I am not making this up

I promise this is NOT a photoshop job.

This is what you see today on the front page of the White House site… whitehouse.gov.

When I saw this I thought:

Mao

It’s a beautiful new day in Amerika!

UPDATE:

Here is another.

Cultural Revolution

Oppose economism: destroy the new counter-offensive of the capitalist class reactionary line.

And…

Forging ahead courageously while following the great leader Chairman Mao!

And

Turn philosophy into a sharp weapon in the hands of the masses!

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to I am not making this up

  1. Supertradmum says:

    “Welcome to my world.” Obama

  2. Tony Layne says:

    Reminds me of the old Russian joke about Pravda (“Truth”) and Isvestiya (“News”), the Party organs: “In The Truth there is no news, and in The News there is no truth.”

  3. Supertradmum says:

    And, as with “Good Queen Bess” who was a clever, scheming, political genius, the propaganda machine took over. Her virgin queen idolatry was a direct result of demeaning the true Virgin Queen, Mary, Mother of God on purpose. The tyrants become “saints” by destroying the real saints. Get ready, folks.

  4. Supertradmum says:

    And, as with “Good Queen Bess” who was a clever, scheming, political genius, the propaganda machine took over. Her virgin queen idolatry was a direct result of demeaning the true Virgin Queen, Mary, Mother of God on purpose. The tyrants become “saints” by destroying the real saints. Get ready, folks.

  5. tcreek says:

    Tough to make Mao look good, but Fr. Z, you did it.

  6. disco says:

    O brave new world
    that has such people in it

  7. Supertradmum says:

    disco, It is too bad that Shakespeare’s masterpiece, The Tempest, was used by Huxley for his novel’ title. The original use of the term is beautiful and Christian. Sorry, had to stick up for the Bard.

  8. New Sister says:

    Yes, but unlike Queen Bess or Chairman Mao, the proletariat VOTED for this man. That seems worse.

  9. Southern Baron says:

    The text of the email the White House sent last night to signers of the petition is just disturbing. But we will continue to see this presumption that the State knows best and in fact can decree that there are no further disputes with the Church.

  10. Margaret says:

    An article entitled “Nothing But Squid Ink” at NRO’s Corner is pointing out that the “proposed regulations” just WENT INTO LAW YESTERDAY. Unchanged. Not even with Obama’s fig leaf compromise included. Money quote from the OFR.gov PDF file (p. 19): “Accordingly, the amendment to the interim final rule with comment period amending 29
    CFR 2590.715-2713(a)(1)(iv) which was published in the Federal Register at 76 FR 46621-
    46626 on August 3, 2011, is adopted as a final rule without change.” (my emphasis)

  11. disco says:

    Supertradmum, I meant no disrespect.

  12. Supertradmum says:

    I know you were referring to Huxley. I just had to mention the original source. Bless you….

  13. Supertradmum says:

    New Sister, Hitler was voted in.

  14. Marlon says:

    Tyrants are always and everywhere the same.

  15. NoTambourines says:

    At least Chinese and North Korean propaganda art have a certain kitschy flair, in an Orwell-meets-Hello-Kitty kind of way. This graphic from the White House is just obnoxiously presumptuous.

  16. Supertradmum says:

    No Tambourines, Oh no, I love Hello Kitty. The propaganda art is universally hideous, as there is no beauty behind it; that is no God.

  17. AGA says:

    Let’s all email or call Fox News and have them replace Fr. Jonathan Morris with Fr. Z.

  18. Peggy R says:

    Margaret.

    Yes, I noted that vital fact on a thread below. We need to spread the word on this. The bishops have been trying to stop that publication since Fall. Jan 20, a lousy year ‘waiver’ was offered. These past few weeks have been about stopping that publication since the ‘waiver’ wasn’t enough of course. This publication explains the USCCB’s firm statement late yesterday.

  19. What an absurd photo! Looks like the White House shutterbug who shot that was drafted out of a high school journalism class.
    Just how naively impressionable does the Obama Administration think the American public is?


    (er… don’t answer that question).

  20. MarkA says:

    Reminds me of a video from a few years ago, but still pertinent:
    Hunt For Red Obama
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNlHIDV_o0o

  21. tealady24 says:

    Watch out for the dissolution of the churches very soon if this despot continues on his way!
    It will make ‘enery the 8th look like childs-play.
    I have never in my life seen anything like this!

  22. Marcy K. says:

    Pardon my confusion. Which picture? When I go there I get an invite to sign up for a newsletter and then click through to be confronted with a slide show. What picture are we talking about exactly?

  23. digdigby says:

    tealady24-
    Calm down. You are really over-reacting….hmmm! What’s that truck in the alley full of giant pods and people lining up… what was I saying?

  24. Marcy K. says:

    Sorry, I see it now. My computer was not loading it here on this page. Well, at least Mao looks friendlier. There are so many pictures of Obama with his nose up in the air looking smug that it hard to single one out. When you see the slide show when you click through, all the pictures make him look goofy, so I guess he prefers the Mao look to the ones he actually poses for. I still cannot believe that this man, who we never even heard of 10 years ago – and still don’t really know his background – is actually our president. For the first two years of his presidency, every time I heard “President Barack Obama,” the first thing that popped in my head every time was “God Help Us!”

  25. frjim4321 says:

    It’s not a great photograph. Personally I don’t care for low-aspect portraits. I would agree with the poster that said that it appears amateurish.

    I’ve been viewing all this vitriol about the President and specious comparisons against the backdrop of the eight years of the previous administration that nearly catapulted the country into a second Great Depression. I shrug my shoulders and roll my eyes and pray that we don’t go directly back to those policies and worse eleven months from now.

    I don’t believe that the RNC and its anointed provide the only possible choice for Catholic voters. There is more than enough good and bad on either side of the aisle.

  26. frjim4321 says:

    - would add that the picture in question is not quite so bizarre and and characterized by exaggerated self-canonization as Bush landing on the carrier in a flight suit and swaggering around like Tom Hanks.

  27. frjim4321 says:

    Hanks = Cruise

  28. DFWShook says:

    I’m always amazed how supporters of President Obama who raved about his brilliance and intelligence during the 2008 Election, now consitently use George W. Bush as the standard to which Obama should be compared. It must be rather disheartening to have to lower your expectations on a daily basis.

  29. Peggy R says:

    frjim4321,
    With all due respect…Really?

    “…the eight years of the previous administration that nearly catapulted the country into a second Great Depression. ”

    I don’t imagine it is worthwhile to explain what happened in 2008. [Looks like I'm trying] The unemployment rate was under 6% sometimes under 5% under W Bush. The man had his flaws, but lowering taxes does not beget an economic depression. Spending should have been cut too. There were several things going on and most of it in the mortgage industry which both parties pushed to make loans to unqualified home buyers. Something O pushed for as a community organizer back in the day. I think the Sept 08 crash may have been rigged. I think the economy started to dry up also as it became apparent that O, who promised much regulation and wealth redistribution, would win.

    This is probably a rabbit hole. So, I’ll not respond further.

  30. Brad says:

    An image of the creature adoring an unseen object. It is an inversion of what we intuitively know is right: a view of the object of adoration, namely God, in His tabernacle.

    To relieve the eyes of people, I offer this image of beauty.

    http://th04.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/i/2010/261/d/a/ave_regina_pacis_by_al_lzq-d2z0lg5.jpg

    With utter charm, the toddler Christ is standing rather friskily on Mama’s lap. Oh, the sweet time before the trials would commence, although even now the slaughter of the innocents is happening, the flight by night, so much had already commenced. But not the Via Dolorosa, not the Passion, not yet. Her eyes are downcast in usual humility, even though she is clearly aware that there is a vast sea of onlookers in front of her: all the souls who were and are and will be. Her raised left arm is an iconographic rarity and oh so ponder-worthy. “Halt, world! Emmanuel is here. I beg you, halt!”

  31. frjim4321 says:

    I am sorry my intent was not to create a rabbit hole. [And yet here we are, in one.]

    It seemed the the way this string was progressing it was turning into an overall bashing of the President.

    I thought it would be appropriate to insert a comment that not all Catholics – and not all priests for that matter – are of the same opinion in this regard. [You support Pres. Obama's HHS mandate?]

  32. pm125 says:

    Craig Ferguson can do those poses with sincerity and intelligence on the Late Show and say it’s a great day for America.
    These – not inspiring or funny.

  33. frjim4321 says:

    [You support Pres. Obama's HHS mandate?]

    No, he pretty much crossed the line for me with the 2o January 2012 policy statement from the HHS.

    I was on pins and needles waiting for the 12:15 statement on Friday. If he had blown that I would have probably gone Independent.

    No, I did not personally supp0rt the 1/20/12 statement.

    But yes, I support B.O. as a preferable alternative to any of the three RNC possibles which in order seem to be Santorum, Romney or Gingrich as I see it at this point.

  34. Mike Morrow says:

    I suspect that the percentage of corrupt priests and bishops, who naturally supported Obama in 2008, will be put off not at all by recent events. The stench of dishonor and betrayal causes them no discomfort, by reason of its familiarity.

    The same can be said of catholic laity, except that the sense of surprise is not as great.

  35. Elizabeth D says:

    frjim4321, I think it will take more than Arid or Speed Stick to make B.O. a good voting choice for Catholics. He wants to make sure insurance companies will subvert the intentions of Catholic parishes and organizations so that everybody, especially Catholic pastoral staff, school teachers and health workers, and Catholic school girls and nuns, can have free access to sterilization, abortion, contraception. The new plan appears to actually expand that access. There’s no plausible deniability of moral responsibility for Catholic employers who happily endorse the revised mandate.

  36. Supertradmum says:

    For the record, Romneycare does practically the same thing as Obamacare. Father Jim, I hope you realize that there are some poor people who vote GOP. Some of us do not want to be treated like children by a nanny state.

  37. The Sicilian Woman says:

    I don’t want to say I didn’t believe you, Fr. Z., but I had to click on the White House link myself.

    I cannot grasp how anyone does not see this narcissist and megalomaniac for what he is.

    frjim4321: For years, I was disgusted at the Republican party enough not to vote for them, having been a Republican (albeit one who crossed party lines in voting) until 2000. I still do not like any of the likely nominees, and if B.O. hadn’t crossed the line with this HHS mandate, I still would not be voting this year. But vote I will, against him and his ilk in every single election, from the presidential level to the local level. I am only too sad that with so many things far gone, I’ve only recently been awakened to Faith now, in time enough to see others and myself lose the right to practice it. That time is coming. Don’t kid yourself.

  38. moon1234 says:

    I think people don’t see/won’t accept what is really going on in this country/world. They don’t want to believe that these people (like Obama) have an agenda to destroy the family/society. It is only though the disintegration of the family and faith that the state can take control of the masses. They are doing it with people clamoring for it.

    I am just amazed how people can think Romney, Santorum or Gingrich would be any better than Obama. Look at Obama. Look at the ego trip. HE knows better than you how to run your life. This country is heading down a scary path and is doing it at breakneck speed.

    Why does Obama feel so confident in what he is doing with this mandate, obama care, etc? He KNOWS that any of the three people on the republican side ALL think the government should run our lives too. They ALL have an agenda and it only differs from Obama in a FEW areas, with the exception being Ron Paul who wants the essentially gut the federal government.

    Santorum voted for Title X funding SIX times. This where money to fund planned parenthood and overseas abortions come from. I am sorry, but he places military funding above the lives of the unborn. Actions speak louder than words. He also wants badly to attack Iran. That will start WWIII.

    Romneycare is just the blueprint for Obamacare. He also wants to attack Iran.

    Gingrich changes his positions and wives faster than public opinion changes on a political issue. I just can’t trust a man that has been charged with ethics violations while the speaker of the house, walked out on his wife while she was sick, divorced another and now, on his third wife wants to portray himself as consistent and conservative? He speaks very well, but I look at actions and give them more meaning than words.

    Paul is the ONLY candidate who is consistent. He does what he says and says what he does. He was the ONLY candidate at the faith and values summit that quoted scripture for the basis of his policy. He is the only an who we KNOW will get to the whitehouse and do exactly what he said during the campaign.

    The image of Obama and what he is doing is SCARY. His administration recently came out stating they want a revision to the DSM manual used by psychiatrists to define people that oppose the current goverment as having a mental disease. Folks this is what certain other dictators did round up all of the “crazies” (people that oppose the current administration and it’s policies) and then remove them from society.

    How long until Herr Obama has Catholics who march against him and the unjust policies of his administration declared mental defectives and rounded up? We already know pro-lifers are declared potential terrorists by DHS. Don’t think it can happen? I didn’t think Notre Dame would have a priest who was marching against abortion arrested either, but it happened.

    This country rounded up all Japanese during WWII and put them in effective concentration camps for 4 years. What makes Catholics think this will not happen again?

    I can’t fathom how a Priest could vote for Obama when he is on record as having opposed the born alive act? When does God start to punish us for wanting a king? King David got the smack down for taking a census.

    Pray people, pray hard and often. We need strong CATHOLIC leadership for CATHOLIC truth, not compromise for the Catholic Church. Catholic=Universal=Truth. If we still stood for that I think we would have a very different social order in this country. We need to return to that unwavering, uncompromising truth.

  39. ncstevem says:

    Any voter (Catholic or not) who knowingly votes for a proabortion politician, is complicit in the abortions that occur when that politician is elected.

    We Catholics will be held to a higher standard at our judgement.

  40. frjim4321 says:

    Any voter (Catholic or not) who knowingly votes for a proabortion politician, is complicit in the abortions that occur when that politician is elected.

    I will reserve comment for a string that is more appropriate to this topic.

  41. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:

    I’ve been viewing all this vitriol about the President and specious comparisons against the backdrop of the eight years of the previous administration that nearly catapulted the country into a second Great Depression. I shrug my shoulders and roll my eyes and pray that we don’t go directly back to those policies and worse eleven months from now.

    You have a history of never answering questions that I ask. I’ll now give you another chance:

    What policies of Bush caused the current economic problems?

  42. frjim4321 says:

    To begin the extension of tax cuts for the rich and the ridiculously expensive invasion of Iraq in violation of the Just War Theory and the pope’s strong advice.

  43. btb says:

    While the Republicans are no consistent allies of Truth, reelecting the POTUS will speed our fall into an Obamanation of Desolation.

  44. Johnno says:

    RealCAtholicTV’s new CIA episode of Galileo and the Church cunningly juxtaposes Stalin and Hitler with Obama at the end as people who ignore science and factual research to pursue their ideological goals… I approve! Anyone who supports abortion has far more innocent blood on their hands than either Hitler or Stalin at this point. This truly is the most evil generation!

  45. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:

    To begin the extension of tax cuts for the rich and the ridiculously expensive invasion of Iraq in violation of the Just War Theory and the pope’s strong advice.

    Those two things had nothing (nada, zero, niente, rien, zip) to do with it. There were two causes of the economic problems:

    1. The real estate bubble, which was created mostly by govt insistence (cf. the Affordable Housing Act) that bad real estate loans were to be made by previously unwilling lending institutions, collapsed. Those loans took various forms, which insured that people were buying homes they could not afford: very often after two years the interest increased to a point the buyers could not pay. The lenders wanted to sell those loans ASAP because they wanted no part of the risk. They were then bundled into mortgage backed securities, then sold for the same reason–they wanted no part of the risk. This shell game was able to continue because the Fed wanted low interest rates.

    IMHO, this was little else than the security market’s version of Gresham’s Law: Bad money drives good money out of circulation.

    2. Those securities were insured against loss, which is why AIG was affected so much. The holders of the securities, therefore, weren’t the losers; rather, it was the institutions that had insured the securities against loss.

    The bubble collapsed for two reasons: First, those bad loans matured to a point where the interest rates had increased past the buyer’s ability to pay. Second, the oil bubble, in which the price went up to $147, a barrel slowed the economy.

    Re the war: Financially, most of the money went back into the American economy and served as a stimulus. BTW, I was not a supporter of the war because I didn’t think it could be accomplished as quickly as Bushco pretended.

  46. robtbrown says:

    I do not think that the Iraq War was in violation of Just War Theory any more than any other contemporary war, including WWII.

  47. robtbrown says:

    For anyone interested in what actually caused the financial crisis (rather than repeating whatever nonsense spewed by a political party), I recommend the following video. It is Dr Michael Burry, a neurologist who left medicine to run his own hedge fund. He shorted mortgage securities and personally made $100 million (his fund $700 million). His story is found in Michael Lewis’ book The Big Short. The video is a lecture given at Vanderbilt and is 31 minutes long.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx2ClTpnAAs

  48. AnAmericanMother says:

    moon1234,
    Gingrich used to be my representative. I view him with caution, because I see him as having too little gumption. But, on the other hand, you are repeating several untruths about him (that have of course been trumpeted by the media, so why should you know any different unless you know the back story).
    The ethics violations turned out to be entirely without basis, including the one that he settled (he was later cleared of any wrongdoing by the IRS itself). The practice of bringing a barrage of baseless ethics charges to wear an opponent down is SOP with certain Democrats – Sarah Palin had much the same done to her. I think Gingrich’s tomcatting around is disgusting, but much nonsense has been talked about it AND he has converted and presumably gotten himself straight. We shall see.
    He did good work in the House and actually balanced the budget. He is fiscally more conservative than Santorum (although I think Santorum is stronger on social issues).
    Ron Paul’s delusional foreign policy will get us all slaughtered, and he is far too anti-Israel and pro-Islam for my taste. He also hangs with some truly ugly Stormfront/supremacist types. Both Santorum and Gingrich seem fairly realistic on foreign policy, especially in the Mideast, and while they do not mince words on political correctness they do not accept endorsements from neo-Nazis.
    I would be good with either Santorum or Gingrich. Romney and Paul are right out, for different reasons. Paul is honest, but deluded in some respects. Romney is completely amoral and not particularly honest. My old jury selection radar wrt Paul is reading “that boy ain’t quite right.” Wrt Romney, it’s more like “don’t buy a used car from him.”

  49. wmeyer says:

    Fr. Jim, I would strongly recommend you do some reading of economics. Not the Keynesian nonsense to which so many politicians adhere, but someone reliable like Friedman, Sowell, or Williams. The phrase “tax cuts for the rich” is solid proof you do not have a grasp of how the economy functions. First, because without those “rich” (most of whom are much less rich than the liberal politicians who coined the phrase) there are very few jobs created, second because without the purchase of exotic new products by the rich, those exotic products remain exotic or disappear, never to be afforded by the working folk.

    As to the question of Catholic votes, a vote for Obama is a violation of fundamental Church teaching, as he is pushing and forcing many violations of our beliefs. A vote for an “independent”, on the other hand, is an indirect vote for Obama, a vote which could have been cast for Obama’s opponent. We saw this when Perot diverted votes, leading to an easy victory for Clinton.

    Finally, when 171 bishops have gone on record in opposition to Obama in the current case, how can you be trying to rationalize support for Obama?

  50. wmeyer says:

    Fr. Jim, I would strongly recommend you do some reading of economics. Not the Keynesian nonsense to which so many politicians adhere, but someone reliable like Friedman, Sowell, or Williams. The phrase “tax cuts for the rich” is solid proof you do not have a grasp of how the economy functions. First, because without those “rich” (most of whom are much less rich than the liberal politicians who coined the phrase) there are very few jobs created, second because without the purchase of exotic new products by the rich, those exotic products remain exotic or disappear, never to be afforded by the working folk.

    As to the question of Catholic votes, a vote for Obama is a violation of fundamental Church teaching, as he is pushing and forcing many violations of our beliefs. A vote for an “independent”, on the other hand, is an indirect vote for Obama, a vote which could have been cast for Obama’s opponent. We saw this when Perot diverted votes, leading to an easy victory for Clinton.

    Finally, when 171 bishops have gone on record in opposition to Obama in the current case, how can you be trying to rationalize support for Obama?

  51. robtbrown says:

    The tax cuts for the rich is one of those political lines that don’t make much sense.

    1. Rich (or wealthy) people have assets. The taxes Obama refers to are taxes on income, not assets. BTW, Warren Buffett’s suggestion for raising taxes sets a much higher bottom than does Obamaco.

    2. Obamaco intends to raise taxes on those whose income exceeds $250,000, who somehow are considered to be rich. My sister is a nurse married to a ret Army LTC (Airborne Inf, Ranger, Green Beret–3 tours in VN and still carrying shrapnel), and their income exceeds $250,o00. If FrJim4321 or anyone else told my sister she was rich, the result might be a stethoscope crammed down his throat.

  52. Glen M says:

    I wonder if the photographer intended on having the illuminated door in the lower left hand corner. Perhaps the symbolism is Obama as the new St. Peter.