The occasional, often ill-considered thoughts of a Roman Catholic permanent deacon who is ever grateful to God for his existence. Despite the strangeness we encounter in this life, all the suffering we witness and endure, being is good, so good I am sometimes unable to contain my joy. Deo gratias!

Monday, March 31, 2014

Monday Morning Thoughts

Putin and his foes. The ongoing drama playing out among the world's political leaders has enrolled even the least astute of observers in a graduate course in non-leadership. On one side we have President Obama, alleged leader of the world's most powerful and successful nation. He is loosely joined by a feckless collection of Western European politicians whom we are assured the President is leading from behind. Opposed to this worthy coalition is one Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putin, the President of Russia.

Putin has branded himself as a kind of superman, the Russian he-man, a blended reincarnation of Stalin and Ivan the Terrible with a feminine side inherited from Catherine the Great. He projects the image of the savior intent on returning the expansive nation to its former greatness. In this, however, he has given his countrymen a false hope, since the nation they envision had never really been able to achieve true greatness, but for centuries always teetered on the edge of collapse. And collapse it did, several times during just the last century.

But this doesn't mean Putin and the new Russia are no threat. While our nation adopts foolish policies that undermine our relationships with our most reliable allies and appease those who would destroy us, Putin courts emerging superpower Communist China and strengthens Russian ties with Iran, the world's leading sponsor of terror. While the West stumbles along in its hapless efforts to convince Iran to stop its ongoing development of nuclear weapons, who do you think is providing them with nuclear reactors? (Hint: his middle name is Vladimirovitch.) As the United States disengages itself from the Middle East, guess who will fill the resulting vacuum? (Hint: Who pulled the rug out from under President Obama and took charge of the "Syrian problem"?) And which maritime nation is today decimating its naval forces (Hint: it's initials are USA), while Russia and China undertake huge expansions of their blue-water navies? Guess which leader seems to have a better grasp of the intricacies of the global chessboard? (No hint necessary.)
Russian warship in the Bosporus en route to Syria

He might be an astute manipulator of power politics, but in reality Putin is little more than a clever thug, a former KGB apparatchik, who like those he once served believes power is best applied through the barrel of a gun. Economically today's Russia is a corruption-riddled basket case, and it's military, while certainly not insignificant in numbers, is also not especially well-equipped. Despite this, Putin realizes he has little to fear from our president and our erstwhile NATO allies. Like Hitler occupying the Rhineland or Austria, Putin sent his troops virtually unopposed into Crimea and then formally annexed the region. We may scold him on the world stage, wagging our finger and wringing our hands, but the fact is Crimea is once again a part of the Russian homeland. This morning I read that the Russians even set the Crimean clocks to Moscow time. For Russia the consequences of this illegal aggression have been horrendous: several of Putin's closest friends can no longer spend long weekends in Vegas or use their Visa cards, and the USA has sent vast amounts of military aid to the threatened Ukranians in the form of MREs; i.e., Meals Ready to Eat.
Russian Troops in Crimea
Will President Obama and his sometime allies actually respond in any effective way? Unlikely. Sadly this global drama is quite unlike those Tolkien-like or Reaganesque battles between good and evil that so inflame the hearts of free men. It's really more of a schoolyard confrontation in which a collection of nerds appeases the school bully by turning over their lunch money. By doing so they incorrectly assume he's been bought off and will forever leave them alone. Of course he won't. He'll be back...and next time he might bring some friends.

Nancy Pelosi Receives Award Named for a Racist. U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is a remarkable woman. The former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, she was the driving force in the enactment of Obamacare (the so-called Affordable Care Act). To this end she masterfully convinced her Democrat colleagues in the House to vote for this huge, and hugely flawed, piece of legislation even though few of them knew what was in it. How can we ever forget her forceful, convincing argument which concluded with the statement: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..."?
Pelosi with Dr. Ruth, HHS Secretary Sebelius, and Planned Parenthood President Richards

Ms. Pelosi also claims to be a faithful Catholic although she openly rejects many of her Church's teachings. Indeed, one gets the impression that she wishes she were pope so she could bring the Church into alignment with the prevailing zeitgeist. Alas, that dream of hers will remain unfulfilled, and so she must be content with instructing the bishops to join her in virtual apostasy. Sadly for her, that effort too is doomed to failure.

Margaret Sanger
She remains, however, undeterred. Indeed, her latest claim to fame is an award she has received from Planned Parenthood, the nation's number one baby killer. And this isn't just any award. It's the Margaret Sanger Award. Now, for those who might not know it, Margaret Sanger (1879-1966) founded Planned Parenthood in 1921. She was also a racist who believed in the elimination of undesirable racial minorities, or "human weeds", as she called them. It's no accident that the vast majority of Planned Parenthood clinics are located in inner city, minority neighborhoods. This is exactly what Margaret Sanger planned. As a result, the greatest cause of death among African Americans today is abortion.

Sanger was an especially clever racist, though, and even planned to co-opt leaders of the black community to join her in her genocidal efforts. In a 1922 article she wrote:
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities.  The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Sanger's efforts weren't restricted to contraception and abortion. As she once said, "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Nice. And trust me, she wasn't talking about a family of white Episcopalians from Connecticut.

Lloyd Marcus, author of the fascinating book, Confessions of a Black Conservative, wrote the following in an American Thinker essay: 
"Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." So said Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Seventy-eight percent of Planned Parenthood clinics are in black neighborhoods. Blacks make up only 12% of the population, but 35% of America’s aborted babies are black. Half of black pregnancies end in abortion. Is this an intentional genocide?
'The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb," according to Pastor Clenard Childress, Jr. Blacks are the only minority in America experiencing a declining population.
So why would Obama, the NAACP, Rev. Sharpton, and other black leftists be passionate supporters of Planned Parenthood? Why did Al Sharpton threaten to protest a pro-life billboard which exposed the devastatingly high number of black abortions?
Good questions. Why do the Democrats consistently support abortion, and even infanticide, which have led to the deaths of so many minority babies?

And I'll add a few questions of my own. Isn't it interesting that Nancy Pelosi, the Minority Leader of the House Democrats, should receive an award that honors such a woman as Sanger? Why has no one in the mainstream media asked the former speaker if her beliefs mirror those of Sanger's? For that matter, why does the Democrat Party oppose charter schools and school choice which have done so much to improve the quality of the education received by minority children? Do you think there might be a connection? Interesting questions that deserve answers.

No comments:

Post a Comment