Things that Make You Go Hmm…

All my recent posts of late have been links, for which I apologize to those who want to read ruminations about Sci-Fi, listen to an endless argument about materialism, or see pictures of Catwoman. Nonetheless, one more item of interest caught my eye. File this under ‘What is Wrong with the World’:

( – The U.S. State Department removed the sections covering religious freedom from the Country Reports on Human Rights that it released on May 24, three months past the statutory deadline Congress set for the release of these reports.

The new human rights reports–purged of the sections that discuss the status of religious freedom in each of the countries covered–are also the human rights reports that include the period that covered the Arab Spring and its aftermath.

Thus, the reports do not provide in-depth coverage of what has happened to Christians and other religious minorities in predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East that saw the rise of revolutionary movements in 2011 in which Islamist forces played an instrumental role.

For the first time ever, the State Department simply eliminated the section of religious freedom in its reports…

Read the rest here. Hat tip to Mark Shea.


  1. Comment by Iapetus:

    Well, that’s not foreboding in the least…

    Good to see they’ve given up on even attempting subtlety. The supporters of this administration need to see just what they’re supporting.

  2. Comment by Fabio P.Barbieri:

    You know I detest Mitt Romney. But there’s another reason to hope he wins in November. Even if he turns out to favour his CINO side, he still will have to restore that and other things Obama has trampled. And one might hope that Holder and Sebelius, in particular, would be carefully and impartially investigated.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      Any of the other Republican candidates, from Bachmann to Gingrich to Kane to Santorum, would have been a better choice than Mitt Romney. However, any president, with the single exception of Woodrow Wilson, would be a better than Mr Obama. he makes me wish for the Carter days again.

      Nonetheless, I shall no doubt hold my nose and vote for Mr Romney, merely because he is not Mr Obama. Such are the drawbacks of the Democratic system.

      • Comment by ShireNomad:

        A bit tangential a subject, I admit, but I need to know: how could you support Gingrich over ANYONE given your views on the sanctity of marriage? His views on the disposability and interchangeability of his wives disgust me, and were he the nominee I could not in good conscience vote for him based on that alone (if that’s the respect he shows toward his marriage vows, could we expect a shred more respect out of him toward his oath of office?) I will take Romney over him any day.

        • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

          Ah, his views on Marriage are not bad, it’s his acts on Marriage that shame, and as Christians, we are told to forgive sinners (while still, you know, hating the sin). Much like our big tripping point with the “homosexuals” is not the trivial sin (especially compared to our own scorched earth acts on Divorce!), but the demand that we stop calling it a sin, that we validate their acts. I’m pretty sure that Gingrich would be tossed out on his ear the minute he acted proud of his divorces……

          • Comment by Rade Hagedorn:

            The problem of course is that Speaker Gingrich does not just sin but does so in a manner that leads you to believe that either he only supports the sanctity of marriage out of political opportunism or that he is not actually repentant. At any rate, at some point I think that it is valid to decide that a particular individual’s moral struggles make them unsuitable for particular roles or positions of authority.

        • Comment by John C Wright:

          It is exactly this point which also disgusts me about Mr Gingrich. Electing him would make all the Republican ire over Mr Clinton’s sexual perversion and promiscuity null and void.

      • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

        “Any of the other Republican candidates, from Bachmann to Gingrich to Kane to Santorum, would have been a better choice than Mitt Romney.”? I wonder. You believe the biggest problem facing the country is the “out of control” spending, yes? (We could speak of Corruption, but, alas, Palin was not running) The only candidate who has actually done so is Romney, in Taxxachusetts, where he started with over 3 billion in deficit spending and ended (with some argument) with a surplus. In a notorious one party state (and not his party!) so corrupt that Ted Kennedy was their Senator for Life. It seems to me that you should be pleased as punch that Romney came out on top, if you were serious about the “overspending”. “Cometh the hour, cometh the man.” Yes, he is going to work with the Democrats, who, after all, are not going away. Yes, it’s fun to tilt at the windmills, it’s fun to play at “Gandalf on the Bridge”, but at some point the adults have to do the messy, dirty work. I thought we were the adults…..

        • Comment by John C Wright:

          You believe the biggest problem facing the country is the “out of control” spending, yes?

          No. What I believe is the biggest problem facing the country I explain in exhaustive detail here:

          I regard the war against Jihadism to be of higher priority, the restoration of religious liberty, the repeal of Obamacare, the destruction of abortion and the abortion industry, the investigation of ‘Fast and Furious’, the restoration of our military to full fighting strength, the restoration of alliances with Tiwain and Israel and Great Britain, the return of GM to the private sector, at greater priority.

          I do wish you would ask what my opinions are rather than tell me what they are. It makes you sound insincere and churlish.

          The rest of your paragraphs seems to be a ‘flight of ideas’ such as we see in manic-depressives in the manic stage. I recognize the airy, breezy, sneering sound of unearned moral superiority. But, aside from the tone, I cannot apprehend what you are trying to say. Your point is lost in the ramble. Where you rejoicing that Mr Romney, as a centrist, will work closely with Democrats? That is not something I necessarily oppose.

          Or perhaps you are saying Mr Romney will not be able to drew up back from the abyss of overspending which has plagued the West since we went off the gold standard, and has now finally reached the utmost end? Or perhaps you are saying he will be, and are gloating the the Democrats have a better plan for fiscal responsibility?

          If the first, I have no form opinion on the point. Perhaps he can or perhaps he cannot. Much depends on the composition of Congress.

          If the second, I am speechless with the impertinence of the suggestion, and merely recommend you look at the history of the Democrat party since, say, the Civil War, and what was their attitude toward public spending and raising taxes.

          • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

            Yes, you have been quite clear on your positions, which is why I had to poke you. “Any of the other Republican candidates, from Bachmann to Gingrich to Kane to Santorum, would have been a better choice than Mitt Romney.”. Any of the Republican candidates includes Ron Paul, and his concept of complete surrender in the face of the Jihadism. As to the restoration of Religious Freedom, Mr. Romney seems the only candidate with a personal stake. Romney seems to be as good as any other candidate on “Fast and Furious”, having called for Holder to resign months ago. Pro Life? Not an issue for Presidents, alas. I have seen nothing implying that Romney appointed judges were ninth circuit insane. As to rebuilding foreign alliances, while governors don’t have such duties, Romney’s ability to govern Massachusetts as a Republican would appear to be a good indicator. As to your concerns about GM, Romney would appear to be the strongest candidate when it comes to business experience. As to the military, again, Romney blows Ron Paul out of the water. We have seen that play before. A Republican isolationist wave gets elected. We don’t get the isolationism, but we do see the military shrink to the point our fighting men have no tires or winter clothes. All the candidates (except Mr. Paul) signed off on your concerns. Of all the things under a president’s control, the overspending (Of which you wrote so passionately when W was president, before Obama increased the deficit tenfold, Ha-Ha!) would seem the most difficult, and the issue Romney seems best suited for.

            Well, I know what your opinions are, you write them down, quite elegantly, and post them in public. That’s why your implication that Republican candidate Ron Paul(“Any of the other candidates”) was more to your liking then Mitt Romney gave me whiplash. Perhaps it’s a case where Ron Paul is such a flake you blocked him out of your consideration. Running a comic and gaming store like I do, I get a regular earful from his supporters…….

            Not “unearned moral superiority.”. Pointing out that Romney has the best record when it comes to dealing with deficits, and avoiding the “clown suit” that the Democrats put on Gingrich so easily. The government shutdowns, while satisfying, did not shrink the deficits at all, and did much to get Pornstar reelected. You said Gingrich was preferable to Romney (“Any of the other Republican candidates, from Bachmann to Gingrich”), which seems an act of emotion, not logic. Yes, Gingrich will fight, but he losses, gets put into the clown suit. Romney would seem to be the logical choice, given his success in dealing with the corrupt and venial democrats in the one party state of Massachusetts, even if he does end up looking like a RINO.

            As to the history of the Democrats, they lost their soul with Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears, and they haven’t gotten any better.

            • Comment by John C Wright:

              I have not been posting my opinions of the candidates in any depth.

              I admired the government shut-downs as perfectly reasonable reactions to Clinton’s playing chicken, and I did not believe the press who threw the blame for Clinton’s shut downs on Gingrich. I wish we had seen more of them, so that the people would come to realize how little the federal government is needed in peacetime. Nonetheless, I would prefer not to have Gingrich as candidate, because his record of divorce deeply offends me.

              I admire Ron Paul’s stance on economic and budgetary matters. Nonetheless, I would prefer not to have Gingrich as candidate, because of his isolationism. Isolationism is madness during wartime for the attacked.

              And so on. Rick Santorum did not offend me one way or the other. I would much have preferred him to be the candidate.

              My discontent with Mr Romney is with Romneycare. He strikes me as insufficiently conservative to return the federal government to constitutional limits. He is not tea party enough for my tastes.

              • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

                No, you have not posted on the current candidates in depth, but you have written in depth about the duties of a Catholic voter, which Romney meets (unless I missed something) and Gingrich doesn’t, (unless I missed something) and the duty of a President to defend our country when attacked, which Romney meets (unless I missed something), and Ron Paul doesn’t. I don’t claim to be happy about “Romneycare”, but he governed Massachusetts, and I think he was not the prime mover of that idiot idea, anymore then we blame Reagan for getting No-Fault divorce passed in California (A far more harmful measure then “free” healthcare).

                I think it comes down to your first statement, “Any of the other Republicans Candidates”. Seemed that you were coming close to the Corn King thing the Democrats keep falling for. “He is not tea party enough for my tastes.” is quite a walk-back from that, and much closer to the positions you have laid out in the past.

      • Comment by KokoroGnosis:

        I think I can say with very little hyperbole that a can of soup would be better than the current yahoo. Being an inanimate object, it wouldn’t aim for unconstitutional power grabs, couldn’t sign anything stupid into law, and it wouldn’t put its feet up on the desk.

  3. Comment by Sean Michael:

    I too am disgusted and angered by the Obama Administration’s white washing and ignoring of Muslim persecution of Christians and other non Muslims. But not surprised. Yet another reason for hoping Mitt Romney wins in November. ANYONE would be better than Barry Obama!

    Sean M. Brooks

    Leave a Reply