Pope Slams Marxism and Challenges Castro Regime

During his plane trip to Mexico on Friday Pope Benedict made a statement which was highly critical of Marxism. He told reporters,  “Today it is evident that Marxist ideology in the way it was conceived no longer corresponds to reality.” He continued saying, “In this way we can no longer respond and build a society. New models must be found with patience and in a constructive way.” 


Pope Benedict made an even more commanding remark railing against Marxism when he visited Brazil in 2007.  He said, ‘The Marxist system, where it found its way into government, not only left a sad heritage of economic and ecological destruction, but also a painful destruction of the human spirit.’


Communism has failed in Cuba 


In the Pope's speech today he challenged the Castro regime. 


From Vatican Radio: 

I am pleased to share your joy as you celebrate the four hundredth anniversary of the discovery of the holy statue of Our Lady of Charity of El Cobre. Since the beginning she has been very much present in the personal lives of Cubans as well as in the great events of the nation, especially since independence, for she is honoured by all as the true mother of the Cuban people. Devotion to the Virgen Mambisa has sustained the faith and inspired the defence and promotion of all that gives dignity to the human condition and its fundamental rights, and continues to do so today with ever greater strength, giving visible witness to the fruitfulness of the preaching of the Gospel in these lands, and to the profound Christian roots which shape the deepest identity of the Cuban soul. Following in the footsteps of countless pilgrims down the centuries, I too wish to go to El Cobre to kneel at the feet of the Mother of God, to thank her for her concern for all her Cuban children, and to ask her to guide the future of this beloved nation in the ways of justice, peace, freedom and reconciliation.I come to Cuba as a pilgrim of charity, to confirm my brothers and sisters in the faith and strengthen them in the hope which is born of the presence of God’s love in our lives. I carry in my heart the just aspirations and legitimate desires of all Cubans, wherever they may be, their sufferings and their joys, their concerns and their noblest desires, those of the young and the elderly, of adolescents and children, of the sick and workers, of prisoners and their families, and of the poor and those in need.Many parts of the world today are experiencing a time of particular economic difficulty, that not a few people regard as part of a profound spiritual and moral crisis which has left humanity devoid of values and defenceless before the ambition and selfishness of certain powers which take little account of the true good of individuals and families. We can no longer continue in the same cultural and moral direction which has caused the painful situation that many suffer. On the other hand, real progress calls for an ethics which focuses on the human person and takes account of the most profound human needs, especially man’s spiritual and religious dimension. In the hearts and minds of many, the way is thus opening to an ever greater certainty that the rebirth of society demands upright men and women of firm moral convictions, with noble and strong values who will not be manipulated by dubious interests and who are respectful of the unchanging and transcendent nature of the human person. Dear friends, I am convinced that Cuba, at this moment of particular importance in its history, is already looking to the future, and thus is striving to renew and broaden its horizons. Of great help in this enterprise will be the fine patrimony of spiritual and moral values which fashioned the nation’s true identity, and which stand out in the work and the life of many distinguished fathers of the country, like Blessed José Olallo y Valdés, the Servant of God Félix Varela, and the acclaimed José Martí. For her part, the Church too has diligently contributed to the cultivation of those values through her generous and selfless pastoral mission, and renews her commitment to work tirelessly the better to serve all Cubans. 

Heinous Shooting of Trayvon Martin: Self-Defense, Cold-Blooded Murder, or an Accident?

Before I go into my thoughts about the incident that transpired which culminated in Treyvon Martin's death I want to extend my heartfelt sympathy to his family.  The whole situation is horrible.  To lose one's life at such a young age is tragic.

Secondly, I am going to address the progressive race hustlers who are politicizing the tragic death of this teenage boy.  Their central focus is on the fact that this happened to a black person, one of their own as Al Sharpton stated, but the racial aspect of this awful incident shouldn't be the main focus of their concern. The primary focus should be on the fact that a young human being's life was cut way too short due to a tragedy, one most likely preventable.  Louis Farrakhan and the New Black Panthers are irresponsible to call for an all out race war, a new civil war. The New Black Panthers have even gone so far as to offer a bounty for the "capture" of George Zimmerman. Their calls to violence crosses the line into vigilantism.  There is a big difference between advocating for justice and promoting vengeful actions.  The race hustlers are adding more fuel to the fire and increasing the dissension among different ethnic or racial groups.  Progressive commentators are maleficent to politicize this and their attempt to connect Republican politicians' positions on economic issues to this heinous crime is absurd.

My first reaction after hearing the two 911 recordings was a combination of outrage and sadness.  Whether the slaying of this young teenage boy was an accident, murder, or self-defense I don't know.  Two things seem self-evident; that Zimmerman was hyper-vigilant in his neighborhood watch duties, and that he refused to listen to the police when he chose to follow Trayvon.  The police told Zimmerman to stop following Trayvon and were on their way to investigate the situation.

I am unsure whether this incident was caused by George Zimmerman having a preconceived stereotype or due to racism, or whether he would have been overly vigilant with any individual who in his mind looked to be engaging in suspicious behavior?  Is there any evidence in Zimmerman's past to indicate that he had previously targeted blacks?  In my opinion it is a high probability that this heinous act wouldn't have happened if George had just listened to the police, backed off and let the police handle the situation.  Whether George was motivated by racism as well as whether this was cold-blooded murder, an accident, or an act of self-defense we don't know and is very much in question at this time.

After having read an article in the Orlando Sentinel it looks like there is more to this heinous incident then has been reported by the media.  According to the article there is at least one eye witness who corroborates George Zimmerman's account of the events which occurred that fateful night.  But the other side of the coin is the fact that Trayvon was not in possession of a gun or any other weapon, at least that we know of.  The only two items in Trayvon's possession that night were a bag of skittles and a cell phone.  Was there some type of scuffle between these two individuals?  Between the corroborated account and listening to the second 911 call it seems very likely that a brawl happened between Zimmerman and Trayvon.  But I honestly don't know whether a scuffle occurred or not. At the very least Zimmerman should have been arrested for disobeying a police officer's direct order.

I will repeat what I said at the beginning of this post.  This is a tragic incident that ended with a teenage boy's death, far too soon.  May justice be served. God rest Trayvon's soul.

Welcome To Obamaville

H/T American Freedom 

Obama, Ayers The Marxist Unrepentant Terrorist, and Their Ideological homogeneity

Daren Jonescu Revisits The Guy in Obama's Neighborhood.  In a 2008 Democratic Primary Debate, George Stephanopoulos asked Barack Obama a question on his relationship with the Weather Underground unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. Daren outlines how Obama's answer to that question is quite revealing when looked at with further scrutiny.

Here is Obama's answer:

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who [sic] I know and who [sic] I have not received some official endorsement from.  He's not somebody who [sic] I exchange ideas from [sic] on a regular basis.  And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects [sic] on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George.

From American Thinker: 

The "guy who lives in my neighborhood" locution has, suitably, received a lot of attention.  Taken as a whole, however, what is most striking about this answer is its garbled incoherence, its historical manipulation, and its appeal to amoral abstraction.

Notice how the answer hedges its bets, in the manner of the best post-Clinton political obfuscation.  The "guy in my neighborhood" line, taken together with the "not somebody [whom] I exchange ideas [with]" plea, is clearly meant to imply that Obama does not know Ayers well enough to be sullied by Ayers' "detestable acts."  And yet, Obama takes the trouble to insert that Ayers is "a professor of English from Chicago" whose unsavory activities took place "40 years ago" -- in other words, that he's not some extremist, but a "guy" with a highly respectable, essentially apolitical career, who, a very long time ago, did some bad things.  If the point were merely to dismiss charges of a close relationship while simultaneously expressing distaste for the man's past activities, why add remarks designed to undermine the view of Ayers as a disreputable character?  Isn't Obama supposed to be defending himself?  If so, why is he simultaneously defending Ayers?  The likely answer is that he is misrepresenting his relationship with Ayers, and must therefore prepare his escape route, should his lie be found out.  He is arguing, in effect, "I barely know him -- but even if I do, he's been a good and respectable citizen for most of my life, so you can't pin anything on me."  CONTINUED 

Of course Obama didn't join Bill Ayers in his bomb throwing days.  That's not in question and not what's important.  What is important is do Barack Obama and Bill Ayers hold the same ideology?  Do they hold the same agenda?  Are they both Marxists?  The answer is Yes.  Is Ayers still a Marxist who wants to overthrow the government?  Do Barack Obama and Bill Ayers want to destroy and dismantle our constitutional republic and replace it with some type of socialist state?  With almost complete certainty I can answer that question with a resounding Yes. 

Harry Potter Actor Jailed for Rioting in London

From Breitbart.com: 
Jamie Waylett 22, who played Hogwarts bully Vincent Crabbe in six "Harry Potter" films, was found guilty of violent disorder during the July riots by a London court on Tuesday after video footage showed him holding a gas bomb. According to the BBC, closed-circuit security camera images depicted Mr. Waylett drinking from a bottle of Champagne that he had been given by another rioter who had looted it from a supermarket and holding a gas bottle with a wick made from a rag. Waylett got a a two-year prison sentence for his role in last year's London riots.