Margaret Thatcher, Nelson Mandela, George Washington, Rush Limbaugh and the Chinese.

09 Dec

960240_715986755078515_1785420498_n   Today I learned that the lobotomized can communicate with humans whose brains are full functioning . Our study selected an individual who has become indignant because  the flag of our country didn’t honor the passing of Margaret Thatcher by flying at half staff, but did so to honor Mandela. A revered person in life and in death. The nightmare like state that our subjects dwell in is borne of an extreme radical conservatism that gives no recognition to anything other than uninformed, concentrated and reptilian prejudice. And thus in reaction to this mind set, Mandela’s arise.

Lets compare. Mandela was in prison for 27 yrs because he was a threat to the government of South Africa. He was a political prisoner. Thatcher, not so much. Mandela represented the oppressed majority of his country. Thatcher again; not so much. Upon his release from prision, Mandela was elected President of his country and not only unified it but brought forth the conservative values of freedom and free market capitalism. A capitalism I might add he modeled after the current reigning capitalists, the Chinese. What an irony. From Mao to wow in a few decades. What would John Lennon say.

But lets forget Lennon for a moment and focus on those to the right of Gingrich and Cruz. Two icons of radical conservatism who are clear thinking enough to praise Mandela and honor his accomplishments. They recognize his values of liberty and prosperity are the same as theirs.  But I’ll bet you all didn’t know it was possible; but these two nit wits have been excoriated by the even more extreme because they recognized the contribution Mandela made to mankind in terms of social, political and economic equality. The despicable, yahoo right as it is today: stuck in a block of concrete and released from a time warp, fails to see the similarity between Mandela and our very own George Washington. Both rebelling against tyranny. Both wanting freedom and unencumbered fair opportunity.  And both labeled terrorists. Tough position for the right to be in. Glorifying one and calling the other a murderer and a communist. Whatever communism means. And in a new low for the ability to pander, Rick Santorum compared the ACA to Apartheid. He must get his ideas from the same congressperson who casually suggested nuking Iran with the same nonchalance as one would exhibit ordering french fries. I mean freedom fries. Sorry. I forgot to hate the French. Or is it potatoes. But what I really hate are beets. Yuck!

John Beohner has become a professor of women studies. What a novel concept. A Republican studying women and not through a vaginal scope or peep hole. (Pun intended.)  I mean any guy who cries at the opening of an envelope and brags about a lifetime spent in bars surely  has some getting laid skills. But in his case, I guess not. So it’s Limbug to the rescue. The 4 times married childless authority on how to endear people of the female persuasion stated this today. And did so with all the confidence of a Vegas slot machine: “When addressing a woman, say to her Please stop your breasts from looking at my eyes”.  Yuck Yuck and Guffaw. If I was female and someone said this to me, I’d tazer their balls. Tiny and useless as his are, it just might shock some sense into the obese walrus. Next thing you know, the new Republican slogan will be “Women! Just like real people”.

Ted Cruz has a coloring book out. One, who would buy it other than people who hate kids and two; why was it created in the first place? Have you seen it? Not only is it ghastly, it’s propaganda. You know, what Cruz excels at and at the same time claims he’s on a mission from god to expose. Amazon should offer a 3 for one package this holiday season. Cruz, Limbaugh and Palin. Flesh eating stooges make for great stocking stuffers!

How about Ralph Hudgens? The Georgia Insurance Commissioner who: speaking  to a group of Thorazinized patients stated that pre-existing health conditions are the same as post-facto collision insurance. Predictably, his toothless audience laughed moronically.  huh HAW! BANG! Halt or I’ll shoot!! Remember kids, when talking to women about conservatives and the Republican party emphasize that menstruation is an uninsured medical condition. And if you get pregnant, you are really fucked.  Pun intended.

Again with Limbaugh. Seems he knows all about Popeing and the real Jesus. You know, the one who wrote the constitution and says guns are godly? Seems that the Pope is a Marxist. Except Marx was a Jew so now I’m really confused. Especially since someones birthday is coming up. This Pope guy needs to make up his mind. I need to go Christmas shopping and this back and forth is a time waster. At this rate, the confederacy errr conservatives will become a regional party with no shot of winning national elections. Which is really sad since they do such a good job convincing women, Blacks, Hispanics and younger people to vote for them. After all, they just let everyone know that Rosa Parks single handedly ended racism. Better tell Bill the news.

And now for religion. Quoted from Collective Evolution. (I thought this was pretty cool.)

Pope Francis recently made quite the stir after commenting on the ideological purity in religion, particularly with regards to Christianity, claiming that such ideological extremism is dangerous to the entire world. This statement is pretty massive in respect to the current state of Christianity.  During a daily Mass in late October, the Pope spoke about economic inequality and anti-gay/anti-abortion opinions which have been at the forefront of American Christianity for the longest time.

According to a report from Radio Vatican, the Pope was quoted as stated the following:

“In ideologies there is not Jesus: in his tenderness, his love, his meekness. And ideologies are rigid, always. Of every sign: rigid. And when a Christian becomes a disciple of the ideology, he has lost the faith: he is no longer a disciple of Jesus, he is a disciple of this attitude of thought… For this reason Jesus said to them: ‘You have taken away the key of knowledge.’ The knowledge of Jesus is transformed into an ideological and also moralistic knowledge, because these close the door with many requirements. The faith becomes ideology and ideology frightens, ideology chases away the people, distances, distances the people and distances of the Church of the people. But it is a serious illness, this of ideological Christians. It is an illness, but it is not new, eh?”

Pope Francis’ statement is a radical one to say the least; no Pope prior to his reign has ever talked about Christianity in such a light. The beliefs around homosexuality, abortion, and contraception have held strong within the religion for many years now, and have been the cause of much protest and disagreement within North American society. Pope Francis suggests that the war on abortion has gone too far, and that homosexuals should not be hated in the way that is promoted by the extreme ideals of the Christian Right. He also states that this extremism has damaged religion today by abandoning the true teachings of Jesus, turning many away from its following.

The question begs, what could be the reason Pope Francis is suddenly speaking out against the theology in a way that rejects its deepest dogmas?  Perhaps the goal of Pope Francis is to transform the rigidity of a religion that has been so established in its views. Maybe the Pope is trying to attract a wider audience by promoting more liberal beliefs after the controversy that has plagued the Vatican the past few years, with allegations of pedophilia within the hierarchy circles and the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI earlier this year. It could be that Pope Francis is the radical leader who is going to make some changes within the archaic traditions of Christianity.

What is clear is that this is a major moment in the history of religion, and the words of Pope Francis could be the spark for a large divide within the religious communities. What do you think of Pope Francis’s words?

– See more at:


Posted by on December 9, 2013 in Uncategorized


7 responses to “Margaret Thatcher, Nelson Mandela, George Washington, Rush Limbaugh and the Chinese.

  1. rustybrown2012

    December 11, 2013 at 1:45 pm

    Regarding Francis, talk is cheap. What do I think of his words? I think he is very good at PR. IMO you’re overstating the importance of mere words; what actionable reforms have been implemented or even called for? Look carefully at what he actually says in those supposedly revolutionary statements about gays, atheists, etc. – he parses his kind words very carefully so as to not advocate any real change in doctrine. No, Francis just seems revolutionary compared to the last pope, who was not only a major douche but also not nearly as media friendly.

    Francis, with his inclusive, ingratiating declarations is just trying to bring new people into the flock while clinging to the same old destructive policies of the Catholic church. It surprises me that so many liberals are taken in by this. Just a new boss, same as the old:

    • mitchethekid

      December 11, 2013 at 8:51 pm

      Yeah, except the wack out right is accusing him of being a liberal and a Marxist. Consider it. Christians against Christ.
      The implosion has begun. Thank the lord!

    • ricorun

      December 20, 2013 at 3:01 pm

      I remember many times locking horns with my more conservative bretheren about the meaning of the word “marriage”. These conversations occurred even as it became obvious that more and more of them were comfortable with the idea that a civil union (or even a sacred union) between a same sex couple should be the legal equivalent of marriage between a heterosexual couple. Still, there was something about the word “marriage”, specifically the “rightness” of the religious context in which it was used (pun intended).

      Now I find myself on the other side of the argument about “the importance of mere words”. Well, kinda.

      What I mean is, I get the idea that “talk is cheap”. What I disagree about is the idea that Francis’ words are just cheap — or that he is just talking. After all, in a surprisingly short time his “just words” have made a powerful impact on attitudes within the RC Catholic community worldwide. And it’s not just his words, as his actions have made clear. You, Rusty, seem to be unsatisfied that Francis has been unable to turn the battleship that is the RC Church on a dime in his brief tenure in office. I, on the other hand, marvel at how hard he’s turned the rudder, not to mention how favorable the response has been to his change in tack, both inside and outside the church. To me, his is a fundamental change, not just words. To me, both his words and actions go to the heart of what it means to walk in the path of Christ. As a member of the RC Church who has spent the last few decades at odds with the doctrine coming down from the Vatican, Francis has been a breath of fresh air. It’s not just words, you can feel it in your bones.

      • mitchethekid

        December 20, 2013 at 5:28 pm

        My god or my gosh, I agree. And I am saying this as a skeptical Jew. Who knows little about Jewish tradition other than I can live my life as I want and (supposedly) has a free pass into a speculated heaven.
        I hope it’s a place with real pizza and shrimp.

  2. rustybrown2012

    December 20, 2013 at 9:32 pm

    You’re certainly right that Francis’ words have had a large impact on people within and without the church – I referenced that in my last post. However, I think you’re greatly overestimating his actions. What specific “revolutionary” actions of his are you referring to? Has he called for a special council and appealed to external sources to help deal with the pedophiles within the Catholic church? To help adjudicate the claims of the victims? No, as my last link shows he tacitly endorses the cover-up of child rape with his silence (while only a few months earlier he spoke of a call to action against child-raping priests. Now where did I get this cockamamie idea that his talk is cheap?) Has he spoken out against the Catholic church’s ruinous stance on contraceptives and reproductive rights? Nope.

    Those are just a couple of words which would indicate Francis’ sincerity to me. You know, words that would really stir the pot and precipitate real, needed change. When Francis, as the alleged infallible moral leader of the world, announces that gays and atheists are basically human beings, unbridled greed is bad, and it really sucks to have so many poor people in hog-rich capitalist societies – color me unimpressed. I mean, how fuckin’ low is your bar for a pope’s public moral positions? All of these “revolutionary” pronouncements are obviously decent things which decent people already knew. The last pope made news by absolving Galileo, fer chrissake. I just don’t get the gullibility of the faithful. Hey, Frank could be a really nice guy with a good heart as opposed to a shrewd, calculating PR recruiter, I just don’t know. But my suspicion is that the pope in the modern church just doesn’t have the power to enact any real change. The Catholic church is the largest and oldest criminal enterprise the world has ever known and the pope is merely an hand-picked figurehead. The real decisions go on behind the golden doors.

    • rustybrown2012

      December 20, 2013 at 11:04 pm

      To put a finer point on it, Rico, in terms of rhetoric, since that’s what we’re talking about, what pronouncements from Francis transcend the commonplace, everyday understanding of your average, good-hearted, modern day, latte-drinking liberal? I’m not reading any moral guidance from Francis that wasn’t already common knowledge to decent, compassionate people.

%d bloggers like this: