S***Holes and S*** Sandwiches

          Old Gadfly:  Frustrated at Democrat intransigence (i.e., for Democrats it can only be win-lose, or lose-lose) in resolving DACA in particular and illegal immigration in general, President Trump said what many already think and know:  some countries in the international system really are s*** holes.  As an Air Force officer I served in more than one.

 

Even though God created all humans in His image, all human beings do not live up to His image.  Would God kill a baby in His womb?  Would God use humans as instruments to increase His power—like pushing for a welfare state where millions are dependent upon Democrat generosity coercively enabled by other people’s earned wealth?  I could list other examples, but this should suffice in light of yesterday’s announcement by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).  Here is their statement:

Reports of recent disparaging remarks about African countries and Haiti have aroused great concern.  As our brothers and sisters from these countries are primarily people of color, these alleged remarks are especially disturbing.  All human beings are made in the image and likeness of God, and comments that denigrate nations and peoples violate the fundamental truth and cause real pain to our neighbors.  It is regrettable that this comes on the eve of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and could distract from the urgent bipartisan effort to help Dreamers and those with Temporary Protected Status.  As a vigorous debate continues over the future of immigration, we must always be sure to avoid language that can dehumanize our brothers and sisters.

Dehumanizing language?  So, is the USCCB saying these areas are paradises?  It is the political corruption in these areas that dehumanizes our brothers and sisters.  There is plenty of evidence the citizens of Venezuela are angry with the socialist initiatives ushered in by the late Hugo Chavez—turning this previous first-world nation into a s*** hole.  And, as a former President (in following Obama’s practice, I am not mentioning his name while he denigrates his successor without mentioning his name—but the media does not find this as immoral as one being open and authentic in his descriptions) would say about getting off our high horses, Old Testament prophets were brutally “honest” about s*** holes during their time.  During the same “high horse speech,” this former President said nothing about the s*** hole called the Middle East that has killed hundreds of thousands in the name of their “high horse” religion—generating millions of refugees.

 

I suppose the USCCB would qualify its language when referring to the Islamists who cut off heads and enjoy sex with captive women, whom “their right hands possess” (Qur'an 4:25), according to modern Islamic jurists.  Even St. Thomas Aquinas was blunt about Mohammad in Summa Contra Gentiles (Chapter 6), when he argued “THAT TO GIVE ASSENT TO THE TRUTHS OF FAITH IS NOT FOOLISHNESS EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE ABOVE REASON.”  Since his thinking predated the wisdom of modern political correctness, here is what Aquinas actually claimed about Muhammad:

On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this. The point is clear in the case of Muhammad.  He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth.  On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning.  Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law.  It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly.

 

            By the way, to demonstrate how s*** sandwiches are created, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Editor-in Chief of The Study Qur'an, states “Without the advent of the Qur'an, . . . would there be the Summas of St. Thomas Aquinas, at least in their existing form, since these Summas contain so many ideas drawn from Islamic source” (p. xxviii).  When readers have been threatened against reading other sources, this claim is difficult to challenge, let alone refuted.  We can see from Aquinas’ own words above that Nasr seems to be making stuff up.

To the USCCB, I offer this warning.  President Trump is actively and boldly fighting for religious freedom in America.  His predecessor (the unnamed President) and the progressive secular humanist left is fighting hard to take it away.  P*** him off and President Trump might just stop fighting for our religious freedom, letting you do all the heavy lifting.

This brings me to s*** sandwiches.  As I watch the media feeding frenzy about President Trump’s honest description of very corrupted regions of the world, the “characterization” of this description  contributes to the s*** sandwich being created by the progressive left.  So, if I suggest the bread in our sandwich is white, I’m a racist.  So, let’s assume the bread is rye.  When people eat a sandwich, it is what is between the slices of bread that is the essence of the sandwich.  The slices in this case represent credibility and plausibility—something a free press is supposed to provide.

Here is the first sandwich—the Affordable Care Act—designed to be affordable, more accessible, and if you like your doctor and health insurance plans, you can keep them.  This s*** proved to be false.  Swallowing it proved more disgusting than the s*** hole rhetoric.

Here is the second sandwich—bringing America together, not red America or blue America, but one America.  The only problem with this promise is that it required “transforming America” into “progressive America.”  This meant socialism, about which younger generations have no idea—but they are of voting age. Heck, who doesn’t want a free lunch, let alone health care, education, smart phones, and so forth?

Here is a third sandwich—using the government bureaucracy to serve political agendas.  Fast & Furious, the IRS scandal, Benghazi, the Iran nuclear deal, unmasking of American citizens, the Russian dossier, and so forth are all examples of how to weaponize a government against political opponents.  When he is the prime target, President Trump is supposed to play by their rules?  Thank God for Twitter.

 

I can go on, but let there be no doubt.  President Trump did not fall out of the sky.  He was elected by discerning Americans who are not willing to consume the left’s s*** sandwiches.

Speaking of discernment, I am reminded of the Roman Catholic’s understanding of five of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit:  knowledge, understanding, discernment, wisdom, and courage.  The first four speak to recognizing s*** holes and s*** sandwiches.  The fifth speaks to the capacity to do something about them.  Right or wrong, our actions then relate to the remaining gifts of the Holy Spirit—Fear of the Lord and Reverence.  We will be held accountable in the afterlife, and unfortunately (for the left and those who mimic its sound bites) it requires doing what is right—whether elegant or not.