Pres. Obama says he’ll have “more flexibility” to do what he wants after November

Please use the sharing buttons!  Thanks!

On Monday m Pres. Obama said to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev Monday that he, Obama, would have “more flexibility” because this is his last election.

Pres. Obama was talking about missile stuff.  But the question is immediately raised: What else does he think he can do once he doesn’t have to worry about getting reelected?

Perhaps his next big attempt will be to overturn the 22nd Amendment.

So, Diocletian Hussein Obama has to be more careful – now – because of the 2012 election.

He won’t, therefore, do what he thinks is best – right now – for political reasons.

He’ll sacrifice what he thinks is a better plan for what is good for his election.  That’s his way.  That’s clear.  That’s obvious.  Pure self-interest.

But what else will the President do if – quod Deus avertat – he is re-elected?

Katie bar the door.

He will cut loose on the Catholic Church and on our civil liberties in a way that we have never seen in the United States.

If the opposition put up a frozen orange juice can to run against Pres. Obama, I would vote for it.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Religious Liberty, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. ContraMundum says:

    His moment of greatest flexibility was immediately after his election.

    1. He was riding a huge wave of popularity as Americans were congratulating themselves for electing someone with dark skin.
    2. His party controlled both houses of Congress.
    3. He had not yet had to make the decisions which inevitably alienate one group or another.
    4. He still had almost 4 years to recover before the next election, and the American people have a much shorter attention span than that.

  2. A.D. says:

    I second the nomination of the frozen orange juice can.

  3. ContraMundum says:

    I say fresh orange juice, with lots of pulp.

  4. anilwang says:

    ContraMundum, you would think so, but in Ontario something similar happened with its Premier.

    He was popular at the beginning of his mandate but started to force Catholic schools to promote the LGBTTTSIQQ (at the rate they keep tacking on letters, they’ll have to extend the alphabet) sex agenda and got the province into huge debt. The conservatives chose a candidate a bit better than a can orange juice but he was hugely popular because he was not the Premier. But at election time, the Premier successfully portrayed anyone who disagreed with him as being fearmongers since he would never do anything that went against parents or children, and besides who on earth would believe those evil conservatives who have a hidden agenda? He won the election with a near majority, and sure enough, his attack against the Catholic school intensified.

    Americans cannot afford to be complacent. The Ontario Premier is a dunce when compared to Obama, yet he won through guile and the media and now has more flexibility than he did before the election.

  5. Mark Scott Abeln says:

    In my opinion, he’s more like Julian the Apostate, using the public treasury and the notion of tolerance to centralize power to himself and to undermine the Catholic Church.

    So far Obama has yet to try to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. That didn’t work out too well for Julian.

  6. Clinton R. says:

    Here is my vote for a frozen can of Tropicana.

  7. acardnal says:

    Help? I can identify Obama, Reid and Pelosi in the graphic but who is the face on the far left?

    Thanks to the conservative Blue Dog Democrats, Obama didn’t get a lot of his liberal spending/debt producing agenda through Congress – even when he had a Democratic Congress.

  8. Facta Non Verba says:

    Another 4 years of President Obama would mean many, many lifetime appointments of judges to the federal bench. And, these judges won’t be strict constructionists if Pres. Obama has his way.

    Katie bar the door, indeed.

  9. aviva meriam says:

    Amazing that honesty from our president only comes when he believes he’s speaking in private.

  10. Phil_NL says:

    If the opposition put up a frozen orange juice can to run against Pres. Obama, I would vote for it.

    Make that a barrel of frozen concentrated orange juice. In fact, were I an American and having the right to vote in your election, I’d even vote for either of the two brothers from ‘Trading places’ (hence the frozen concentrated orange juice reference). They wouldn’t beat Obama in terms of the damage inflicted on the USA and the world.

    (And yes, the rest of the world should worry too, and not just about exporting extreme lefty ideas. Obama is also selling out our nuclear umbrella. That was the deal within NATO and in the NPT afterall: the US protects us smaller countries, so not everyone goes on building nukes. That one is also about to fall, with Obama inclined to all but abolish the deterrent. Do us all a favor, and vote the guy out!)

  11. ContraMundum says:

    I think a can of frozen orange juice would have won the Republican nomination by now if it had chosen to run.

  12. wanda says:

    Juice has my vote, in a can, in a carton, fresh, frozen, concentrate…any way at all. Give me the juice any day.

  13. ContraMundum says:

    The Juice is currently in a Nevada prison cell.

  14. wmeyer says:

    Any second term president has more room to maneuver because a third term is proscribed by the 22nd amendment.

    Given the minimal regard O has shown for that pesky Constitution, a second term would, at best, be a catastrophe, as there would be nothing standing between him and completely unfettered use of Executive Orders to bypass Congress. The only alternative would be if the Congress could find the spine to impeach him. I shan’t hold my breath.

    A deeper concern, from my perspective, is the very real possibility that O & Co. will, if he gets a second term, either repeal or simply ignore the 22nd amendment. Imagine O as our “beloved leader” a la Kim Jong whoever, and you have identified hell on earth.

  15. Clinton says:

    So far, this president has gone on record saying that he is opposed to legalizing same-sex
    marriage. The media and the LGBT lobby groups haven’t paid much attention to his
    ‘opposition’, I suspect because they know he doesn’t really mean it. However, were Obama
    to be re-elected to a second term, he’d no longer need to maintain such pretenses for the general

    Yes, it’s fair to guess that, as bad as he’s been these few years, it’s nothing compared to what
    it’d be like when he can completely remove the mask.

  16. AnnAsher says:

    Domine, miserere nobis.

  17. Suburbanbanshee says:

    It has to be a natural-born American orange juice can that’s at least 35 years old, of course.

    But yeah, an orange juice can won’t sell us out to Putin.

  18. ContraMundum says:


    In the abstract, what you say is right. But think back: Did Reagan have a freer hand in his second term, or in his first? His first term; his second was consumed by Iran-Contra. How about Clinton? His first term also; his second term saw the Democrats without control of the House of Representatives for the first time in a generation and Clinton’s impeachment trial. Bush, then? He spent his 2nd term dealing with increasingly unpopular wars and an ever-diminishing perception of American leadership on the international stage; his first term, right after 9-11, was clearly his most powerful hour.

    I certainly don’t want to see Obama re-elected, but his greatest strength is long gone.

  19. acardnal says:

    I figured out the face on the left after all. It’s Sen. Schumer of NY. That goofy grin gave it away. The three Musketeers!

  20. tealady24 says:

    That big mug on the left is Chucky Schumer of the “live-in-new-york-for-10-minutes-and-you-can-run-for-president” mindset most of those idiots in that state have. Sorry NYers but your reputation precedes you (and I’m from jersey, so get over yourselves). And those 10-min citizens get themselves elected every time, then send their 2nd-generation in for the kill.

    BO is WAITING for his 2nd term, because the gloves are off and he has full validation to implement the Alinsky/Ayers/Obama new Mt. Rushmore after the first one is dynamited. And if you don’t think this radical, atheist, wannabe-president, will make this country over into something you and I will no longer recognize, THINK AGAIN!!!!!

    It’s right out in front of our noses, if only we care to look. And vote.

  21. frjim4321 says:

    I understand that the President is not favored in some circles, but frankly the “orange juice can” argument is not overly helpful. The reality is that it is not going to be a contest between President Obama and an orange juice can. His opponent will most likely be Mitt Romney, hardly as benign as an orange juice can. Along with around half the other Catholic voters I will most likely be deciding that the prospect of a Romney presidency is far more alarming than a second term for the incumbent. And with regard to abortion being the “gold standard” for many conservative voters, I tend to be more interested in the likely number of abortions rather than the anti-choice rhetoric of the RNC anointed, particularly given the degree to which his opinion on the subject continues to change.

  22. Clinton R. says:

    @frjim 4321: Of course we know the election is not between Obama and a can of frozen orange juice. It’s that some of us would rather have a frozen can of orange juice sitting in the Oval Office than a man hellbent on forcing his diabolic agenda on us.

  23. ContraMundum says:

    OK, fr.jim, I call. If you wish to base your decision to support Obama on “the likely number of abortions rather than the anti-choice rhetoric of the RNC anointed”, I call for you to produce evidence, based on the record of his first term, that a second Obama term will give rise to a smaller “likely number of abortions”. I’m not interested in fantasies, but about the record.

    Even that is not enough to justify supporting him. Death is, after all, only a physical evil, and one that will overtake us all, but the decision to take innocent life, the decision to formally proclaim that the taking of innocent lives is so fundamental to our national agenda that it must be protected, paid for from the public purse, and exported to other nations who still cringe at the idea of destroying their unborn children — that is a moral evil, for which there is never any excuse. It does something far worse than putting an end to our national existence; it makes our national existence an abomination under the sun and a curse on mankind.

    St. Lazar, pray for us!

  24. wmeyer says:

    ContraMundum: I stand by what I said. O will have no re-election concerns (unless he is planning to override the 22nd amendment). Given his willingness to ignore constraints on his office, and to use Executive Orders in lieu of Congressional support, he can do whatever he wishes, until he reaches the threshold at which Congress finds its collective backbone.

    Reagan was limited by conscience and Constitution. Neither of these factors appear to bear on O.

  25. ContraMundum says:

    Reagan was also limited by a hostile Congress. Even if Obama is re-elected, he will not have a rubber-stamp Congress, and he won’t have a wildly enthusiastic country (to say the least), and he will almost certainly have to replace at least one cabinet member due to a scandal. (It usually happens about this time.) He may be totally unprincipled and undisciplined, but he will not have free rein.

    It is very unfortunate that Bush and his lackeys spent so much time trying to make the office of the president into the office of the emperor when it was inevitable that someone like Obama would eventually be elected.

  26. muckemdanno says:

    “He won’t, therefore, do what he thinks is best – right now – for political reasons. He’ll sacrifice what he thinks is a better plan for what is good for his election.”

    Really, Father? A politician is doing this? I NEVER would have believed it. Surely no Republican would put his political career above the good of the country.

    I’m shocked, SHOCKED, to find that there’s gambling going on in here!

  27. wmeyer says:

    ContraMundum: You may be right, but we shan’t know till the votes are counted. However, to repeat myself, he can and will use EOs to sidestep Congress. Therein lies the real danger. The only thing which has limited him at all so far is his desire for a second term.

  28. Joseph-Mary says:

    Fr. Jim: are you truly a priest? [I may lock out and ban the next person who writes this in my combox.] Are you a ‘catholic for choice’? To think of reinstating the most pro-abortion president in history who is leading our country into totalitarianism is a travesty.

    And your use of words: ‘anti-choice’…..that is what the anti-life people say.

  29. ContraMundum says:

    That kind of game is a tricky and dangerous one to play. Obama does not rule because of who he is — the way, for example, that Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin ruled. Those men knew their position in the state was stronger than that of any law. It’s true that Obama has a kind of charisma — not one that appeals to me, but one that nevertheless appeals to many people — yet in the end the only reason anyone pays more attention to him than to Charles Barkley is the law and the Constitution. If he violates the Constitution too explicitly, he cannot be assured that he will still be obeyed.

    Again, this would not be the problem it is if Republicans had not been insisting that Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution applies everywhere and without exception, whereas the Bill of Rights only applies in the States — and maybe not always there.

    It really would be a more “interesting” world if, in the places the last Republican administration insisted that parts of the Constitution are null and void, the skippers of ballistic missile subs were no longer bound to obey the president.

  30. JKnott says:

    He has too much confidence in a next term for himself; seems almost at peace about it. He is going to steal the election. God help us.

  31. kelleyb says:

    President 0bama is our first president who actually favors infanticide.
    He has mandated through his HHS that every one in exchanges will pay one dollar premium to fund abortion. This does not bode well for a significant decrease in the number of children murdered by the compassionate people favoring “choice” .

  32. pm125 says:

    “Along with around half the other Catholic voters I will most likely be deciding that the prospect of a Romney presidency is far more alarming than a second term for the incumbent.”
    How so? Executive Orders for citizens (not terrorists) to protect whom (not you or your ‘parishioners’ unless you are in the Executive Branch), allowing anti-Church rhetoric and activity to be, letting derision and accusations of ‘hate or racism’ insinuation fly, … but you must take it all in stride if you would be alarmed by direly needed constructive repair work to damage already accomplished.
    ” And with regard to abortion being the “gold standard” for many conservative voters, I tend to be more interested in the likely number of abortions rather than the anti-choice rhetoric of the RNC anointed, particularly given the degree to which his opinion on the subject continues to change.”
    The words that Pope Benedict XVI uses are moral relativism and culture of death, with abortion in its legislated varieties for unspeakable purpose$. ‘Gold standard’ is an cold-hearted term.
    Is Jim Beam with you as you comment?

  33. EXCHIEF says:

    Sorry ContraMundum but Obama acts without any practical constraint. Congress lacks the intestinal fortitude to check him and the MSM is in the tank for the want to be dictator.

    On a separate but related subject (USA/Russia) the U S State Department (aka the leftist Hillary) has redrawn a maritime line to give Russia 7 islands which were initially found and claimed by the USA and which arguably are ours—they were given to the Russians along with all of the (prolific) oil rights in the surrounding waters with absolutely no hesitation or any attempt to exact something in return. Just another example of the pitiful little Marxist selling out our nation.

  34. Luke Whittaker says:

    Father Jim, you might want to reconsider your position based on Church teaching. The Compendium to the current Catechism states (under paragraphs 405 to 410) that “every human community needs a legitimate authority that preserves order and contributes to the common good…Authority is exercised legitimately when it acts for the common good…The common good involves: respect for and promotion of the fundamental rights of the person (and life is certainly high on the list of rights)…The most complete realization of the common good is found in those communities which defend and promote the good of their citizens.”

    Our current president considers contraception and abortion to be a part of women’s health care, which is to deny women their proper dignity and to view unborn children as something other than what they are: a gift from God. Such a pro-abortion stance is certainly opposed to the common good. And to cast a vote for such a candidate is a slippery slope—no matter how many “catholics” choose to vote for him. I agree that our choices for president are not what they could be given the circumstances. But I disagree strongly with the conclusions that you draw and further add that voting for such a candidate as Obama should be repented of and divulged in the sacrament of reconciliation.

    According to Blessed John Paul II, the dignity and balance of human life depend at every moment in history and at every point on the globe on who woman will be for man and who man will be for woman (TOB 43:7). This statement points to what is at the forefront of the world’s problems. We need to begin seeing others as stepping-stones to God and not as ends to our own means. Taking a crass stance against the perennial teaching of the Church does not work to improve these problems but rather to perpetuate them.

  35. catholicmidwest says:

    It’s not only growing a spine that Congress has to do. WE have to pack Congress with Republicans so that everything the House passes doesn’t fall down in the Senate. That’s the current problem. We need so many Republicans in the Congress that a Presidential veto can’t stand. We have our work cut out for us, don’t we?

  36. catholicmidwest says:

    You might possibly be the last person on the internet to hear one of Churchill’s best stories:
    Woman at dinner party: (Casually talking, and claiming that evil is relative…..)
    Churchill to Woman: Madam, would you sleep with me for 1,000,000 pounds?
    Woman to Churchill: 1,000,000 pounds is a lot of money. Ahem. (Coyly) Maybe. (Coyly)
    Churchill to Woman: Madam, would you sleep with me for 10 pounds?
    Woman to Churchill: Sir! What kind of a woman do you think I am?? (Indignantly)
    Churchill to Woman: Madam, we’ve already settled that. Now we’re just haggling over price.

  37. Geoffrey says:

    Another reminder to get our passports in order… before it becomes illegal to do so!

  38. Kathleen10 says:

    I don’t know what kind of “father” you are frjim, but no true father would think the most abortion crazy president ever is preferable to Romney. Obama is more than a fan, he’s gaga over abortions. Loves em! They are for everyone everywhere, all across the globe if possible, to prevent the “punishment” of having a child. He’s for em, and if the child darn it, survives the abortion, he votes to give that child NO care, nothing. Toss in trash and forget it. Oh unless it can be divvied up and used for something?
    And while I would prefer “Trop 50” (delicious!), the OJ can is not far off. I would prefer NO president to the one we have. I’d rather see a cabinet or some ot
    her configuration, to the scary situation we currently enjoy. He is a NIGHTMARE, and the worst part? Americans are still largely clueless! Most people have NO idea, or are too young, radical, or disinterested, to care, that they don’t care.
    Now he is busy stirring up race riots over what is stacking up to be a case of self-defense. He shoots his mouth off first and retracts if he has to later. (remember the professor gates insanity?) This situation may get real serious before poor Mr. Zimmerman is chased out of his hole. I am not sure with all the rhetoric and the mobs, if anything can save Mr. Zimmerman, even facts. The pound of flesh must be had. Ahhh…remember the good old days, when race riots happened, they were addressed and abated by a president and administration who didn’t want to encourage them?
    Those days are over.
    Our Constitution and Bill of Rights have been trampled. What Bill of Rights, where…
    And you aren’t sure if Romney is worse than Obama? Come on now….

  39. Kathleen10 says:

    I must be lost. It seems a fair question to me. He might call himself Bill or something.

  40. JonPatrick says:

    I think we need to all take a deep breath. Yes, Obama being re-elected will be a Bad Thing primarily for 2 reasons: appointment of federal judges, and the non-repeal of ObamaCare. However, he will only have a year or so to act freely (and even then he most likely have to deal with a Republican House and possibly the Senate also). Then the 2014 congressional election kick in, followed by the maneuvering to prepare for 2016. The Democrats will be concerned about someone having to run on Obama’s legacy which by then will be tarnished as the chickens start coming home to roost, for example the tax increases to pay for health care. From 2014 on it will all be about who is running in 2016 and Obama will be the ignored lame duck. So I don’t expect any radical changes over the next 4 years even if the worst happens. Nor do I expect a golden age to be ushered in by a Romney win. This is the world we are dealing with and we know who is really in charge there.

  41. Darren says:

    I’d vote for a smelly crushed clove of garlic as th 3rd party candidate against Obama.

    I fear Obama, if he wins re-election, will eventually believe the country NEEDS him, and that the term limit on the presidency must be repealed. He’ll pull a Bloomberg and force the ammendment to repeal the 22nd ammendment on congress and the rest of us so his dictatorship can begin.

    Or am I just paranoid?

  42. Supertradmum says:

    He will start a war in order to get re-elected, if that is the only way. The man lacks integrity. Wake up, World.

  43. Phil_NL says:

    A ‘wag the dog’ scenario would in fact make sure that Obama will loose, as his leftie base would stay home. I’d say the far greater danger is Obama not going to war, and letting the mullah’s have nukes.
    Not to say we disagree on the crucial point: Obama would do just about anything to get re-elected, morality doesn’t enter the equation.

    With respect, but there’s a hint of paranoia there indeed. Obama has no chance at all ever to get a constitutional amendment through. Zero. Nor would he be able to overturn the constitution completely. What would be possible, however, is a Putin – Medvedev scenario, where he finds another crony to do his 3rd and 4th terms for him . Subtlety isn’t Obama’s style, but he can and will learn, as that would be a far, far easier route.

    Likewise, modern day revolutions aren’t done with tanks in the streets, but with lawyers, judges and the media.

  44. pm125 says:

    Phil_NL: In a nutshell, you have put together a perfectly reasonable description summarizing the what, when, how, and who of all the steamrolling outrages wherever attention or experience is born – like an orchestra with conductors of cacophony.

  45. wmeyer says:

    Phil_NL: With respect, I would submit that O can indeed overturn the Constitution, at least those portions which should limit him. All that prevents such a thing is the power of Congress to impeach and remove him, and that is unlikely even to be initiated.

  46. ContraMundum says:


    You mean like the War Powers Act (which itself is of dubious constitutionality, not because it restricts the President, but because it takes the power to declare war away from the Congress)?

    It’s nothing new for the Constitution to be ignored. Both parties are guilty of that, which is one of the reasons I don’t buy the argument that Romney would appoint strict interpretationists to the Supreme Court. How much of Bush’s “War on Terror” would have been found constitutional by someone honestly comparing it to the Constitution?

    Ugh. This is going to be ugly, like choosing between Goering and Himmler. I can understand those who would choose Goering; he had more good traits and fewer bad traits than Himmler. At the same time, perhaps you could understand my objection to both characters.

  47. wmeyer says:

    ContraMundum: I am not blessing either party. In my view, things went off the rails with the passage of the Interstate Commerce Act, and that foul piece of legislation has been the foundation on which most other violations of the Constitution have been built.

    We are in for a very unpleasant period in our history, no matter who is elected. The difference is that if O wins a second term, I doubt there will be light at the end of the tunnel in my lifetime. If he is defeated, there may be.

  48. irishgirl says:

    Yes, that face in the graphic is Senator Charles Schumer. I wish that there was somebody who could compete against him and win; I can’t stand the guy. When I had TV and saw his face on the evening news I’d shout out, ‘You’re a pompous [donkey]!’ (Yeah, I used the ‘other’ word for ‘donkey’, but I want to be on Father Z’s good side here)
    Obama shouldn’t brag too hard and think he’s got his re-election ‘in the bag’. A lot of things can happen between now and November, both here in the US and in the world at large.
    I just hope and pray he gets defeated-by a landslide!
    Why are there no honest, decent people in political office today? Why is it that ‘politics’ always equals ‘corruption’? Why do politicians boast in their campaigns that they will be pro-life (for one example), and then sell out the pro-life cause down the tubes once they get into office? Where are the young people in the ‘good’ Catholic colleges who brag that they want to ‘change the culture’?
    The ‘culture’ is rotten to the core! And it’s going to take an awful long time to pare and cut out that rottenness!
    God help our nation….and the world! Lord, please come…and soon!

  49. Phil_NL says:

    I’m pretty confident that we’re talking hypotheticals here, not just because I expect Obama to be defeated, but also because in the unfortunate circumstance that he is re-elected, he’ll go for the easy route and let someone else be the figurehead. That said, let’s explore for a minute how hard it is to flagrantly ignore the 22nd amendment and get Obama a 3rd term:

    * option 1. would be simply repealing the amendment through ordinary means. That needs another amendment, which is zero chance at all while R’s hold a third of the seats plus one in either House or Senate, not to mention ratification by the states. That route is dead.
    * There is a loophole in a constitutional convention, which has basically zero rules laid out for it, and could therefore, perhaps, be hijacked by Ds. But even if that would happen, we’d have the following:
    – elections are run by the states, not the federal government. In other words, if a state would deem a Obama candidacy for a third term unconstitutional, it can simply refuse to put him on the ballot.
    – Assuming the SCOTUS is usurped as well and wouldn’t support that state, then Obama would still need to enforce the decision. The only way to do that would be to declare that the state is in insurrection, yet even such a declaration wouldn’t get him very far: he’d need the military to enforce that.
    – Given that unlawful orders aren’t valid orders, I’m sure that, should it ever get that far, a substantial part of the military would simply refuse to obey that unlawful order. In fact, I wouldn’t be suprised if the vast majority of the officers would resign their commision, and wouldn’t be surprised either if the militia of those states would suddenly see loads of volunteers.

    Conclusion: at the end of the day, the only ways to wholly subvert the constitution are the have everyone of influence on your side, or to prepare for civil war round two – with the only difference that one party would have a generations-long hatred of anything military, be outgunned at least 10 to 1, and so on. It makes for an interesting fireside chat, but not really for realism.

    Again, it would be far, far easier to put an Obama clone in the White House. But that is constitutional, at least till Congress impeaches. And I grant you that, they’re reluctant to do so – but only because they don’t have to, as they count on the SCOTUS to void BHO’s most blatant violations.

  50. Laura98 says:

    We used to laugh at my step-grandfather moving to Rarotonga in the Cook Islands, because he wanted to get away from it all… I’m beginning to think he was the smart one.

  51. SKAY says:

    Obama is now trying to cover up his private revalation/promise to Medvedev/Putin by making jokes about it.
    Selling the country out for your idiology is nothing to laugh about-but. of course, his voters are either that gullible or are fellow travlers.
    I will vote for the Republican nominee–voting for a third party candidate will help put Obama back in office. As others have said–this is also about judges and Supreme Court nominations. The Obamacare case they are looking at now points out why that is important.
    I do agree with JKnott–they do intend to try to steal the election. That is why Soros contributed large amounts to the Democrat Party -hoping to help elect Democrat Secretary of States in every state. He has had some success. Holder going after state voter ID laws is very a very transparent
    Obama recently had a meeting with Democrat governors to work out ways to go around Congress in order to further his agenda. We will probably see those ideas soon enough.
    I think that if he is re elected he and his administration will move very fast to consolidate power. They will completely ignore the Constitution as we have already seen in this first term.
    If you know Obama’s history–at least the part that he has not managed to hide–you understand
    where he and those behind him are trying to take this country. I think one of their goals will be to try to take away our sovereignty as a nation and to do that they have to weaken us as a nation.
    That is whay his overheard conversation is important.

  52. Centristian says:

    “I’d vote for a smelly crushed clove of garlic as th 3rd party candidate against Obama.”

    Well, okay, but just keep in mind, if we vote for a 3rd party candidate against Obama, we’ll get Obama.

  53. catholicmidwest says:

    Did any of you listen to the Supreme Court arguments? Do some of you really realize what’s happening to this country? I wonder.

    Some of you are like a man being chased by a bear, who is artfully & slowly examining every tree in the woods one by one because he can’t find one he likes enough to climb. Guess what. He’s going to get eaten.

  54. catholicmidwest says:

    If enough people vote for a 3rd party candidate or no candidate, Obama will be re-elected. Count on it.

    Don’t let the best be the enemy of the good. Don’t pout just because you can’t get everything you want when you want it. I can’t believe I’m telling ADULTS this.

  55. Sodalis says:

    frjim4321: “Along with around half the other Catholic voters I will most likely be deciding that the prospect of a Romney presidency is far more alarming than a second term for the incumbent. And with regard to abortion being the “gold standard” for many conservative voters, I tend to be more interested in the likely number of abortions rather than the anti-choice rhetoric of the RNC anointed, particularly given the degree to which his opinion on the subject continues to change.”

    Reading your words, frjim4321, I was reminded of something Archbishop Fulton Sheen had written in an essay entitled “A Plea for Intolerance” which is included among several an excellent book of his entitled “Old Errors and New Labels.”

    “What is tolerance? Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience towards evil, and a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. But what is more important than the definition is the field of its application. The important point here is this: Tolerance only applies to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons. Tolerance applies to the erring; Intolerance to the error.
    What has just been said here will clarify that what was said at the beginning of this chapter, namely, that America is suffering not so much from intolerance, which is bigotry, as it is from tolerance, which is indifference to truth and error, and a philosophical nonchalance that has been interpreted as broad-mindedness.”

    Anti-Choice sounds remarkably close to its original translation of Anti-Truth, Father.

    Please don’t be like the priests that he refers to earlier in his essay when he says: “Many a modern preacher is less concerned with preaching Christ and Him crucified than he is with his popularity with his congregation. A want of intellectual backbone makes him straddle the ox of truth and the ass of nonsense, paying compliments to Catholics because of ‘their great organization’ and to sexologists because of their ‘honest challenge to the youth of this generation.'”

    It goes on, Father, but it is quite long. Thankfully, the good Archbishop left us with many good words of advice. Among them, include:

    “Who is going to save our Church? Not our Bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to the people. You have the minds, the eyes, the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops like bishops and your religious act like religious”

  56. ContraMundum says:


    So, if you live in New York or California and vote for a 3rd party, you’re throwing your vote away, but if you live in those same states and vote for Romney, you’re casting your vote responsibly. Even though Romney has as much chance of winning California as a turnip.

    There are very few places where the vote is not utterly predictable: Florida, Ohio, maybe Pennsylvania. If you live in the Deep South your state is going Republican, regardless. If you live in the Northeast, your state is going Democrat, regardless. There’s no conceivable reason why voters in those states should not vote their conscience; their votes won’t really change anything.

    What about the people who live in these hotly contested states, then? I would say they should also vote their consciences. If they think Romney is a good choice, by all means they should vote for him. If, on the other hand, they think he is an evil choice, only less evil than Obama, but that there is a good choice in a 3rd party, they should vote for that 3rd party candidate. If you choose evil over good, you will get (surprise!) evil. This would be a powerful message to send to the Republicans that they can’t keep sending up unacceptable candidates.

    I’m afraid that Obama will probably be re-elected, and that he will be much bolder to damage this country in his 2nd term. I’m also afraid, though, that if Romney is elected, he will simply move to freeze things at the status quo he inherits from Obama, so that the Democrats can pick up exactly where they left off when they get back into the White House. I do not trust his pro-life commitment to be anything more than a political necessity, and one where he will certainly not expend political capital. He does not favor a return to “don’t ask/don’t tell”. I question any claim that he is more conservative than Walter Mondale was when he ran against Reagan.

    “But if Obama is elected, all the bad things that happened in the movie 2012 will come to pass!” You know what, if we can’t afford to lose an election, we’ve already lost the country. If each painful breath of a patient might be his last, you can bet he won’t be there the next day — one of those breaths WILL be his last. He’s just too sick. Either Uncle Sam has the strength to get through another ugly 4 years, or we might as well be picking out a coffin for him.

  57. Centristian says:


    “Even though Romney has as much chance of winning California as a turnip.”

    Uh…it’s hardly unheard of for Republicans to win in California; you opine as though such a thing has never happened before. I’m not sure where that comes from, to be honest.

    If voters who want President Obama out of office either stay home or vote for a third party candidate in significant numbers, then President Obama will win. You can think what you want about Romney (I happen to disagree entirely…this is a candidate who, for one thing, has promised to repeal the HHS mandate immediately), but the fact remains if those who want to put President Obama out of a job don’t vote at all, or cast their ballots for candidates who haven’t got a snowball’s chance in hades instead of for his principal opponent, then the President will win re-election. Plain and simple. Now, that might not mean the end of the world. But he will win.

    “I’m afraid that Obama will probably be re-elected…”

    Yes, me too. And it will be thanks to Americans who are against him who either refuse to vote at all because they’re either too perfectionalistic or because they’re afraid of the boogeyman, or who vote for a third party candidate.

    “…and that he will be much bolder to damage this country in his 2nd term.”

    Yes. Yes he will be.

    “I’m also afraid, though, that if Romney is elected, he will simply move to freeze things at the status quo he inherits from Obama, so that the Democrats can pick up exactly where they left off when they get back into the White House. ”

    I have no such fears and I don’t believe there is any reason to harbor such fears. I also don’t believe that the Democrats have any such hopes. I have no sense at all that the GOP is all geared up, ready, and raring to become placeholders for the Democrats in 2016.

    “He does not favor a return to “don’t ask/don’t tell”.”

    I’ll be frank about that one: who cares? That isn’t an issue worth handing the election to Obama over in a fit of despair with respect to what a President Romney might or might not do about it. If gay men and women serve in the military openly, it doesn’t affect my religious liberty. It doesn’t affect my rights. It doesn’t put Catholic hospitals in jeopardy. Homosexuality does not preclude honorable service in the military, in any event. It doesn’t preclude bravery, competence, or heroism, either. Finally, when it comes right down to it, what difference does it make if homosexual servicemen serve openly or in secret? Are they any less gay because they’re not telling anyone? What, exactly, is the glimmering Catholic virtue involved in “Don’t ask, don’t tell” that we would require promise of a restoration of it from a political candidate?

    “You know what, if we can’t afford to lose an election, we’ve already lost the country. If each painful breath of a patient might be his last, you can bet he won’t be there the next day — one of those breaths WILL be his last. He’s just too sick. Either Uncle Sam has the strength to get through another ugly 4 years, or we might as well be picking out a coffin for him.”

    I’m afraid I simply don’t share your rosey outlook regarding the future. Romney ’12. ;^)

Comments are closed.