Uncommon Commentary #259: Chopping-Blockheads

The following is my message to left-wing celebrities of popular "culture" who are even more insufferable than before, now that they've made it their anti-crusade to get the President re-elected:
Support of Emperor Nerobama is worse than stupidity; it is collaboration with a despotic and corrupt regime.  I don't preach revolution, but, if revolution comes, don't blame anyone but yourselves if you are the first ones whose heads roll.

Uncommon Commentary #258: Divorced from Truth

People seem to think that if divorce is wrong, it is so only for Roman Catholics; God Himself, however, during His incarnation, told us that divorce is not permissible under any circumstances except adultery, and that whoever marries a person whose ex-spouse is still living commits adultery. (Sources including St. Augustine have regarded His words as meaning merely that someone with an unfaithful spouse may "put away", i.e., separate from, but not actually end the marriage to, that spouse.)  I know many devout Christians who have been divorced for reasons other than infidelity, and I know of many others, e.g., the late President Reagan; I hope that God mercifully grants them a place in Heaven despite their marital status, but the decision does lie with Him, whose wisdom far surpasses ours.

Uncommon Commentary #257: We Need a New Gent in the White House

Rock-and-roller Ted Nugent, who favors Romney for the presidency, has aroused controversy by referring to the current occupier in—I mean, of—the Oval Office as “vile”, “evil”, and “America[sic]-hating”, and by saying that, should Obama be re-elected, “I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.” (He ought to have used “shall”, which denotes simple futurity, instead of “will”, which expresses intent—but, on the other hand, maybe he was saying that he would rather be dead or incarcerated than live “free” under Emperor Nerobama.)  Dumbocrats are calling on Romney to “denounce” Nugent’s comments.  What Romney ought to say to them is the following: “When the President repudiates the many distasteful celebrities who’ve endorsed him, maybe I’ll repudiate Nugent.”

Uncommon Commentary #256: Mrs. Romney Actually Holds Two Jobs, i.e., Wife and Mother

I'd like to ask a few questions of Dumbocratic Party strategist Hilary Rosen, who insulted Mrs. Mitt Romney as "never having worked a day in her life":

Doesn't managing a household and raising (in Ann Romney's case) five children qualify as "working"? (I'll bet that millions of housewives think so.)

Does your statement mean that the Demagogic Party is doing what its propagandists accuse the Republicans of doing, viz., waging war versus (non-professional) women?

Since you're indulging your psychological aberration and risking the mental health of two members of a future generation by raising twins with a "partner" of your own sex, who are you to get self-righteous about anyone else's domestic arrangement?

Why should the spouse of someone as affluent as Mitt Romney seek paid employment, thus taking a position away from someone who might need the money?  Have you never wondered how many men (or single mothers) cannot provide for their families because they've been out-competed in the job market by females whose paychecks merely supplement those of their husbands?  (See Uncommon Commentary #88.)

Lastly, why did you find it necessary to add "in her life" to your comment?  Have you ever heard of a woman working a day outside her lifespan?

Miscellaneous Musing #46

I used to be troubled by words of the Word Incarnate spoken from the Cross: "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" I now know that I was right to be troubled, for the usual analysis of this statement, namely, that the Son actually felt abandoned by the Father, must be wrong. Throughout His ministry, Christ had tried to make clear to His disciples that the execution of the Messiah was something that had to come to pass so that He could effect the salvation of the world; for instance, in Gethsemane, when Peter and others tried to defend Him from the men who came to arrest Him, He told them:

Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so? (Mt. 26:54-55)

Yet, on the very next day, when the Crucifixion did occur, he accused the Father of forsaking Him? The episode makes no sense, unless the following is the correct explanation.

Like my uncommon commentaries, psalms have traditionally been identified not only with a number—On the subject of the arrangement of the Book of Psalms, it's interesting to note that this is itself divided into "books"; e.g., Book V comprises Psalms 107-150—but also with a title; in the case of psalms, as well as hymns, the title comes from the opening verse. In the Psaltery within the Book of Common Prayer, for example, the twenty-second psalm bears the Latin title "Deus, Deus meus", for it begins "My God, my God, look upon me; why hast thou forsaken me?" My theological theory is that, in crying out words from the first line of that most messianic of psalms, Jesus was not grumbling against the Omnipotent (as the Israelites did during the Exodus, incurring Yahweh's anger) but rather calling the attention of his observers to the prophecies of the Christ contained therein: verse 8, "He trusted in the Lord, that he would deliver him; let him deliver him, …"; and 17-18, "They pierced my hands and my feet; I may tell all my bones; they stand staring and looking upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots for my vesture."

If any of my readers privately disagree, I'll know.

Uncommon Commentary #255: The Nut on the Executive Branch

We ought not to waste time debating whether the current head of the Executive Branch of the US Government believes in the principle that the Judicial Branch of the same may invalidate what it deems unconstitutional.  Having come to know and loathe Emperor Nerobama, we ought to have no reason to doubt that he accepts "judicial review" when a Supreme Court decision favors his cause, and that, in warning the justices against tampering with his "democratically" enacted law, he was merely bullying them the way that he bullies everyone else.

Uncommon Commentary #254: Putting the "Tort" in "Extort"

Charla Nash, the Connecticut woman who was mauled by a chimpanzee, is trying to sue the State for $150 million; her claim is that ecological regulators ought not to have allowed her neighbor to keep the animal, and so the incident is their fault.  Why doesn't she sue the neighbor, whom she was trying to help put the chimpanzee back into its cage when the attack occurred? Because her neighbor doesn't have $150 million.  One of the unwritten rules of litigation here in the USA is that the target of a lawsuit should not necessarily be the party who bears the most responsibility for the grievance, but rather the one who has the most money to be redistributed by a court.  Nash (with whom I sympathized before hearing about this attempt to turn her tragedy into an attempt to profit at others' expense) ought to bear in mind that there is at least one thing worse than being savaged by an ape, resulting in the destruction of your face and hands: Committing the deadly sin Greed, resulting in the destruction of your soul.

Uncommon Commentary #253: A Mormon Versus a Moron? Or, Romney the Nom'nee

I don't know why GOP leaders, including some, such as Sen. Rubio, who have had the support of the anti-establishment TEA Party movement, are gravitating toward Mitt Romney; perhaps they reason that someone whom the voters view as a moderate will have a better chance than an "extremist" of slaying the monster Obama, even though that strategy bore no fruit in 2008.  I make no pretense to membership in the Republican establishment—I consider myself a "Domanist" or "Theocentrist" (both terms being of my coinage) rather than a Conservative, and hence am not registered with any political party, though I always vote Republican, because the only alternative in our de-facto two-party system is to cast my ballots for Democrats, who not only don't have solutions to this country's problems but have themselves caused many thereof—but, for what my endorsement is worth, I have always favored Santorum for the presidential nomination (and not just because of his name, which needs only a letter "c" to become the Latin for "of the holy ones").  Having Mr. Romney or any other Mormon as our chief executive would be problematic (see Uncommon Commentary #170), although, sadly, having a heretic in the Oval Office is not without precedent; non-religious considerations also render him something other than an ideal GOP standard-bearer.  Certainly he would be a better president than the current holder of that office, but who wouldn't?