Skip to content

… because they wanted it that way

April 29, 2016

I thought I was done here. but … I read another article and argued my CONSCIENCE the entire time I was painting a wall in my living room.


I’m done with SPIR postings and essays … let someone else take up  that mantle 

but who? is there anyone willing? who hides behind his titles and …

I said I was done and I AM DONE! no one cares enough to challenge their ‘gods’. they are busy demonizing their created opponents … and they did create this image … as the enemy, and instilled into the minds of so many the idea that “the OTHER” is responsible for all that is wrong, not just in the US but the entire world. it was a mission … to demonize and wow, when I stepped out to smell its fruit … I nearly gagged. it was so potent. but, I was not so easily … deceived. 

then there is more to be said? there is more to share?

the people live in fear of losing everything if they call out the OBVIOUS … and challenge  their demigods. it is an US verses THEM mentality—a religion of the masses. anyone speaking out against the doctrine of the party gets trounced. an avalanche of insults buries the one with the AUDACITY to speak the truth … unless

unless what?

there is hope

and what might this hope look like?

honest intent

is there such a thing in this day?

we shall see …………..


As the Obama administration enters its seventh year, let us examine one of the era’s greatest peculiarities: That one of the most cherished rallying points of the president’s supporters is the idea of the president’s powerlessness.

Today, of course, the Democrats have completely lost control of Congress and it’s easy to make the case for the weakness of the White House. For example, when Frank Bruni sighed last Wednesday that presidents are merely “buoys on the tides of history,” not “mighty frigates parting the waters,” he scarcely made a ripple.

But the pundit fixation on Obama’s powerlessness goes back many years. Where it has always found its strongest expression is among a satisfied stratum of centrist commentators—people who are well pleased with the president’s record and who are determined to slap down liberals who find fault in Obama’s leadership. The purveyors of this fascinating species of political disgust always depict the dispute in the same way, with hard-headed men of science (i.e., themselves) facing off against dizzy idealists who cluelessly rallied to Obama’s talk of hope and change back in 2008.

It is, in other words, a classic apologetic. The pundit, a clear-thinking, reality-based fellow (and yes, they are almost always fellows), knows that if you paid attention back in 2008 you understood that Obama wasn’t promising anything great. Plus, the president has delivered all kinds of subtle but awesome stuff that his soft-headed fans overlook. Besides, there are those awful racist Republicans. Good Christ! Would we rather have one of them in the Oval Office?

This theme has been so elaborately developed over the last few years that it would be possible to write a decent history of the Obama administration entirely in terms of the various apologetics deployed on its behalf, savoring all the different grades of literary style, noting all the catch phrases and in-jokes the pundits share with one another, enumerating all the clever put-downs they use to deride the unrealistic liberal masses.

As a preface to any such future history, let me outline here the main points of the genre.

The first and most obvious excuse for all things Obama is, of course, the Republicans. Given their extreme intransigence and their many loathsome views, the steel-minded pundits say, we left-of-center citizens need to stand behind the president in complete, airtight unity. Criticism must not be permitted, lest our resolve be weakened and the hated Other prevail. In other lands, ideological enforcement of this kind is a task for a political party. But in the USA, where the Democratic president longs to achieve a Concert of K Street with the GOP, enforcing party discipline is a job for the punditry, and so I suggest we call this particular species of rationalization the MSNBC apologetic, after the network that is so famously reluctant to air any criticism of the president. It consists, in brief, of demanding a kind of solidarity with Democratic leaders that those Democratic leaders themselves only rarely show for their own rank and file.

Another line of rationalization is to insist that, given the iron logic of the left/right continuum, Obama is the best that progressives can hope for. As Jonathan Alter once put it, in the course of one of his many assaults on progressive whining, Obama is “the most genuinely liberal president that the political culture of this country will probably allow.” Maybe it’s true that the big stimulus package of 2009 wasn’t big enough, Alter acknowledges, but it was the absolute maximum our political system would permit. For other pundits, these conclusions are so obvious they scarcely require elaboration; instead, the writer in question can only shake his Beltway-hardened head in bewilderment that anyone could be to the left of Obama and his Dems. My favorite example of this species of outrage, a 2010 column by former Clinton adviser Lanny Davis, not only sputters about the off-the-spectrum views of the administration’s critics but goes on to suggest that their soft-headedness provides Obama a target-rich environment in which to stage his own “Sister Souljah Moment.”

A more sophisticated line of rationalization is to find any liberal president utterly powerless before certain ideological trends. Instead of the Republican Party itself, the chief culprit here is the trends propelling the GOP ever rightward, which are depicted as being akin to forces of nature, impossible for any Democrat to contest. You have a determined media mogul or two, an ever-more reactionary white working class, an incorrigible South, etc.

A fourth form of apologetic emphasizes the well-known structural obstacles to presidential clout, meaning mainly the power of money, which is impossible to overestimate and which stands in opposition to just about every item on the progressive wish list. There is a variation that emphasizes the insane backwardness of the U.S. Senate, which is not only tilted to favor sparsely populated areas but which confers enormous power on individual members. There are other pundits who focus on the gerrymandered districts that poison the House of Representatives and on the perennial Washington problem of the revolving door, which makes good and effective regulation difficult.

Obviously, some of these arguments have considerably more merit than others. The Republicans are genuinely bad, and it is true that they play the game in a different way than Democrats do. The structural obstacles to progressive change are also, indeed, enormous. Back in 2008, I myself wrote a book predicting that it would be difficult for liberals to do certain things in Washington thanks to the years of deliberate Republican sabotage and vandalism. And there is no denying the power of money or the allure of the revolving door or the unrepresentativeness of the U. S. Senate. We all know these things.

Still, it’s hard to square the extreme fatalism implied in most of these apologetic exercises with the liberal tradition of a confident faith in the public sector. In their deepest recesses, all these wised-up alibis for Obama’s cautious and appeasement-minded approach to governance raise a bleak but unstated question: If the obstacles to progress are really this insuperable—if the Washington game is really so completely and hermetically rigged that even a president is rendered mute and impassive by it—then why bother with the illusion that political change is possible at all?

One way in which certain pundits sidestep this paralyzing objection is to insist that, if you read the fine print, Obama never really promised to do awesome big things in the first place. Therefore, expecting him to do awesome big things is a category error, as awesomeness simply wasn’t in his contract. This species of rationalization is so sweeping that one could use it to get George W. Bush himself off the hook. And that, I suspect, is largely the point: The main thing at stake here isn’t the reputation of the defended president at all, but rather the clear-eyed shrewdness of the pundit making the argument. Unlike the suckers who bought the Obama sales pitch back in ’08, he wasn’t fooled and, like all good courtiers of our new millennial Versailles, he knows never to take politicians seriously.

There’s another weird undercurrent in all this exasperated berating of the disenchanted true believers. It’s hard to overlook the way in which all these tough-minded people of the press, in seeking to beat back the idealists they so clearly despise, must fall back on arguments that are patently soft-headed themselves. All of them insist, for example, on a view of the presidency in which the office is pretty much impotent and the real power is always elsewhere, far away from the grand but empty stage-set at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. The scheming state legislators gerrymandering our House districts; the swaggering senior senators from states boasting more cattle than voters; hell, even the punditocracy itself—all of them seem to possess an occult ability to outwit and hoodwink our maximum executive leader.

As a sort of corollary to this upended federalism, certain Obama apologists ascribe political superpowers to the conservative opposition. In their analyses, the Republicans often come off as evil geniuses, possessed of powers of ratiocination far beyond anything Democrats can muster. And just as the tirelessly cunning GOP represents the outer limit of political evil, so must it follow that the purity of the president’s own intentions must be taken for granted. Hence the fanciful goal of this putatively tough-minded body of literature: To get Obama personally off the hook for the events of the last few years, and to absolve the larger Democratic Party leadership while they’re at it.

But let this pass. When historians seek to explain the failures of the Obama years, they will likely focus on a glaringly obvious, and indeed still more hard-headed explanation that the apologists for Obama’s enfeeblement now overlook: that perhaps Obama didn’t act forcefully to press a populist economic agenda because he didn’t want to. That maybe he didn’t do certain of the things his liberal supporters wanted him to do because he didn’t believe in them.

Think about Obama’s legacy in this context: The most consequential issue facing Americans these days is the gradual reversion of their economy to a 19th-century pattern. In a matter of 30 years, talking about this transformation has gone from being the kind of thing you hear at union strike meetings to something that wins the National Book Award and that almost everyone recognizes to be true—I mean, even George W. Bush acknowledged the problem of growing inequality back in 2007.

Yet the current leadership of the Democratic Party has been unable either to reverse the trend or to make political capital out of it.

Now, let’s bring this grand, overarching issue of inequality down to specifics. The recent episode in which the ugly reality of our new Gilded Age manifested itself most clearly was the financial crisis and the investment-bank bailouts. Together, these made up the greatest economic and political debacle of our time, the perfect expression of everything that has been going wrong with this country for decades.

Yes, everything that is wrong with the USA in one episode, and still the Democrats couldn’t figure out how to handle it in a way that was much different from how those despicable Republicans handled it. Not only did our Democratic administration leave Wall Street standing after Wall Street plunged the nation into a slump without parallel in most people’s lives—but our government allowed Wall Street to grow more concentrated and more powerful than ever. Our government made it plain that there are to be no consequences for Wall Street’s misbehavior—that the bonuses will always flow, that the obvious fraudsters will never be prosecuted, that this one industry essentially stands above the law.

To say that Obama fumbled this most critical issue is to understate the matter pretty dramatically. More to the point is the great unasked question of why he fumbled it so dramatically. Again, let’s review the historical record as it actually exists—not as Obama’s apologists like to imagine it:

* It was fully within Obama’s power to react to the financial crisis in a more aggressive and appropriate way—i.e., laws were in place, there was ample precedent, he wasn’t forced to choose Tim Geithner to run the bailouts or Eric Holder to (not) prosecute the bankers or Ben Bernanke to serve another term at the Fed.

* It would have been good policy had Obama reacted to the financial crisis in a more aggressive and appropriate way—i.e., the economy would have recovered more quickly and the danger of a future crisis brought on by concentrated financial power would have been reduced.

* It would have been massively popular had Obama reacted to the financial crisis in a more aggressive and appropriate way. Everyone admits this, at least tacitly, even the architects of Obama’s bailout policies, who like to think of themselves as having resisted the public’s mindless baying for banker blood. Acting aggressively might also have deflated the rampant false consciousness of the Tea Party movement and prevented the Republican reconquista of the House in 2010.

But Obama did the opposite. He did everything he could to “foam the runways” and never showed any real interest in taking on the big banks. Shall I recite the dolorous list one more time? The bailouts he failed to unwind or even to question. The bad regulators he didn’t fire. The AIG bonuses that his team defended. The cramdown he never pushed for. The receivership of the zombie banks that never happened. The FBI agents who were never shifted over to white-collar crime. The criminal referral programs at the regulatory agencies that were never restored. The executives of bailed-out banks who were never fired. The standing outrage of too-big-to-fail institutions that was never truly addressed. The top bankers who were never prosecuted for anything on the long, sordid list of apparent frauds.

Obama didn’t play this greatest-of-all issues the way he did because the white working class rose up to defend its friends in the investment banking community. He didn’t play it this way because forcing the Republicans to defend Wall Street would have been really bad politics. Nor did he do it the way he did because the presidency lacks sufficient power. In fact, everything I just mentioned “can be done by the president,” says noted former bank regulator Bill Black. “It just requires some will and some imagination and a lot of planning and determination.”

What I am suggesting, in other words, is that the financial crisis worked out the way it did in large part because Obama and his team wanted it to work out that way.

That is the simplest and most direct explanation. We scientific, hard-headed types are fond of structural explanations for what goes on in Washington, but far too often we are drawn to complicated, roundabout theories whose main virtue is that they get our heroes off the hook.

I propose instead that we turn our scrutiny on those heroes as well. Let us seek to explain the power of money over the Democrats as well as over conservatism. Let us examine the historical victory of a determined free-market faction in the Democratic Party over the larger organization. Let us ask what became of the social movements of the left and why their allies in Washington failed them when their crisis came.

A bit of blunt class analysis might also help. Let us take into account the Democratic Party’s transformation in recent decades into a dutiful servant of the professional class and its every whim and prejudice. Let us acknowledge the Democratic leaders’ embarrassing faith in meritocracy, their amazing trust in the good intentions and right opinions of their fellow professionals from banking, law, economics and journalism—and their generally dismissive attitude toward the views of working people. While we’re at it, let us put the professional-class pundits under the microscope as well. After all, there is a term for the sort of myopia that allows someone to proclaim that their own political views are eminently practical if not natural and inevitable—and that the demands of the other guy are impossible dreams given the nature of the system and of reality itself.

The notion that Democrats might have agency is shocking, I know, since it means they bear some responsibility for our unhappy situation. However, once you acknowledge that it might be true, it occurs to you that this simple and direct explanation might also be the key to all kinds of Democratic betrayals and failures over the years, from the embrace of NAFTA to the abandonment of the Employee Free Choice Act. Maybe these episodes weren’t failures at all. Maybe it’s time we confronted the possibility that these disasters unfolded the way they did because Democratic leaders wanted them to work out that way. -thomas frank


From → Uncategorized

  1. opheliart permalink

    another way of putting it:

    McGeorge Bundy, then, was the finest example of a special elite, a certain breed of men whose continuity is among themselves. They are linked to one another rather than to the country; in their minds they become responsible for the country but not responsive to it.—David Halberstam, The Best and the Brightest, 1972 from frank’s book entry LISTEN, LIBERAL

    one cannot truly be or become responsible FOR anything as there are ties and innuendoes and influences and inspirations as well as interruptions and ignorance and arrogance and the list on these threads is extensive, however, to respond to your own IDEA or an ideal of what you think should be without OTHER intelligence … or as we teach: the ascent of heart to mind … is to revolve within a bubble. sort of repeating in your own hemisphere … a mind captivated with or within itself … rather than evolving. to evolve there needs to be an impartial place at the start. one that declares imminent danger on both sides of the ship … steer steady, aware at all times of

    man overboard.

    • opheliart permalink

      an example of this “hemisphere” is the roman catholic hierarchy. and if you understand the motivation for certain pet projects these men gather around, you begin to understand how this keeps them superiors and the rest … under them. the idea is to always have the poor to keep the position as superior. if an area is growing up … evolving just a little … and begins to move out from under the thumb of these superiors … their pet project becomes something like refugees or immigrants which, they will not pay for … house or take care of … at least not in any substantial number … for the result is to place burdens on the people in such a way that they are not only paying for these, but those superiors (those entitled seats). they feed their credential through these projects—flooding the communities (preferably with their own … if they can integrate the theology in a way that will breed more of this same) . and the liberal/democrat is no different in its push for this same by keeping the middle man and under paying extravagantly … on these. it makes them look caring when in reality they are being paid while your average taxpayer is footing the bill.

      and as we have seen with the roman hierarchy, if one gets caught in a crime, there is a rallying to cover up the crime by whitewashing … using those pet projects like the refugees/immigrants. cover the epidemic with another epidemic?

      • opheliart permalink

        read the comments

        spuddie is an atheist (also Larry and Yoh before RNS changed format), the commenter he is debating calls himself a catholic and he is not wrong in what he says about the “democratic” condition (hang in there … will follow up on this) and what he says of islam, but he has not mentioned, and neither has spuddie, that the roman catholic church did much the same as the militant islamists, with the same and different tools, for power and control. in his CATHOLIC MINDSET, his religion was permitted the atrocities but not the muslim/islamist. he overlooks his religions own methods of force to get what it wanted. he states that the catholics fought off the muslims and saved nations from islam but he fails to mention what was in place before his own religion used force to take control. this is selective reasoning and IS very catholic in its root (thinking catholic is to think its view is authority—UNIVERSAL in that all MUST BE HELD TO and THOUGH its PROCESS using ITS knowledge and understanding; its law; its teaching; its doctrine of living and may be why he ignores the roman catholic deluge in the world because he thinks this is what is morally and ethically correct … what is intended through his understanding of a higher being, likely his catholic teaching and or his supreme ‘god’ architecture, but he does not UNDERSTAND that not all LIVE in his dynasty … never did and never will 😉 … *some are of THE EAST and this is understood in Spiritual Metaphor, not religious … and for him to complain that he was snubbed and maybe even rejected in some areas early on in america without understanding that people had left ROMA and THE HIERARCHIES to get away from this religion and its people worshipping this 😀 yes, imagine roman catholics spilling into small neighborhoods with five children and counting … ). the root (foundation) is not impartial because it views history through a singular vein of dogmatic thought … catholic being universal spells PARTIAL view, partial thought, partial understanding as it is filtered through catholic teaching/method,practice/rule … so … the question arises: was it okay for roman catholicism to force itself on other peoples, other religious, other nations … but not okay for islam? both atheist and catholic are in the same vein of thinking; neither understand the root. atheist blames christians but it was not christians as the early church but roman catholicism as a religious hybrid of all religions, and … what was born from this (the offspring) acting in response to the militancy of roma, and with the same mindset … using force, as this became the way of “christianity” for some time, but not so much christianity as it was specific sects calling themselves ____ christians … but none see the treatment of others as inconsistent with their theology. however, history shows the wounds at the hands of these men … and do know, if a believer in the Spirit of the Living God … or better said: if a FOLLOWER of Christ (Spirit of the Living) … one does not force himself (his beliefs, practices …) on another. a parent may use methods that can be thought of as rule, but this is because child is not capable of making safe choices ( crossing the street without looking, etc) so parent assumes responsibility for a time until child grows into some form of awareness.

        in RELIGION, doctrine and method used and use force, and this includes politics. and people are often treated as children … not permitted to grow — to evolve. laws keep large numbers chained to something unrealistic in its day. region and governance (policy) is often archaic and not in service to the people it says it swears oaths to serve. this is the problem of today and has been for a while, but now we begin to see its head … that headship. the root causing this oppression is those in seats of peer power and influence.


        roman catholicism (RCs) is a race as is judaism (the jews) as is the muslim. they have been around long enough to be viewed as a race of people living within set principles and practices, and MINDSET (how these are viewed—appearance, as many of these rely on appearance in practice and belief).
        catholicism can reform … judaism can reform … islam can reform … but the people do not reform. people EVOLVE or they do not. people use reform as a staple but a race of people do not reform, they evolve or they do not. we have seen this in small steps. some reform themselves right out of a religion without evolving all that much … because …

        secularism is a type of religion, fickle and fast and is a mix of people following what is the “trends” of the day … good or bad (example: use this drug for ___, ___ and ___ … it becomes the norm until it begins to show its head. then it is discovered that it is causing all types of illness and is removed from public use). secularism is bound to laws, too … but in the “professional” way … through professions, which are not always working FOR the health and safety of the people because like religion, it holds to certain attribute. attribute is also bound by image and appearance, too, and is often misled through misinformation and forced mandates AND … professionals like hierarchy or other political parties … behave in a manner that serves its own seat or preferred direction. any pro stance that makes professionals a lot of money will be lorded over the people to serve itself rather than a more impartial and more informative place of lifestyle. the secularist feeds on his same authority, whatever this may be: health professionals, scientists, scholars of this or that. they may appear correct for a time until what? something comes along and says … ah, nope … look what we discovered. if you had not all jumped on that bandwagon and if you had not all panicked (spraying pesticides all over the homes and businesses and lives of people, places, animals, children, crops, flowers, trees and shrubs, drinking water, gardens … to try to kill mosquitos that may be carrying the zika virus but what did you destroy in this REACTION?) and … or if you had not all feared being called heretic … or if you had not all run to that side of the boat, you would have seen ___ and seen the fish on the other side, for better health management. you did not question the ethics … the damage to this, or that or him … or HER. you did not see how it would impact child a, b, c and d … and what it did to e. in your “universal” mindset you did not consider ………..

        democracy is a condition … a social condition not only in its “inequality” (see thomas frank’s latest book LISTEN, LIBERAL … I just started to read it last night) but also in its …


        ADDED: huh, look at this … no surprise. this is just the beginning. will the government have enough money to cover all the lawsuits … hmmm

        ADDED: regarding the comments on the above article at RNS … note that the atheists (there are at least two and one has posted that he is a gay married man-other threads) defend islam by blaming christianity, but more importantly, they refuse to identify which brand of christianity (although one did mention ted cruz) … and they refuse to acknowledge the “no-go zones” in Europe and interestingly, not one has addressed the treatment of women. *keep your eye on this because it’s telling and we will be sharing on this more —following …


  2. opheliart permalink

    how many catholics and like-minded (offspring/similar theology/ideology) got into office and used CATHOLIC FORMULA to govern? we are not talking about hot button issues like one catholic is for abortion the other against. we are talking about formula. using the same example of the roman hierarchy for governing the people, despite a constitution that stated there is to be a separation of church and state … but, the reality is, there never was a separation. politics never left the bottle. it likes to think itself wiser and more intelligent but it never actually left its siblings (btw, this is all in the Writings 😉 —prophetic teaching). as has been pointed out democracy still held AND HOLDS SLAVES or a sense of being POWERFUL, IN CONTROL, IN A SEAT OF POWER AND INFLUENCE to keep things operating within ___ for ___. it needs “the slave” (also scriptural—of the Writings) to survive in its seats. a landowner/ business owner never need treat his workers as slaves for his appearance: his worldly attribute, his wealth and riches (see the parables in the NEW about the wicked money lender and other parables)

    did you hear on the news about chobani head giving its workers a chance at increasing wage?

    FRANK writes in Listen, Liberal …
    “Inequality is not an “issue”, as that term is generally used; it is the eternal conflict of management and labor—only with one side pinned to the ground and the other leisurely pounding away at its adversary’s face. “Inequality” is not even the right word for the situation, really, since it implies a technical problem we can solve with a twist of the knobs back in D. C.. The nineteenth century understood it better: they called it “the social question,” and for once their polite Victorian euphemism beats ours. This is nothing less than the whole vast mystery of how we are going to live together.”

    inequality is a disease … an epidemic that erodes HUMANITY, a Humanity that has barely been able to be born because … we are not yet there. man kind has not reached the PLACE OF HUMANITY.

    inequality finds its home in every sector of institution, lifestyle and marriage … from the husband and wife arrangement to business partners gaining ground but not water. but what happens during a drought?


    • opheliart permalink

      a technical problem … REFORM mandates … reform for the very large epidemic called “inequality”
      hmmm … like using a drug to solve the problem/side effects of using drugs? taking a path that leads to another dead end?

      government is not willing to get to the root of inequality or any other obtuse and dangerous situation. what is in it for lobbyists and lawmakers to get to the root of a problem? what will it cost them? their lives? or THEIR PROFESSIONS 🙂

      but unfortunately, there are too many not looking, not learning, not aware … not able to cross the street without some form of rule. so … many suffer at the hands of imbalance, for this is inequality’s mainstay, while much time and money get poured into cracked vessels. lots of waste of hard-earned taxpayer dollars and use of people—-yes? not going toward the correct and more worthy outreach? why? look to the formula. if the formula is outdated—expired …

      what must be done?

      • opheliart permalink

        more war? government has almost always behaved in its “democracy” like rome. war to solve problems. more violence to stop this and more violence to stem that and more violence to get control and more violence and

        people make lots of very bad mistakes when violence becomes the norm to solve problems. still roman catholic-catholic theology? islamic theology? bombing a hospital … big, bad mistake. and this will happen under certain laws and it does absolutely NO GOOD to do business with the lawless or as society might call … unjust law. sharia law is unjust law. very very VERY roman catholic in mindset. anyone surprised? how was islam born? from what did islam build its empire?

        atheist cannot deny that the core of islam is to overpower all that is not in its system of belief. well, so was the belief of roman catholicism, has it changed? or do these gloss over the evidence? is the rc hierarchy now using islam to do its work. much like it uses government?

        but back to democracy. where has democracy shown itself to be just?

  3. opheliart permalink

    “the koran is extremely allegoric and there is not one monolithic interpretation of it.” —commenter on the article of germany making an “islam for germany” and integrating this into into their student studies.

    okay, if it is extremely allegoric then it does not need any help from government. it does not need any money or any special status. why? because then the government would need to give money and special status to EVERY sect’s allegorical interpretation … and that could be anything. every book … every painting … every piece of art should be given money and special status … if a group asks—————right? how can you give one and not another? that would not be fair.

    what? islam has a lot of members you say … but wait, they don’t all follow the same theology. so … how much money can a government give to every whim and whistle? for every allegorical piece and every theological interpretation and still be able to function in a manner that addresses all of the needs of the nation, and some
    … then you have the problem of those not wanting their tax dollars to go toward what it deems dangerous or silly or … and not wanting to pay into and support what goes against conscience.

    democracy … hmm. are you beginning to see how it came to be where it is through just one example? people coming into government status over decades have pet projects, specific ideas, and are often easily convinced of something without understanding its intent AND … there’s too often a desire to use groups to remain in powerful and influential seats …

    they calculate within the mundane.

    • opheliart permalink

      and distorting facts. but …

      what happens when facts are distorted … statements misaligned? “democrats” are very into this method. it does not matter what they say they believe or don’t believe on the god topic … they are very adept at distorting and raising hairs through the media plunge. for agenda. this is dangerous stuff because it can destroy not just one person but entire families, and lives, maybe even communities. because what starts taking over?

      fascism. no one is allowed to say anything about anythingIF THE democrat WANTS IT TO BE RACISM, BIGOTRY, DISCRIMINATION. why? because they want it that way. so they destroy the very thing they say they believe most firmly in: FREEDOMS and a just society. freedom of speech? appropriate action in harmful and unjust acts? … but for their own pleasure they have manipulated the masses to holler RACISM! and DISCRIMINATION!

      • opheliart permalink

        things go awry, people involved in questionable activity … crime and abuse is right in front of them but they are afraid to speak for fear of being attacked by THE DEMOCRAT .

  4. opheliart permalink

    sunday, 2016, May 1

    what happens when you lose the sanity of the people? what happens when you lose conscience? what happens when this, that and that other thing becomes more important in the minds of the people and clouds the conscience … pushing clarity and awareness away from hearing and vision? and just precedence.

    let’s take hillary clinton as an example first. she is running on the platform of FEMALE. a gender platform. had this been a male using gender as his platform it would not go nearly as well, would it 😉 … and there is no question on the volume of women voting hillary BECAUSE she is female. it is a gender thing. this is not impartial and its “theory” does not bode well for that seat of leadership. but who is willing to point this out? who is willing to stand up and address this straightforwardly? the risk is great, isn’t it? a man would be accused of misogyny and a woman would be sullied by her peers, but only if not bringing forth certain truths; but still, it remains a risky task. but let’s look at a few things on it.

    hillary’s actions when bill clinton was aggressive with other women (and rape is the word these women have accused him of). the monica thing was in very bad taste (no pun) … using an intern… a young staffer or one somewhat enamored with the power and the prestige for self-serving pleasure while acting president ( and do not forget that JFK had his young intern and what he asked of her) … is not presidential material (if following the Writings, bishops are called to be apart from these interests and desires … no money mongering or power play or self-indulging practices because the position is a giving up of self for others—truly … but the political seat of president in a democratic society does not call for {this}, does it? it is not follow and is not OF these Teachings).

    from witnesses we learn that hillary silenced the voices of these women … to protect reputation? her rep? and bill’s reputation? them as a warden of the institution? the democratic ticket? right here we see a willingness to choose unjust and improper actions … which demonstrates to us a moment in hillary’s very PUBLIC life a sort of test. what will she do? will she do the right thing because it is the right thing … by allowing those women the justice she herself swears to uphold? or does she hide the crimes? if choosing to hide the crimes on these women, what else is she hiding … silencing … covering up?

    where have we seen this before? seat in a high-tower position with lots of influence throughout the world … the pope. his test was what? clergy/staff child sex abuse and as we have seen coming out, rape and misuse of women. what happened in argentina while he was archbishop? his test? would this be the first and most important and most serious of crimes he would investigate within his own institution? no, he chose politics. he said yes to continue to hide the corruption and the abuse by masquerading as something he is not … A BISHOP.

    hillary is not being called to be a bishop as state is not to be infused with religion … correct? but she is being looked at for consistency and honesty. and her ability to be fair, JUST and impartial as the citizens of the nation she is campaigning to lead is diverse… and struggling in many ways, esp the young men and women …

    very much in need of a leadership voice that TEACHES how one should behave but …

    is it the opposite in the world of politics? one is required to put the party’s reputation above the people? this is insanity from our vantage point. this shows signs of an underdeveloped conscience. this is a lack of awareness because … the root of the disease spreads and chokes the NEW … those trying to EVOLVE and bloom for …


    now, think for a moment how hard it would have been for hillary to speak out against her husband. but let’s look at it another way:

    how hard is it for a woman to GO AGAINST HER HUSBAND in a male dominated society?

    other questions emerge: how was hillary used and how is hillary being used, and possibly misused … for party agenda? for bill’s agenda? is this really going to help women? oppressed women? young men and women? heck, let us also add in TRANS GENDER … in abusive conditions? in a society without conscience? who-what is voting for hillary KNOWING that she silenced victims … or refusing for proper and just behavior UNDER THE FLAG OF DEMOCRACY to reign more supreme … more FOR the people? but really from our Place … for HUMANITY?

    we shared on RNS and here in SPIR and on the OWA site that it would be wise if hillary did not run for president … she has her foundation and her granddaughter. despite her error, she has been gifted much … why continue to demand more power while dishonest? and who-what has allowed this hypocrisy to become leader above honest and just practice? THE DEMOCRAT? the mindset called “RULING hierarchy?”

    FASCISM attired in another robe? one made to look PROGRESSIVE when really its history has not earned itself that seat? look at the patterns … you will know them by their fruits.

    • opheliart permalink

      now the atheist … the gay atheist … the democrat … the liberal democrat may come at us with:
      name-calling, bigot, racist … try to put words in my mouth … “you let dennis hastert off the hook, saying nothing about him!” we did say something about him as those following SPIR know … we posted several times about dennis hastert, but we do not need to voice for this to be investigated. as any person paying attention knows quite well, dennis hastert has been investigated and is being sentenced! finally. and look how far he fell … and his poor children and his poor wife. now, what happens with hillary’s grandchildren when the truth comes out about hillary and bill? and it will come out.

      WE CARE about the children. WE CARE about the future … we care about the health and well being of families and communities and we do not hide what we know—what we learn … what is shown to us. who masquerades in expensive suits deceiving the people because they hide the ruth about the dishonesty and the crimes?

      we warn but …

      there is an insincerity and a falseness that pervades the conscience of the nations of the world. is this willful ignorance? self-serving agendas? poorly taught citizens?

      • opheliart permalink

        our platform is not to judge hillary. that is the job of the institution she swore oaths to serve but if THAT institutions denies the truth … and does what it wants for its own gain, and you as a voting resident of this institution choose not to see or hear the truth … well then, you receive what you believe and when your heroes fall … how does that make you look? you can suddenly turn on hillary or you can acknowledge your own shortcomings and choose to change.

  5. opheliart permalink

    she [hillary] saved him [bill] from himself?

    hmm … to save face? to protect the lack of conscience and deceptive parleying?

    • opheliart permalink

      where are the BISHOPS addressing the theology of these religions? the acts, choices and dereliction of duty? if you are one of them, and receiving your 30 pcs of silver for betrayal …

      TRAITOR is your name.

      all of you, do your CONSCIENCE the biggest favor ever and question the leadership and those sitting in those influential seats. what do they pocket for their pandering?

      • opheliart permalink

        proving the point about … ?

        a lot of assumption; however, the “christian”, the conservative, or whatever the democrat calls them these days in their elitist venue … wheaton does have a responsibility to investigate—have all their houses investigated because where there was one, or two or three … there are always those who ASSIST in the crimes, and the covering up of these, ESPECIALLY where their brethren and those like them (same mindset, belief and practice) are NOT WILLING TO CHALLENGE THEIR BISHOPS ON UP (including clergy, pastors and laity) to inform law on these awful, life-destroying crimes.

        who all did not do the right thing? who-what is still hiding behind robes and titles?

        remember, folks, these crimes should NEVER be about US verses THEM. this is an epidemic … a DISEASE in the institutions guarded by the state, fed and used by the state. if all you care about is to bring down your opponent, you will know its realm.


        I mean, look closely at this please. is the atheist and the gay man interested in the children or the women (if arguing for abortion) or are they using these incidents to attack what they hate? christian haters or republican haters or conservative haters or Jesus haters often, like their extremist opponents, use the poor and the oppressed and the victimized … THE VICTIM … to serve themselves. just as the atheist and the liberalist used the gay agenda to serve their own party platform. do the gay men and the atheist really care about the CONDITION or do they just want their slice of cake? their way. is it a concern for getting to the ROOT of the ills of society or is it an attitude of: the women and girls got raped … let them get an abortion!

        that’s all. they want it their way. like we said before, is this a turning a blind eye to the abuse? is abortion their way of solving the problems … maybe THEIR problems?

        hmmm … are they partly to blame for these rapists on the loose? and a society unable or maybe unwilling to move out of this mindset? are these men really all that interested in the health and wellbeing of society or are they merely interested in their views? from their side … keeping their elitist tone while thinking they are somehow more intelligent and more realistic and more chosen for rule.

    • opheliart permalink

      I am starting to see more and more of this … as women move toward the male genre (for lack of a better word). and it’s not about appearance although healthy, clear-minded men and women can look more attractive to men or women searching for a “partner” to somehow bolster oneself. this can go good or not so good depending on how each is used.

      more on this later

  6. opheliart permalink

    NEW DELHI (AP) — Police in Bangladesh detained three men Sunday, including the head of an Islamic school, in connection with the stabbing death of a Hindu tailor in an attack claimed by the Islamic State group.

    Police officer Saleh Muhammed Tanvir said the school principal had sued Nikhil Joarder, the slain tailor, four years ago for allegedly making derogatory comments against Prophet Muhammad. Joarder was killed Saturday in his shop in the central district of Tangail by two men on motorcycles.


    just as there are hasterts and bernard laws and abusive clergy … where so many people have said “I never knew” … you have men and women in these schools with extreme views … views that encourage and incite the youth to kill for a theology masking itself as …

    peaceful, civilized, educated … democratic

    just because this is bangladesh does not mean there aren’t imbalanced people running your schools, churches, synagogues, charities. law enforcement … and government

  7. opheliart permalink

    NEW DELHI (AP) — Police in Bangladesh detained three men Sunday, including the head of an Islamic school, in connection with the stabbing death of a Hindu tailor in an attack claimed by the Islamic State group.

    Police officer Saleh Muhammed Tanvir said the school principal had sued Nikhil Joarder, the slain tailor, four years ago for allegedly making derogatory comments against Prophet Muhammad. Joarder was killed Saturday in his shop in the central district of Tangail by two men on motorcycles.


    david gushee is still under the thumb of the roman catholic hierarchy. here’s why:

    first, his list is a list of “elites”. for the most part (and I am not going to delve into each and every person/organization listed), these are academics and … reverends with a paid position, credential by way of catholicism as moral guide and, noncitizen in that these herald themselves as “peacekeepers”. this promotion of ideal establishes ITSELF as AUTHORITY on JESUS, GOSPEL and CHRISTIAN ethics, and is no different in its call to act according to pope francis’s preaching than the vatican’s demand for its own creed. yes, their pope, not yours and not ours. the roman pontiff can remind the world until the sun sets day in and day out, but he is donald trump’s hired servant, or … the INSTITUTION’s hired political puppet. and david and colleagues do not yet see this.

    let us remind the reader: JESUS TURNED OVER TABLES.

    TODAY is not yesterday but david and company want to make it so. if Jesus said take up your mantle and MOVE—FOLLOW ME … and this called for turning the establishment on its side (taking on too much of ITSELF and theirs is much tearing… and much harm and loss if something is not done and done quickly!) and let the DOVES go free … these academic entities wouldn’t know it because:

    THEY ARE NOT LISTENING TO THE OTHERS … much like the elites of the vatican who live NOT LIKE THE LAITY AND THE REST OF THE WORLD, they can only hear themselves. one cannot hear the cries unless you move from your seat. they are trying to use their seats to get people to do as they deem moral and ethical as … what? CHRISTIANS? which brings us back to a question we posed eons ago: what is a christian?

    OTHER is also a christian, and david and company has forgotten this. they sit in their seats of academia and in their pulpits of entitlement and glorify themselves in their organizations that receive the amenities they desire for manipulation and housing and … like their savior the pope, tell others how to receive.

    let us remind the reader, once again: JESUS TURNED OVER TABLES!

    now, are we saying Jesus and trump are the same? certainly not. trump is a child not yet chastised in a manner that will help him see his verbosity. david ruminates in old wine. how sweet. how aromatic, and those words (in that letter) sound to some like that sweet wine, but it will not MOVE THE PEOPLE. it hath not the bitter herb of”mary”. protestantism and pope do not understand WHAT IS THIS MARY. they lack spiritual understanding in {this}. it is not in their knowledge and understanding. back-patting and all will go back to their “expert’ labels, which is not needed much today, is it?

    WHERE ARE THE PEOPLE, DAVID? WHERE ARE THEY HEADED? over the cliff and you and YOUR peers and gods use what to light the lamps?

    WHERE IN THIS HELL IS YOUR OIL? you take the oil from OTHER but what have you given in return? have you credited your source of ….

    are you a pirate, too?

    • opheliart permalink

      you know the parable of the oil lamps. those who allowed their lamps to go out. these men and women sit on thrones while SPIRIT OF THE LIVING GOD IS SAYING: out with you—OUT!

      a NEW MARY is in town 😉

      • opheliart permalink

        some ORTHODOX CATHOLIC know and some ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN know of what we speak and remain silent (like the women in PAUL’s TEACHING 😀 )
        they know what is this bitter fruit called Mary. but david and company are 1-christian 1-secularists kicking against the goads. trying to sew new patches to the old? trying to put new wine into old skins …

        allow the people their release, david. where is your faith? these people need their exhale. they have been holding their breath for a long time while your company (including the rc hierarchy and government, and is no surprise that so many catholics are voting for trump) holds them as slaves within your creeds. have you not heard a word we have been saying? or do you cherry pick and not show the source of the fruit?

        what is happening at trump rallies is minor compared to the middle east and … what is happening to the children raped, tossed off balconies, thrown into rivers to drown, abused at the hands of credentialed and titled bureaucrats using their institutions as slave quarters and false pastures.

        YOU MUST FIRST COME OUT TO SEE THE POVERTY OF LOVE … the lack of understanding. a man sitting in his house does not know how his foundation crumbles.

  8. opheliart permalink

    those voting for trump are telling the religionists and their leaders, f-off … you had your chance, but look where we are. you took from the people to set yourself up and concealed the abuses and now … now it time for ATONEMENT, including your popes … your BISHOPS.

    bow to your gods all you want but these people NEED change! to hell with your rhetoric! your letters and your condemnation! who are you to judge? you made these beds and left the people with little CHOICE! and now you stand before them and tell them what is the teaching of Jesus? and how “the christian” should be according to you and your colleagues? I would tell you to go to hell, too, but you are already there 😮

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: