President Obama's legacy will in part be known as the "Divider in Chief" for what he continued to accelerate in our highly polarized country.
When President Obama was invited by the President-priest of Notre Dame to speak there, President Obama had the platform to divide Catholics over some critical life, marriage and reproductive issues or at least hyper exacerbate existing disunity.
In earlier elections the divide between men and woman was exacerbated.
The divide between blacks and whites was exacerbated.
The divide between law enforcement and the criminal element was exacerbated.
The divide between legal and illegal immigration was exacerbated.
The divide over gender ideologies as the most important agenda likened to the civil rights movement over all else to include true leadership concerning the blood shed in the Middle East.
We can go on and on. Shaming those who opposed his agenda and ideologies by calling us bigots was the greatest dividing agent sending many underground. They came out of above ground yesterday and voted in secret to end the divide, the divider and all the divisions which his successor, HRC would have carried forward as was the Divider in Chief's greatest desire.
32 comments:
Without doubt, Barack Obama had the thinnest resume of ANYONE who has sought the presidency in the last 100 years. He was a total media creation. If they had done proper vetting he would never have been elected.
Obammy has been a loser from the very start. I am loving every minute oif this Trump win. I wish I could drink a glass of the tears of the pundits and the Clinton wonks. How sweet they must taste.
"Obammy"
What further need have we of witnesses?
I am in Washington DC during the election at our corporate headquarters working on a project(not related to the election). Our company gave about $2M to Clinton's campaign, surpassed only by countries where the typical dress is a burnoose. I was working late last night and when I was leaving the lobby was blocked for a party held for the partners. Music was pumping out, strobe lights making every attempt to induce a grand mal and many, many young female interns flitting about trying to act serious. I was shown the back door in haste and retired to my hotel. This morning I went to the office before 6:30 to start work. After my second cup of coffee, about 9:30, I noticed the building was still quiet and strangely somber. I asked what had happened and was told the results of the election. Yes, Gene, if I could bottle those tears they would rival Lagavulen. Say a 24 year, newly minted from Yale.
Bee here:
Yes, divide and conquer. Age old technique.
Today I actually saw a few separate "(wo)man on the street" interviews where young women in their 20's were visibly upset (one crying, the other angry) actually saying things like, "I cannot believe the bigots in this country have won." and "This is the most bigoted outcome - the bigots have taken hold of our country."
So Obama's and the Soros people's campaign to hammer home the message that every disagreement with their point of view is bigotry worked very well.
I hope as they grow up they will see disagreement isn't always based in bigotry. They have to listen to what their opponent is really saying.
I'm just so glad the "progressive" movement to all out socialism is at least put in check for now. Thank you Lord, for giving us another chance to change our ways.
God bless America.
Bee
It is very unfortunate that various right-wing Catholics have turned Donald Trump's victory into an opportunity to spew venom at His Holiness Pope Francis.
Examples: Rorate Caeli posted the following via Twitter: "Francis: this victory is also yours! The world's had enough of emptiness and sanctimony of the vacuous words of people like you! Step down!"
Rorate Caeli: "Now, all that's left is for Francis to resign, and we'll show Church liberals they also win only in the dark and under false pretenses!"
Rorate Caeli: "Quite true. One day God will reveal exactly what were Soros' links to the St-Gallen self-named "Mafia" who elected Card. Bergoglio Pope."
Perhaps today's sickest, most vile right-wing Catholic attack against the Vicar of Christ is from The Remnant:
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2865-goodnight-mrs-clinton-a-partial-birth-campaign
"Donald Trump found a way to free pro-life, pro-God, pro-family Americans from their shackles, and the demons scattered before them like cockroaches. And just as many of us voted for Donald Trump to stop Hillary Clinton, we can now celebrate without apology the landside defeat he handed The All-Powerful Ones: George Soros, ===================Pope Francis,========================== Planned Parenthood, big media, big Hollywood, the United Nations, the European Union and the rest of the New World Order fanatics."
-------------------------------------------------------------
1. How on earth is Donald Trump's landslide (via electoral votes) victory over Hillary Clinton also a victory over the Vicar of Christ?
2. Why would Michael Matt, a Catholic, who wrote the above, place Pope Francis in the category of those folks whom he (Michael Matt) considers evil and vile?
I share with right-wing Catholics many concerns about the situation within the Church (issues related to liturgy, ecumenism...). I share with them many concerns related to America and the world.
However, the intense anti-Catholic hatred and rage that many right-wing Catholics harbor toward Pope Francis is beyond my comprehension.
The filthy, vile comments that certain right-wing Catholics direct against Pope Francis...the conspiracy theories (George Soros backed the supposed St. Gallen Mafia that forced Pope Benedict XVI's resignation and Cardinal Bergoglio's election) that they concoct to attack the Vicar of Christ...are sick.
Sick.
Rather than rejoice in that which they desired, the election of Donald Trump, certain right-wing Catholics have twisted his victory into an opportunity to assault verbally Pope Francis.
What a shame.
Right-wing Catholics heap kinder words and far greater love upon pro-abortion Donald Trump, whom one Remnant correspondent labeled a "low-life" (his term, not mine), than upon the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis.
What a shame.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
The day will arrive when President-elect Donald Trump wades into various issues that will force Catholics to side either with Holy Mother Church or President Trump. He will become the "Divider-in-chief" as he will force Catholics to take sides.
Examples:
-- Donald Trump is not pro-life. He supports abortion in cases related to rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
The day will arrive when he has to tackle the abortion issue. He will argue for the murdering of babies in the above situations. He will attempt to convince Catholics to side with him in regard to his vision of when abortion is "acceptable."
He and his operatives will have to make the case against Catholic teaching to convince Catholics to side with him.
-- Donald Trump boasted that he is militant in regard to waging war. He said that he would target the families of terrorists. He has advanced torture as an efficacious tool in combating terrorism.
Should he revisit those themes, he will force Catholics to determine whether his views in regard to the above are in line with Church teachings.
-- LifeSiteNews today noted that Trump has trafficked in "mixed messages" in regard to homosexuality and transgenderism.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/11/for-record-donald-trump-wins-presidency.html#more
"Trump’s comments on marriage and human sexuality have been less edifying to social conservatives than his comments on abortion. Trump became the first presidential candidate from either party in history to use the words “LGBTQ community” in his nomination acceptance speech.
"His official campaign website sold “LGBTQ for Trump” shirts and he held up an “upside down” gay rights rainbow flag at a campaign rally."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It is peaches and cream now with Catholics who supported Donald Trump. But the day will arrive when Trump will enact policies that unleash controversies among Catholics. That is when Donald Trump will become Divider-in-chief among Catholics as they will side either with the Church or President Trump.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I guess that the following "experts" remain employed as journalists. The news media failed terribly in their coverage of Donald Trump as related to the presidential campaign.
========================================================================
Trump Has No Chance Of Winning The Catholic Vote
Theology, demographics, and Trump’s own words will doom the GOP’s efforts with Catholic voters in 2016
by Jane Coaston
09/28/2016
http://www.mtv.com/news/2937416/trump-has-no-chance-of-winning-the-catholic-vote/
==================================================================
Why Trump has a Catholic voter problem
By John Gehring | July 20, 2016 A.D.
http://religionnews.com/2016/07/20/why-trump-has-a-catholic-voter-problem/
============================================================
Donald Trump has a massive Catholic problem
By Aaron Blake
August 30, 2016 A.D.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/28/donald-trump-has-a-massive-catholic-problem/
==============================================================================
Why Donald Trump Is Losing Catholic Voters
By Jacob Lupfer | September 20, 2016 A.D.
http://religionandpolitics.org/2016/09/20/why-donald-trump-is-losing-catholic-voters/
=================================================================
Polls show Donald Trump is struggling to appeal to Catholic voters, a longtime swing demographic.
by Alexandra DeSanctis August 30, 2016 A.D.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439526/donald-trumps-catholic-voter-problem
==================================================================
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Somebody tell Barry to go bring President Trump a cup of coffee...
"Somebody tell Barry to go bring President Trump a cup of coffee...'
What further need have we of witnesses?
The leader of the 'Liberal Democrats' over here (and what a shadow they are of the once great Liberal party) described Trump's election as a defeat for 'liberal values'. However, we know what 'liberal values' are today and WE Gladstone, four times leader of a Liberal ministry in the 19th century, would have repudiated them.
Should they have really been defeated, it would have my three times three. But the Devil is not rolled over so easily.
Pace Mark Thomas, I would not verbally assault Pope Francis but I consider his election to have been a mistake, and his predecessor's abdication to have been an even greater mistake. I don't doubt Francis's orthodoxy (not that it matters; the pope cannot alter the truth) but I have no confidence in his ability to discharge his office with any degree of competence, and his public utterances, not to mention his published views, are confused and confusing.
Gene,
Strange, Bill Clintoon said the same thing when Obama was running.
Mark Thomas,
You have become a one trick pony. You sound like someone who practices "papalotry." Does Soros pay you to post here?
John Nolan,
Not to mention that he now appears to have effectively silenced Cardinal Sarah, who is no longer speaking at liturgical conferences. Generally speaking, the pro-life, pro-family, pro-liturgy, pro-truth crowd is simply not part of our pope's pastoral solicitude. However, I do not doubt his sincerity, and do doubt there is any deliberate malice.
I hope that the following isn't too off-topic...
Is there anybody who can speak without having to resort to filth? I watch (or hear via radio) interviews with left-wing anti-Trump (he's not my president types) protestors.
Every other word is...bleep!
"That bleep, bleep Trump ain't like my president...bleep, bleep, and like, I mean, like, we ain't gonna like bleeping accept this bleeping bleep election outcome...bleep, bleep, bleep!"
I watch/hear right-wingers respond..."Get over it, bleeper. Bleep you. Bleep all you liberal bleeps!"
Men. Women. It doesn't matter. Everybody resorts to foul language.
Perhaps my recollection is nonsense, but decades ago, I recall that foul language was pretty much the domain of men. Men did not resort often to the use of foul language in the presence of women. Men did not pepper their speech in public with one "bleep" after another.
But today, it's bleep, bleep, bleep from men, women, boys, and girls. People waltz about in T-shirts that feature obscene words.
American society is one giant bleep!
Pax.
Mark Thomas
John Nolan, you have the right as a Catholic to express concerns about His Holiness Pope Francis. Pope Francis has accepted criticism directed at him.
I am thankful that you do not engage in the following: I don't understand the need among certain right-wing Catholics to spew vile comments at Pope Francis. I don't understand as to why certain right-wing Catholics (examples: Rorate Caeli and The Remnant) have employed Donald Trump's victory over Hillary Clinton to launch attacks against Pope Francis.
Should right-wing Catholics wish to leaven society, then they need to rally around Pope Francis.
Pope Francis has worked overtime to combat the Culture of Death. Unfortunately, Satan attacks Pope Francis day after day. In light of that fact, why do right-wing Catholics launch vile verbal assaults against the Vicar of Christ? Again, they have even employed President-elect Trump's election victory as an opportunity to attack Pope Francis.
I encourage right-wing Catholics to heap the tremendous amount of love upon Pope Francis that they've heaped upon pro-abortion Donald Trump. If they are comfortable with Donald Trump as president, then I would think that they could live with Pope Francis as their Supreme Pontiff.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas,
Despite being educated beyond their intelligence in this age of education inflation, few Americans are even given a brief introduced to classical logic and rhetoric. Consequently, they have only base sensuality and emotion available to them as conversational tools.
Mark Thomas,
Right wing, right wing, right wing, blah blah blah
If Pope Francis truly wants to protect human life and marriage he should condemn the Democratic Party and demand Catholics reject them just like Pius XI condemned Nazism, Fascism, and Communism for promoting intrinsic evils like abortion and gay marriage. Answer that, unless you are left-wing, left-wing, left-wing and a Soros paid troll.
I am just thoroughly enjoying all the hufffing and puffing and foot stomping of the sissies and sore losers on the Left.
As we enjoyed your boo-hooing in the last two elections.
Cheers!
Yes, anonymous, we boo-hooed in 2008 and 2012. What we DIDN'T do was run out and start riots, looting, burning, and instigate thousands of random assaults on Obama voters to vent our spleen as Hillary people are doing (and justifying) right now.
We were terrified of what Obama and a super-majority of Democrats in Congress were about to do. Tens of millions of us ran out and bought tens of millions of guns....out of fear of the inevitable left-wing purge we feared to come.
it didn't. And we never did use those guns on anyone because ours is not the side or the ideological world view that justifies the offensive use of force to settle domestic political disputes.
None of our mass movements involve tactics (and justifications for tactics) that are routine among ELF, BLM, Occupy, and the so-called "peace and justice" movements that routinely foment and encourage violence.
But we get called "Nazis" while actual self-proclaimed communists roam the streets and staff Left-wing groups to the cheers and applause of the main stream media.
We're called "haters" while the Left actually indulges in scapegoating, de-humanizing hatred so as to gin up actual physical assaults.
Fact is, we're the good guys. We won because we finally had enough and thanks to a polarizing figure like Trump, found a vehicle through which to out vote the social Marxists.
We're not the boogie man your side has painted us as. But we STILL have hundreds of millions of guns and tens of billions of rounds of ammo.... if we were even a tiny bit as evil as your side constantly paints us.... there wouldn't be "your side".
I can understand the euphoria over Trump’s victory and the apparent Republican control of Congress (assuming the Senate filibuster rule is erased), even though I do not share the euphoria. I do not share it not only for the reasons Mark Thomas gives but also because it overlooks certain realities. The U.S. Constitution truly is a work of genius, particularly because of the checks and balances built into the system to prevent or to rectify Executive and legislative overreach.
Most of the bloggers here may think that a Trump administration now has the opportunity to correct what they see as overreach by the Obama Administration and the Democrats. And up to a point they do. But folks, it works the other way too.
Therefore, if a Trump Administration and the Republican majority is tempted to overreach, well, guess what? The mid-terms are only two years away, with the prospect of a massive reaction that could sweep the Democrats back into power, or at least give them control of the Senate. And if not in two years, then in four years. After all, the Founders created a brilliant system that (when it works right and is not corrupted by money and other unsavory forces) allows for permanent peaceful revolution so that armed revolution against tyranny is unnecessary. Such considerations may even be one reason why Senate Republicans may want to resist the temptation to eliminate the filibuster—it serves them when they are in the minority too. We will have to see on that particular point, of course.
Thus, for example, even if they eliminate the filibuster, Republicans may be able to get a conservative replacement for Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court but Justices Ginsberg and Breyer may only need to postpone retirement for two years (or four years) for prospects to change radically. Don’t forget that Hillary, terribly flawed candidate though she was, did win the popular vote and, if one looks at three key states -- Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Arizona(?) – lost the election in the electoral college by only about 100,000 votes.
And, of course, the courts protect us against tyranny by safeguarding the rule of law. Thus, if a Trump administration were to try to follow through on a massive deportation effort, for example, we can expect to see massive resistance in the courts (as well as the streets), invoking not only legal procedural due process rights guaranteed by statute but also by the Constitution.
So, let’s all get real here—something that President Obama doubtless impressed on a hopefully chastened Donald Trump during their meeting yesterday.
All, this said, Donald Trump is our President-Elect and now deserves our support and cooperation—up to a reasonable point (see above). The true path forward is—as it has always been—the way of dialogue and compromise. The Republicans blocked President Obama at every turn. He even gave away the store over the ACA in an attempt to satisfy them—to no avail (it gained him no Republican votes as I recall). I do not expect, and would not condone, similar oppositional tactics to President Trump—again, up to a reasonable point (see again above).
Let us, then, finally, try to come together to heal the self-inflicted wounds on our body politic and to find reasonable ways forward towards sensible and wise policies. Father McDonald calls Obama the Divider-in-Chief. Maybe he has been, maybe not. In any event, all of us have been, collectively, dividers—and social media (including this blog) have made it so much worse in recent years. It is time for us to stop this nonsense. If we don’t, we decline further and that ol’ pendulum will keep on a-swinging.
Right, now anonymous 2 does anything you wrote as a caution to the right make ANY sense whatsoever given the left's party-line vote for Obamacare? Or their use of the nuclear option when it suited their agenda?
How about their imposition of gay "rights", abortion "rights" and contraception "rights" on the US not via the legislature or a Constitutional amendment but via the courts?
When some trick suits your side, you do it and then suddenly declare that 'trick' no longer a valid option.
I suspect you are about to witness the Right accepting the new rules of engagement. You are about to see the Right give you a taste of your own medicine. If this makes millions of people suddenly realize why a massively powerful Executive branch and massively intrusive federal government is "a bad idea" then the solution is to radically par it all back and return freedom to the States, cities, and people.
That would and will be a truly "liberal", live and let live solution.
When we "radically par it all back," then every state will be required to return, in gold, every cent of Federal money they have received since joining the Union.
Not only will the many States then have freedom, they will also have the responsibility to bear the costs thereof.
Mark Thomas, I think that Rorate Caeli and others are just reflecting the situation that many Catholics have given up on Francis and do see his 'election' as a retrograde step for the Church. There is very little in the way of doctrine and dogma that he hasn't attempted to undermine.
No doubt you now have a statue of Luther alongside one of Francis and Hillary Clinton in your living room - good luck with that. But the reality you have to face - as did the Democrats - is that many do not accept the liberal agenda in or outside the Church and have the right to say so, albeit in a moderate manner, but say it they will. Rorate Caeli has every right to express their opinion when the very fabric of the Church is under attack by liberals.
Jan
Jus ad Bellum:
Unless and until you (and others here) can overcome your polarizing and tribal approach to politics, nothing I say will make sense to you. By the same token you will continue to relegate me to some “side” or another and talk about giving me a taste of my own medicine (just which side do you suppose I am on, by the way?). This said, some of your previous posts suggest that you are capable of transcending such limitations and do see the value in constructive dialogue. By the way, just so you know, I speak in the same sorts of terms to those you describe as being on “the left.” But this is not the audience on this blog, now is it?
Constructive dialogue is the ONLY realistic way forward for our Republic. To take just one example, President Obama—who is known in the immigrant community as the Deporter-in-Chief because of his aggressive enforcement policies, something I am sure you never heard from the Trump crowd or, I daresay, FOX News—was compelled to adopt the DACA program because Republican obstructionism prevented a sensible and just legislative solution for the Dreamers. Similarly, the Republicans prevented comprehensive immigration reform more generally and so Obama was compelled to adopt the DAPA program. Had Hillary been elected, that program would have been modified so as to survive scrutiny by the courts that you so vilify and that stopped this program in its present form.
Moreover, all this back and forth will continue until we decide collectively to grow up and start acting like adults who are ready to deal with issues and problems through the adoption of reasonable and prudent measures that are not infected by money or fanatical ideology. And yes, in doing so, we can certainly be guided by sound principles such as subsidiarity (as I have long advocated, including in comments on this blog). Alternatively, we can choose to stay on the playground and talk about creating a Deportation Force to deport all illegal aliens, banning all Muslims, and implementing other unrealistic, silly, and unjust ideas. Perhaps this kind of juvenile talk makes some people feel good but these sorts of behaviors are certainly not what we should expect of adults and certainly not what we should expect of Catholic Christians.
Bee here:
@Jusadbellum, I second all the points you have made.
The Leftists who have cheered in spite of the over-reach of the executive office and legislation from the bench have abruptly come to an awareness of the implications of those abuses of power when leadership is suddenly in the hands of the opposition.
Bee
Anonymous 2,
Who said: "If they bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun", "I won, elections have consequences," and the "Republicans are the enemy?" Answer: Obama, your little wooden god.
You are a typical lib, selective memory and zero principles. Principles are for Republicans, not members of the Abortion Party, formerly the Democratic Party.
The President-elect, Mr Trump, upon assuming office, will inherit less than favorable stuations both domestically and abroad. The economy has been basically treading water for the past eight years, race relations are much worse, there is less civility and respect for the rule of law,our military has become a laboratory for social engineering,and the International state of affairs (due in no small part to our Foreign policy misadventures) is pretty dire.
Let those who choose to do so, wallow in the misery of their dreary day. As for me, for the new President I will pray.
TJM:
Let me know when you are ready to stop the unwarranted and misconceived ad hominem attacks and to begin having an adult conversation. Then perhaps we can talk.
"It is peaches and cream now with Catholics who supported Donald Trump. But the day will arrive when Trump will enact policies that unleash controversies among Catholics. That is when Donald Trump will become Divider-in-chief among Catholics as they will side either with the Church or President Trump."
I'm not worried - I am sure you will be here to employ your stellar argumentation skills to show us that whatever controversial thing that President Trump says is actually not a change from Catholic practice, much like you did with Pope Francis, Amoris Laetitia, and Communion and Confession for unrepentant adulterers. In fact, I am a little surprised that you still post here after that embarrassing debacle.
I am glad to see that The Donald is beginning to sound like an adult. This is gratifying but, in a way, not surprising. For days I have been urging people not to freak out about his election, and indeed even to look on it as an opportunity for constructive dialogue rather than a crisis. Because of legal and practical realities that exist in the real world, as opposed to the alternative universe in which Trump’s campaign rhetoric was situated, there is no choice but to deal pragmatically with the real world as it is. This is just as true for The Donald as it is for those who have been appalled by his election.
For example, one of the commentators to a Washington Post article yesterday titled “No one has a clue what kind of President Donald Trump will be” made the following statement:
“I feel sorry for those desperate individuals who saw Trump as the answer to their marginalized lives. Some like those that have yet to benefit from the economic recovery and those that have been effected by globalization deserve our empathy and support. On the flip side you have the Alt Right, the KKK and the white supremacists. The thing that most Trump supporters have in common is that they were played by this charlatan. He understood that this disparate group would all respond to the same message for different reason. I may be giving the Donald too much credit, but the results speak for themselves. He will not build the wall, he will not deport undocumented immigrants en masse, he will not ban Muslims from entering our country, he will not abrogate out trade agreements or our defense treaties and he will definitely not lock Hilary up. Now these misguided voters will have to live with the realization that they have been had and that their children and grandchildren may pay for their mistake.”
Trump’s interview on 60 minutes this evening, which I have just watched with my wife, would seem to vindicate this statement (and this echoes what I have been writing on this blog from the beginning, warning that The Donald would inevitably betray his supporters)—although one should perhaps add that Trump will not urge repeal of Obamacare either (or, perhaps more accurately put, he will urge retention of its key features, and Paul Ryan seems to agree). As for the final sentence in the above statement, the “may “is significant because of the implied “may not.”
It will be interesting, then, to see how those who took The Donald’s rhetoric at face value will handle their disappointment and apparent betrayal by their hero, including his present equivocation over Supreme Court nominations (as in: yes, the Supreme Court can reverse Roe v. Wade and return abortion to the states so that women wanting an abortion may need to travel to a state where is permitted but no, the legal recognition of same sex marriages cannot be reversed because the Court has already spoken and thus it is already law—an interesting contrast, no?—although one can never predict precisely what a Justice will do). Perhaps they will rationalize it away or simply continue to live in denial. On the other hand, those decent folk who for so long have felt betrayed and ignored by the elites but who never took Trump’s campaign rhetoric at face value but just used him a la movie “Network” to send a message that they were “as mad as hell and [were] not going to take it any more” can take solace in the fact that now there is a better chance they will be properly acknowledged and recognized by the elites, as they should be and should have been all along.
Perhaps now, then, we can start having a long overdue constructive political conversation in which all sides try to listen to and to understand one another better and to move forward together towards a better future in a diverse and pluralistic country where we all have to live with one another, like it or not. An emphasis on the common good is a good place to begin, no?
Post a Comment