First Lady Michelle Obama, State Dept. Honor Egyptian 9/11 Fan

[Prodigal_Son1]

So I would humbly ask you to put aside your pride, and listen (not to me) but to the same Wisdom I have painfully come to hear as well: The Truth in it’s fullness from our timeless Catholic faith.

The above is why we need to end the discussion. I don’t see how anything can be discussed when I seem to be the primary topic, or the topic must revert back to me personally.

I would never insinuate that someone, who states they are Catholic, does not listen to the Truth from His Church, or that they might somehow not be Catholic enough. I find those remarks insulting, to say the least. I have tried to give the intent the benefit of the doubt, but it really seems to be semantics, or a game of words with questionable intentions.

You speak of ‘tough love’ but I can’t find that teaching in scriptures, or supported by the Church. ‘Tough love’ does not include belittling, condescension, name calling, or verbal judgments, especially when being delivered third party. That is not directly to the party you seek to provide ‘fraternal correction’ to as your first attempt.

Mat 18:15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.
Mat 18:16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.

Either way, I don’t see it as constructive and will bow out.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I would never insinuate that someone, who states they are Catholic, does not listen to the Truth from His Church, or that they might somehow not be Catholic enough. I find those remarks insulting, to say the least.

Actually you insinuated just that on another thread:

It’s an emotional issue, more so for some than others, even though people who voice in favor of controls is accused of acting on emotions. If the guidance is truly moral, it’s frustrating to see you might be on the wrong side.

Another possibility, could be for secular reasons, which is the rejection of any, and all, controls. The Cardinal has not called for an eradication of guns, but we see the argument against controls presented as if it is all, or nothing. That’s not the case, and probably the reason there is such a significant majority of people who are not opposed to universal background checks.

The true differences can only be addressed by those who convey the ‘anger’ or ‘extreme dislike.’

Your post reminded me of a similar observation a friend made once, and has nothing to do with this discussion, other than the similarities. A friend was watching a Protestant preacher on television and noted that most Protestant preachers ‘raised their voices’ and became ‘red faced,’ with veins showing, while giving their sermons. Then he spoke of watching the Mass, on EWTN or in person, and the calmness in which Catholic clergy gave their sermons.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

You speak of ‘tough love’ but I can’t find that teaching in scriptures, or supported by the Church. ‘Tough love’ does not include belittling, condescension, name calling, or verbal judgments, especially when being delivered third party. That is not directly to the party you seek to provide ‘fraternal correction’ to as your first attempt.

Apparently you refuse to see the scriptural and theological evidence I just cited.

It was not my intention to belittle, condescend, or call you names. And I have no idea what you mean by “delivered third party.”

I apologize for any offense or confusion.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

You speak of ‘tough love’ but I can’t find that teaching in scriptures, or supported by the Church.

Apparently you’ve never heard of St. Anthony of Padua.

Otherwise known as “The Hammer Of The Heretics”.

He was famous for administering Fraternal Correction in public.

 

[Darryl1958]

The bottom line seems to be that this woman who loves Hitler and hates Jews is not going to be honored by the First Lady.

It would have been worthwhile to honor the woman for her pro-democratic sufferings, but it is good that Michelle found out who she actually was before it was too late.

The one critical concern is whether or not this woman represents the norm of the pro-democracy movement in Egypt, or the abherration.

Since Bush issued his proclamation about the religion of peace, our desperate search for Muslims that we can align ourselves with continues.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

The bottom line seems to be that this woman who loves Hitler and hates Jews is not going to be honored by the First Lady.

It would have been worthwhile to honor the woman for her pro-democratic sufferings, but it is good that Michelle found out who she actually was before it was too late.

The one critical concern is whether or not this woman represents the norm of the pro-democracy movement in Egypt, or the abherration.

Since Bush issued his proclamation about the religion of peace, our desperate search for Muslims that we can align ourselves with continues.

Deflecting blame away from Michelle and the Democrats history of enabling jihadists? And then folding Bush into the fray by blaming him because he spoke and acted like a typical Useful Idiot Democrat?

Nice.

I see what you did there.

Apparently the Left never gets tired of flogging that Bush dead-horse into the ground for political cover.

But the real issue here is the Democrat’s love for their big inefficient bureaucratic leviathan:

Samira Ibrahim And The State Department: Your Tax Dollars At Work

"What’s left is for American taxpayers to demand the State Department reimburse us for her trip to the United States by firing the boobs who okayed it.

Why is this fiasco Miss Ibrahim’s fault? Why blame a Jew-loathing, Hitler-quoting, terrorist-supporting America-hater for being offered an all-expenses-paid trip to the Great Satan and saying, hey, why not? The screw-up here is entirely on the part of the world’s most lavishly funded bureaucracy. How many layers of pen-pushers did Miss Ibrahim’s honor waft up through from the US Embassy in Cairo to the State Department to the White House without anyone checking anything? Why couldn’t the US Government find someone to do five minutes of Arabic Googling?"

-Mark Steyn

 

[Darryl1958]

Deflecting blame away from Michelle and the Democrats history of enabling jihadists? And then folding Bush into the fray by blaming him because he spoke and acted like a typical Useful Idiot Democrat?

Not really.
Reading through the thread, most of which turned out to be mush that had nothing to do with the OP, it was revealed that the awarding of this honor to this woman was being ‘postponed’.

Nice.

I see what you did there.

No you didn’t see.

Apparently the Left never gets tired of flogging that Bush dead-horse into the ground for political cover.

The Left doesn’t usually note how Obama is often following the same policy as Bush did in his desparate and well-meaning attempt to get the message across the war against terrorists was not a war against Islam.
With the Obama administration accepting Muslim Brotherhood associates into positions of power in Washington, and going on apology tours, Bush’s well-meaning and necessary gesture has been twisted into an absurdity of America being in the wrong, and Islamist being patronized as victims.

Thankfully, there are some limits to that regression into the mea culpa of the American left against the American right. That was not apparent at the beginning of the thread, but reading into the thread, that evidence came to light.

But the real issue here is the Democrat’s love for their big inefficient bureaucratic leviathan:

No. The real issue here in this thread is that the American government was about to honor a rabid anti-American Islamist for her role in the fight against Mubarak, and thankfully they rescinded that honor when it was found out just how despicable the ideas of that woman were.

 

[Darryl1958]

I am all for the people who decided to honor this woman being fired though.
It would be a useful sequestration that would not cause any American suffering in the least, and indeed would make the American government much better for being rid of that dead weight.

 

[TEPO]

I never heard love qualified by Christ. I always understood it as ‘unconditional.’ If they ask a mile, go two.

So when my child steals a candybar, I should go buy him two?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Not really.
Reading through the thread, most of which turned out to be mush that had nothing to do with the OP, it was revealed that the awarding of this honor to this woman was being ‘postponed’.

Yes really.

The entire point of this issue is the misguided and reckless nature on this Administration and the inherent imbecilic liberal progressive ideology of the mega bureaucracies it promotes to govern every facet of it’s ever-expanding reach.

And a more accurate (and thus complete) criticism of Bush, is that his “compassionate” conservatism was nothing more than progressive liberalism at a slower pace than the modern Fabian socialists would like.

The Left doesn’t usually note how Obama is often following the same policy as Bush did in his desparate and well-meaning attempt to get the message across the war against terrorists was not a war against Islam.

That’s not well meaning, that’s simply enabling the enemy with liberal progressive tactics born out of moral relativism.

Terrorism IS a war with Islam.

With the Obama administration accepting Muslim Brotherhood associates into positions of power in Washington, and going on apology tours, Bush’s well-meaning and necessary gesture has been twisted into an absurdity of America being in the wrong, and Islamist being patronized as victims.

Bush was simply following the Democrats play book. The Obama Admin is flaunting it.

Thankfully, there are some limits to that regression into the mea culpa of the American left against the American right. That was not apparent at the beginning of the thread, but reading into the thread, that evidence came to light.

What does that even mean?

No. The real issue here in this thread is that the American government was about to honor a rabid anti-American Islamist for her role in the fight against Mubarak, and thankfully they rescinded that honor when it was found out just how despicable the ideas of that woman were.

No, the real issue here is that this rabid anti-American Islamist was not only NOT vetted, but that there was no instinctive compulsion in the Left dominated bureaucracies to even do so. And the only reason it was corrected at all is because it was exposed.

The original problem here is not just inefficiency of this Administration - it’s the underlying political ideology that ultimately motivates and governs it.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I am all for the people who decided to honor this woman being fired though.
It would be a useful sequestration that would not cause any American suffering in the least, and indeed would make the American government much better for being rid of that dead weight.

You applaud them for honoring her?

 

[Darryl1958]

You applaud them for honoring her?

I was agreeing with Steyn.

bye bye.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I was agreeing with Steyn.

bye bye.

Congratulations.

Hello.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Go through with it as if nothing has happened, in which case those Americans who actually care about 9/11 and anti-Semitism (I think we can agree that this would be a huge majority of Americans).

Henry Ford received numerous honors even though he was probably the most famous, and public, anti-semite in American history (Walt Disney comes in a close second). People have to use their noodles and understand that an award or honor isn’t an endorsement of everything the recipient has ever done or believes.

 

[jilly4ski]

You applaud them for honoring her?

I think you need to slow down and reread what Darryl has been writing, it is really derailing this thread. First you mistook his sentence about pro democratic (as in democracy) for the Democratic party. Then you didn’t finish reading the sentence about e how he was for the people who approved of the honor in the first place fired, not that he approved of the honor.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I think you need to slow down and reread what Darryl has been writing, it is really derailing this thread. First you mistook his sentence about pro democratic (as in democracy) for the Democratic party. Then you didn’t finish reading the sentence about e how he was for the people who approved of the honor in the first place fired, not that he approved of the honor.

His statement was clumsily written and open to several interpretations. I like to have a clear understanding before I respond. I asked him for clarification. And he refused.

Perhaps you should slow down and reread the dialogue.

Thank you.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I am all for the people who decided to honor this woman being fired though.

This reads as if he’s all for the people who decided to honored this woman. The woman being fired.

See what I mean jilly4ski?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

First you mistook his sentence about pro democratic (as in democracy) for the Democratic party.

No actually, I didn’t mistake his use of ‘democratic’ for Democratic.

I understood his use of the word as an indication of a general political principal as opposed to the Partisan Political Party in the U.S.

 

[jilly4ski]

This reads as if he’s all for the people who decided to honored this woman. The woman being fired.

See what I mean jilly4ski?

 

[SamH]

I am all for the people who decided to honor this woman being fired though.
It would be a useful sequestration that would not cause any American suffering in the least, and indeed would make the American government much better for being rid of that dead weight.

How do you fire Michelle?