Posted on 01/21/2014 6:13:59 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
USA Today has the announcement that President Obama will meet with Pope Francis next month, and hopes the Pontiff will prove useful to his political agenda:
President Obama will meet with Pope Francis on March 27, capping a European trip that will take him to the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy.
"The president looks forward to discussing with Pope Francis their shared commitment to fighting poverty and growing inequality," said a statement from White House press secretary Jay Carney.
Sounds like a swell afternoon! Maybe President Obama can show the Pope some photos from his luxury vacations, or his wife's protracted holiday getaway in Hawaii, or her star-studded millionaires-only birthday bash, before they settle down to the serious talk about income inequality.
This could become a real test of Pope Francis' "strange new respect" from the Left. There are a number of topics he could be very stern with President Obama about....
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
If I were the Pope, I’d keep a close eye on my wallet until after Barry leaves.
Because abortion is legal in the USA and ethical according to Barry
Sounds like Barry should do the same they seem like birds of a feather to me and they are both a little off in my book.
Only the conceited think that this time it will work because I can do it better.
Only the foolish would exchange their freedom for an inferior system.
So-called "Progressives," who first described themselves as "liberals," though not in the classical sense, have been attempting to "transform" America for well over a hundred years now from its founding principles which brought about a place of refuge for the poor and oppressed from all over the world, and where individual freedom allowed the poorest opportunities to achieve and become great benefactors of others.
Now, so-called "progressives," through their purported efforts by legislation and controlling policies have destroyed opportunity and increased the gap between rich and poor, which they now use as an excuse for more control and loss of freedom.
From the Liberty Fund Library is "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, excerpted final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
Sigh. Strong feelings of anti-Pope here.
Reagan worked with Pope John Paul II and ushered in a radical shift toward freedom in this world.
If Pope Francis decides to work with obastard, the results will not be the same...
Obama to Discuss 'Communism' with Pope Francis
Obama to Discuss 'Victimhood Mentality' with Pope Francis
Pick your phrasing it's all the same.
Hint for Pope Francis-Holy Water.
will Bambi be bringing along that deaf interpreter?
You were saying....
Why? Because Obama wants to use him and this Pope is extremely gullible.
I originally thought the Pope was being very canny, but the more I see of him, the more I realize that he trusts too much, he doesn’t like doing the hard things and he doesn’t like confrontation, and he’s hoping that if he’s just nice, everybody will be nice to him and to the Church.
He’s not evil and not heterodox, and I think he believes the Faith and genuinely wishes well for the Church and the world; but I honestly don’t think he knows what he is fighting against. He talks about the Devil a lot, but I’m not sure that he’d ever be willing to look for the devil in a leftist government or leftwing public figure. After all, the big liberal claim is that they mean so well that nothing they do wrong can possibly be held against them, no matter how many millions of people they kill.
I predict that the Pope really gives it to Obortion O!
I would prefer a snub, but I don’t think Pope Francis would do that.
FWIW, Pope Francis has no income.
Is Obama going to share his income with poor Pope Francis?
That’s like saying Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton or some member of a royal family has no income. True, but not really...
They all have large incomes. Provided by taxpayers and book publishers and the corporations that have them on their boards of directors.
The Pope has sworn a vow of poverty.
Yet he lives in a palace with servants, chefs, mercenary guards and thousands of other people at his beck and call. I think you’d have a hard time convincing the normal person on the streets of Macau, Mumbai, Milwaukee, Mendoza, Mombasa or Munich that he’s poor. No disrespect intended, you understand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.