It’s another day in Barack Obama’s “God damn America.”
[A] New York Times profile of Desirée Rogers, the currently embattled White House social secretary, suggests there was at least some discussion about backing away from Christmas tradition this year — not as it involved the tree, but a Nativity scene.
When former social secretaries gave a luncheon to welcome Ms. Rogers earlier this year, one participant said, she surprised them by suggesting the Obamas were planning a “non-religious Christmas” — hardly a surprising idea for an administration making a special effort to reach out to other faiths.The lunch conversation inevitably turned to whether the White House would display its crèche, customarily placed in a prominent spot in the East Room. Ms. Rogers, this participant said, replied that the Obamas did not intend to put the manger scene on display — a remark that drew an audible gasp from the tight-knit social secretary sisterhood. (A White House official confirmed that there had been internal discussions about making Christmas more inclusive and whether to display the crèche.)
Yet in the end, tradition won out; the executive mansion is now decorated for the Christmas holiday, and the crèche is in its usual East Room spot.
According to surveys, 76% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. But the most unChristian president we’ve ever had occupy the White House thinks that that overwhelming majority should have their religious symbols and holy days purged to make room for anybody who doesn’t like it.
How about asking people who DON’T like Christmas to practice a little damned tolerance?
Or maybe they can create their own holiday, and get the overwhelming majority of the planet to celebrate it.
No, that’s not the way these secular humanists work. They say it has to be THEIR way and ONLY their way, or else it’s “intolerant” – because they are the most militantly intolerant people on the planet, with the probable exception of al-Qaeda (i.e., al-Qaeda wouldn’t have backed down just because they found out public opinion was against them imposing their agenda).
Which is to say that this story isn’t about tolerance; it is about Barry Hussein’s blatant INTOLERANCE of Christians and of Christianity. The day that Obama asks the Islamic world not to celebrate their holiest day; the day he asks every other country representing every other faith not to celebrate their holiest day, it won’t be about a fundamental intolerance of Christianity any more.
The reasons these secular humanist cowards attack Christians is because we’re not like Muslims, who would kill them just for publishing a cartoon. They attack us because of our tolerance, not because of our lack of it.
Maybe Obama hates Christmas because he fears that Christmas wishes come true – and most Americans now want him living anywhere but the White House.
Tags: Desiree Rogers, God damn America, intolerance, Islam, manger scene, Obama, tolerance
Start Thinking Right 
December 9, 2009 at 1:11 pm
“They say it has to be THEIR way and ONLY their way, or else it’s “intolerant” ”
I’m sorry…who is telling you that you can’t celebrate your holiday any way you want to? Doesn’t look like anybody to me.
To me, it seems that your gripe is that others won’t celebrate the way you want them to. Which is too bad, because you don’t have the right to make others do what you want.
December 9, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Woohoo! I’m with you, Michael. I’m tired of hearing this new form of “tolerance” which begins with the words “I’m offended by–” and you can fill in the blank with just about any practice or tradition of Christianity. How ridiculous.
I’m thinking of getting the biggest Christmas tree AND Nativity scene I can find and riding around town, maybe around the whole dadburned country with ’em attached to the top of my car! Maybe I can park it in front of places that aren’t otherwise “allowed” to have ’em?
Backing away from Christmas traditions, my eye. He’s probably just uncomfortable around images of Christ, like any other devil would be.
December 10, 2009 at 2:33 pm
I think Obama regards Jesus as his competition, and figures by shutting Jesus out he’ll look better. Kind of like what King Herod did.
The birth of Jesus was the ultimate symbol of hope and change; whereas we find that all Obama really represents is hoax and chains.
December 10, 2009 at 3:01 pm
If you were half as smart as you think you are, you’d realize that you haven’t walked so much as a nanometer in my shoes. The fact of the matter is I’ve worked in more than one office where I and other Christians weren’t allowed to celebrate “my” holiday “any way I wanted to” because someone rather like you complained you were “offended” by religious displays.
Christians are the overwhelming majority of this country, and our worldview is the worldview of our founding fathers. But because of judicial activists who found “penumbras and emanations” to justify murdering babies, but somehow couldn’t find their way to protect religious freedom, and because of litigious atheism (ACLU, Freedom From Religion Foundation, etc. etc.) that has made businesses and organizations afraid to protect religious freedoms, we are very much prevented from “celebrating our holiday any way we want to.”
Barry Hussein was sworn in using the “Lincoln Bible.” And Abraham Lincoln, in the 2nd most important political speech in American history (behind only George Washington’s Farewell Address), fixed this nation in stone as “this nation, under God.”
When Desiree Rogers said Obama was not going to have the Nativity scene, there was an audible gasp from her predecessors – both Republican and Democrat – because it was an American tradition to have that display. And Obama was violating that tradition. The White House isn’t Obama’s house; it’s the people’s house. Did I mention that American is overwhelmingly Christian?
If you don’t want to celebrate Christmas, I frankly could care less. Hell is all yours, buddy – and I don’t want any part of it. But here you are on the one hand doing your part to prevent Christmas symbols from being displayed, and at the same time trying to claim that nobody is trying to keep Christians from celebrating their holiday any way they want to.
December 10, 2009 at 6:11 pm
By the way, in case anyone is interested, not that anyone asked, but on the offhand chance that someone might be curious, I’ll tell you (whoever might be reading this) what celebrating Christmas means to me. Part of the celebration takes place in my home in the quiet solitude of my humble little abode, reading the Scriptures, various Advent meditations, singing and playing Christmas songs (both of my own composition and by others). Part of it takes place in the homes of my friends and family. Part of it takes place at Mass in my local church parish. All of that goes on no matter what anyone else says or does.
But part of it has always taken place in public, at work, in the streets, greeting people I know and people I don’t know with “Merry Christmas” and I have worked in retail stores where we were not allowed to say the word “Christmas”. Not allowed to say the word! We were not allowed to have a Christmas party or to talk about having a Christmas party or to complain about not being able to have a Christmas party. We could, however, have a holiday party. But we were told that under no circumstances were we to refer to said party as a Christmas party and we could not speak of Christmas gifts, we could not speak of Christmas at all.
How many of us were of other religions who might be offended by the mere mention of Christmas? NONE! There was no one employed at our store who was not Christian, no one of another faith, and there was not an atheist either. Not a one. So why couldn’t we celebrate Christmas any way we wanted to? Because of someone else who lived and worked somewhere else who was afraid that who knows who living who knows where might for who knows what reason be offended by it.
Doesn’t make an iota of sense to me. If someone doesn’t want to celebrate Christmas, well, no one is forced to. But if someone does want to celebrate Christmas, he or she should not be forced not to.
And “any way I want to” means to me, most of all, FREELY. Anyone who doesn’t want to wish me a Merry Christmas is free not to. But if you don’t want to hear me wish you a Merry Christmas, I suggest that you stop up your ears because I’m going to say it, not to hurt you, but because it’s not about you, and it’s not about me. It’s about the birth of Christ and I’m recalling His birth to mind when I say it. I’m rejoicing that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. I’m rejoicing that He remains among us in the Blessed Sacrament. I’m rejoicing that God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son to dwell among us that we might have eternal life. I’m rejoicing that through baptism I am able to partake in that divine life. And anyone who wants to come to the Lord can come to the Lord. Anyone. Anyone at all.
And the main reason is because I love the Lord and He fills my heart with gladness. Given all of this, “how can I keep from singing?”
Or from wishing everyone I encounter a Very Merry Christmas. Even when it is against the rules or forbidden by fools.
December 10, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Thanks for that, Disciple. My Christmas mindset is very similar to your own. For me, the birth of Christ is God’s assurance that He cares about the plight of the world so much that He sent His very Son. The birth of Christ is the fulfillment of some 333 separate and specific prophecies that God gave His people, the Jews, through the prophets. The birth of Christ is the miraculous assurance that Light has come into the world.
But in addition to the purely religious and Christian element of Christmas, there is a purely secular and historic one: we are celebrating the birth of the Man from Galilee who had such an enormous impact on human history that our very calender recognizes his birth. “Christmas” and “2009 Anno Domini” (i.e. “in the year of our Lord”) go perfectly together.
If you don’t want to celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior, at least celebrate the birth of the greatest and most influential philosopher and teacher who ever lived.
December 10, 2009 at 9:46 pm
The thing about seeing Jesus as merely a great teacher is this (and I know you see Him as more, but this is for those who don’t):
If He was merely a teacher, then he was either crazy or a liar. Because He claimed to be much more than that. He rebuked those who called him “Teacher” in a more or less gentle way of trying to get through to them that they were in the presence of one greater than Solomon or Abraham. “Rabbi” (Teacher) or “Rabboni” (Our Teacher) were titles that did not approach naming what He really was and He knew it and He pointed it out to others. Some got it. Most didn’t.
December 11, 2009 at 12:56 pm
And this is for those who want to know more about what Disciple is saying.
Google “lord liar lunatic c.s. lewis.”
In his famous book Mere Christianity, Lewis makes this statement, “A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg – or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us.”
Here’s a fairly good link on the issue.
Disciple and I both affirm Jesus as Lord and as the Son of the living God. But even those who do not do so should still a) honor the greatest teacher the world has ever known, and b) allow those Christians who DO honor Him to have their Christmas celebration, rather than seeking to impose a “secular Christmas” (which is an oxymoron in every sense of the word).
December 12, 2009 at 6:11 am
AMEN!
December 21, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Obama and his band of atheists’ intend to “change” America…into something we won’t evern recognize. The minority is telling the majority what it can or cannot do under the Democrats now.
The Obama Administration IS pulling a fast one on America……
We had all better vote in 2010 to ‘RE-ELECT NOBODY”
December 21, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Jim,
I certainly think that people who have any sort of conservative or traditional inklings whatsoever had better re-think the Republican Party.
The Republican Party is pathetic – unless you compare it to Democrats, who are genuinely evil. Then it starts looking a lot better.
Democrats were doing what they are doing now all along. They and their media propagandists were just better at blaming Republicans than Republicans were at telling the truth.
Conservatives need to follow the advice of Ronald Reagan and try and make the Republican Party a better, stronger, more faithful-to-conservative-values party.
For better or for worse, we’re either going to get Republican control, or more Democrat control – with the Democrats thinking success in 2010 or 2012 is a call for even more massive liberal-socialist programs. We get to choose which.
And “NOBODY” won’t be on the ballot.
December 21, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Maybe the better phrase would be “RE-ELECT NO ONE IN CONGRESS” that is running for re-election. Quite frankly, you and I would be much better for this country than the political hacks that occupy our Congress today.
December 21, 2009 at 3:11 pm
I agree with you that ordinary citizens would do a better and more honest and effective job running the country than those now in Congress, Jim. And so did the founding fathers. They truly wanted a government by the common man and for the common man. They hated the European class system that made nobility of birth (not character) the only requirement for power.
Tragically, both parties, along with the government bureaucracies and the lobbyists and all the special interests, have joined together to see to it that ordinary people like you and I have virtually no chance of being elected. That is one of the few things where Republicans are just as bad as Democrats on.
My comments weren’t so much intended to be critical of what you were saying, but to deal with the conclusion that some people would take from your comments. That is, that we should create a “third” or “independent” party.
Rasmussen did a survey and concluded that if a “Tea Party” were in the election mix, Democrats would win by a landslide. Democrats would go from losing 41%-36% to winning 36%-23%.
The other thing about a “third” party is that it would become corrupt as soon as it actually got any power.
As it stands right now, there are virtually no third party candidates in the Congress. And those we DO have emerged (primarily) from the Democrat Party and got elected to office under a major party. We have basically NEVER had a president from a “third” party.
I just want people to be practical and consider the consequences – outcome – of their vote.
And the question you basically need to ask is this: would the country be better off under a conservative/Republican platform, or from a liberal/Democrat platform?
December 21, 2009 at 3:17 pm
“A no-brainer”….JimBob
December 21, 2009 at 3:46 pm
I’ll quote you on that.
The one thing we can both agree on is that the Democrats in Congress now are leading us toward total ruin faster than anyone could have ever imagined.
December 22, 2009 at 6:32 am
So… are you guys liars or lunatics?
December 22, 2009 at 6:32 pm
I’ll always wonder how empty and wasted are the minds and lives of people such as you, for real.
If I were going to post a comment on a liberal blog, I’d have something to say – a genuine objection, armed with sanity and truth to give what I said some weight. I wouldn’t just spit out some stupid, trivial insult.
December 24, 2009 at 10:19 pm
There are those who are deaf to the voice of truth within and blind to what is happening all around them. The commenter who calls him/herself “For real?” may be one of those. Or he/she may have sympathy for the devils in power. Or he/she may be a mere troll. In any case, He Who is the Light of the world was born to bring salvation to all those wandering in darkness. I’ll just add one more name to the ever-lengthening prayer list.
Have a Merry Christmas, ya’ll…for real!
December 24, 2009 at 10:35 pm
We can all remember the scene in John 18:37ff when Pilate was interrogating Jesus, and Jesus said, “I came to testify to the truth.”
Pilate cynically asked Jesus, “What IS truth?” And then turned his back on the One who was truth’s very embodiment.
Merry Christmas, Disciple.
December 24, 2009 at 10:55 pm
My favorite question. Of course, when people ask me that, I have to correct them. It’s not What is truth, though those are Pilate’s words as recorded in the Gospel. What he should have asked is, Who is Truth?
Truth is not a something but a Someone.
Merry Christmas, Michael from someone who is a struggling disciple.
December 24, 2009 at 11:46 pm
I see things slightly differently. But we would reconcile our views to one another’s in minutes if we sat down and talked about it.
I see truth as a thing, grounded in a Someone. With truth being that which corresponds to the God’s-eye view of reality.
Only the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit truly understand the totality of reality. All of the rest of us – even the angels – have less than the full picture.
Through the worship of Christ, the indwelling of the Spirit, and the reading of the Word, can we begin to gain in our understanding of the world as it really is.
The more one denies Christ, the less one knows of truth.
I don’t know how you’re struggling, Disciple, but I shall pray for you, that the Lord’s strength be made perfect even in your weakness.
Every Christian is yearning for the moment when Christ resurrects our bodies and perfects our wills in the Rapture.
December 25, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Well, I’m just taking Christ at His word. After all, He’s the one Who said: “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.” (John 14:6) So according to Christ, the Way is a Person. The Truth is a Person. The Life is a Person. And that Person is Him. I’ll take His view over anyone else’s any day, don’t ya know. ;)
December 29, 2009 at 3:39 pm
I also look a couple of chapters later, where Jesus says to Pilate, “For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world – to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to me” (John 18:37).
I would define truth as that which corresponds to reality. And I would further submit that there are things that are true that one does not need to be a Christian to apprehend (e.g. “Water boils at 212 degrees F”; “The Burj Dubai is the tallest building in the world”). I would think it would be difficult to maintain that these aren’t true statements.
Now, you could accurately maintain that Christ – who created the universe (see John 1:1-3), created the temperature at which water boiled, and created the building blocks for the building. But even non-Christians can nonetheless agree on facts such that water boils at 212 F, etc.
On my view, there is something I call the “God’s-eye view” of the world. And if you don’t recognize God, and don’t recognize that God as being the God of the Bible, the Triune Godhead of which Jesus Himself is a member, then you will not be able to have any meaningful comprehension of ultimate reality.
This is an ultimate truth, and to believe anything other than “Jesus is Lord” is a lie from the devil.
I would be happy if liberals would simply understand simple truths such as “the government can’t spend trillions on top of trillions and have a thriving and stable economy,” or “killing an unborn child is the unjustified homicide of an innocent human being.”
December 29, 2009 at 3:49 pm
I know you couldn’t hear me applauding as I read your reply, but, I assure you, I was. Am. Applauding. And grinning. :)
Hope you had a very Merry Christmas, Michael. :)
December 29, 2009 at 4:17 pm
I hope you had a Merry Christmas as well, Disciple.
I went to a hotel near Disneyland for a few days to meet with a couple of cousins and their families (who spent a couple days doing Disneyland), my parents, and my brother and his family.
No snow, sadly, but a very Merry Christmas nevertheless!
P.S. Am grinning just at the thought of having made you grin!
December 17, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Good god you people are a bunch of wackos. Get a life and stop watching so much TV.
December 19, 2011 at 11:49 pm
Bob,
Dang, you liberals are a bunch of haters of everyone else’s right to express themselves. Get a life and stop posting so many stupid comments that are devoid of any kind of rational argument.