”, now on WND.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION, AND DO BATTLE FOR LIBERTY BY:

• Using the content-sharing icons on Barely a Blog posts.

• At the WND and RT Comments Sections, and on Facebook.

• By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” WND’s “Return To Reason” , and RT’s “Paleolibertarian Column.”

UPDATE I: “The Pope and the Injustice of Social Justice” by Jack Kerwick:

…some initial reports of his views on “social justice” most definitely do not sound fine and good. …Whether used by so-called secular “progressives” or Catholic clerics, the call for social justice is the call for a larger, more powerful, more intrusive government. That is, it is the demand for a government that is capable of and willing to confiscate the legally owned resources of some citizens so as to “redistribute” them to others. When social justice is the order of the day, anything other than a robust, activist government is not an option.
It is crucial for everyone, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, to grasp this: social justice and liberty are mutually antithetical.

UPDATE II (15/3): Father Bob Kind of Agrees.

UPDATE III (3/16): Via a LewRockwell reader of “Spared the Sins of a ‘Superpower Pope’” comes this link to a smear of Pope Ratzinger, for opposing the “Injustice of on Social Justice” (see Update I above, for Jack Kerwick’s critique).

The new pope Francis I, it would appear, champions the evils of social justice theory and liberation theology.

He and Barack Obama’s pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

What the Obamas imbibed from the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ for the past 20 years was Black Liberation Theology. “We are an African people, and remain ‘true to our native land,’ the mother continent, the cradle of civilization,” reads a statement of “doxology” on the Church’s site. The church is proud of its separatist “Black Value System.”
Only just retired, Pastor Wright is as central to the Church as is Africa. His “Talking Points” are prominently plastered on Trinity United’s website. There, Wright states that this diverse “doxology” is of a piece with “Hispanic theology, Native American theology, Asian theology and Womanist theology.” (Spot the blanked-out Americans.) A black person in America, moreover, is deemed outside his traditional homeland.

UPDATED: The Balanced Budget Deception (‘Debt? What’s That,’ Says The Ass With Ears)

Conservatism, Constitution, Debt, Economy, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Individual Rights, libertarianism, Republicans, Rights, Taxation

At least those who tout the Republican budgetary version of a decrease in the increase in spending are no longer claiming to downsize the government.

So proud was Sean Hannity of Paul Ryan’s latest budget iteration that he boasted that, while it increases spending by trillions, it still manages to shave off $4.64 trillion in increases.

According to the Washington Examiner, the current spending trajectory will see “federal government outlays … rise from $3.61 trillion this year to $5.77 trillion in 2023, for a cumulative 10-year total of $46.1 trillion in federal spending.”

“Under Ryan’s new budget, federal spending would reach just $4.95 trillion in 2023, for a 10-year total of $41.46 trillion. That’s $4.64 trillion in deficit savings, which is a good start,” conclude the Examiner editors.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has dusted off last year’s budget, tweaked it a bit and resubmitted it to Republican applause.

Lauding so-called “balanced budget” initiatives is laughable. The real problem is that the quest to “balance federal spending and taxes” is meaningless. It does nothing to stop the federal government from raising taxes as it increases spending and grows in scope and size, ad infinitum.

Ultimately, “A balanced-budget requirement implies is that government has the constitutional right to spend as much as it takes in; that government is permitted to waste however much revenue it can extract from wealth producers, and that the bums must merely bring into balance what was stolen (taxes) with what is squandered (spending).”

“The Powers Delegated to the Federal Government are Few and Defined.” A return to the 18 or so functions the Constitution delegates to the federal government would be a much better start. This requires that entire departments be shuttered.

UPDATE: Scrap everything I’ve just said (NOT). This just in from the president: “There is no debt crisis.”

Without reading what TAWE (“The Ass With Ears”) has said, you know that, to dismiss a $16.5 trillion debt, you have to think that “macroeconomics and microeconomic are two separate solitudes, governed by different laws.”

To say such a stupid thing as TAWE has said, “You have to to believe that the values and virtues ordinary mortals hold themselves to don’t apply to government; that the laws of economics are NOT natural, but political, laws.”

“We don’t have an immediate crisis in terms of debt,” President Obama told ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos this week.

In uttering such a fatuity, BHO showed that he has no regard for or knowledge of what Thomas Jefferson was warning about, when he said:

“The greatest danger came from the possibility of legislators plunging citizens into debt. We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.”