Friday, November 13, 2009

Out of the depths have I cried unto thee, O LORD. Lord, hear my prayer…” —King David, Psalm 130.

Out of the Depths

November 13th, 2009

by Dr. Robert Moynihan

Out of the depths have I cried unto thee, O LORD. Lord, hear my prayer…” —King David, Psalm 130.

World Premiere in Moscow

It was called “A Song of Ascents,” and the song did rise, inexorably, from a first, lonely, low note from a single cello to a crescendo of many violins on their highest string with the choir singing: “Give glory to God!”

Those opening low notes from a single cello seemed almost a risk by the composer — too lonely, too stark, too simple. The notes echoed almost eerily in the packed Moscow concert hall. Would they lead anywhere?

“I intended that,” Russian Orthodox Archishop Hilarion Alfeyev, the composer of the piece , told me later that evening. “A song of ascents has to begin low. Then you go up…”

Those first notes reflected the words of the psalm of King David: “Out of the depths have I cried unto thee…”

Out of the depths, “de profundis” in Latin, the well-known first words of Psalm 130. King David prayed, as we often do, “from the depths” — from the depths of darkness and despair, from the depths of suffering.

We too often cry out from the depths of the emptiness which can sometimes cast a shadow over our human lives — an emptiness which seems to have threatened our present age with particular vehemence, as many modern men and women wonder whether they (we humans) are the types of beings who have even enough dignity to be worthy to be damned.

If we have no eternal destiny whatsoever, what are we? A brief flurry of dust, nothing more.

This is the peculiarity of our present cultural predicament. Our culture of scientific knowledge, with its unprecedented annihilation of the transcendent, has also annihilated even the hope of an ascent, for there is nowhere to ascend to. And here, within time, there is only endless flux, then silence.

The notes of Hilarion’s song, accompanied by a hundred splendid, powerful male and female Russian voices, began low, but then they rose, moving ever higher, then still higher, until they seemed to strain the capacity of the violins.

I worried that the strings would break.

The ascent seemed to stretch beyond this earth.

I intended that as well,” Hilarion Alfeyev told me after the concert. “I wished to give the sensation of the ascent that stretches toward the eternal. It was a risk, but I took it.”

This approach, first strings, then horns and bells joining in, then voices, all rising higher and higher, yet always simple, even-paced, like a steady hiker ascending a mountain path, is the opposite of much modern composition, which is atonal and unevenly paced.

And in this sense, the composition I heard tonight is revolutionary.

In the second movement, the cellos, violas and violins echoed one another as if across valleys.

In the third movement, Hilarion reflected on the loneliness of exile, of being far from the Promised Land. It was a reflection on Psalm 137, By the waters of Babylon.

“By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
We hung up our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof.
For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion.
How shall we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land?”

Psalm 137 is one of the best known of the Biblical psalms. It is a hymn expressing the yearnings of the Jewish people in exile following the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem in 586 BC. (This would mean it is not by King David. Rabbinical sources attributed the poem to the prophet Jeremiah, and the Septuagint version of the psalm bears the superscription: “For David. By Jeremias, in the Captivity.”)

The first lines of the poem are very well known, as they describe the sadness of the Israelites, asked to “sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land.” They refuse to do this, leaving their harps hanging on trees.

In the Orthodox Church, and those Eastern Catholic Churches which use the Byzantine Rite, Psalm 137 (which is known by its Septuagint numbering as Psalm 136) is read at Matins on Friday mornings throughout the year (except during the week following Easter Sunday, when no psalms at all are read).

Psalm 137 has been set to music by many composers, including Palestrina, Rossi, Verdi and Partch, and now, in part, by Hilarion.

In a sense, the Russian Orthodox Church, like many other Christian communities, persecuted under communism during the 20th century, was “exiled” from its own country, and could no longer conduct its worship, no longer “sing the Lord’s song,” in its own homeland.

But now, with communism in the past, have the Orthodox remembered their song?

Or, during the time of exile, did they forget the song altogether?

This concert prompts these thoughts in my mind, and the choirs singing suggests to me that perhaps the song is beginning to be sung again…

The fourth movement was centered on a single word: “Alleluia,” and the choirs, men and women, sang this word of praise to one another, accompanied by many single-note ancient horns which have not been used in concerts for 200 years, Hilarion told me, and by drums.

Then came the fifth and final movement, in which the choirs sang “Come, let us give glory to the name of God!” The French horns come in to punctuate the phrases, and the hall shakes with the intensity of the sound.

Why give God glory?

Because we are men. And as men, capable of conceiving of the infinite, but not of grasping it, conscious of our universe, so that we not only know, but know that we know, yet nevertheless mortal, we have enormous dignity, contained in an earthen vessel which does not last.

So, becoming realistic, we embrace both our dignity, and our tragedy.

The dignity of a man is to give glory to God, that is, to act and be truthful and loving toward each of our neighbors so that they sense the meaning, the logos, of the universe at the source of our acting and being, which is truth and love, eternal.

So the glory that we give to God is to live as men — not as ants in a hive, not as demons in a cage, not as angels in a choir, but as men, men marred by sin, but mindful of Zion.

Let us rather cut off our right hand, than forget Zion.

The bell rings at the back of the orchestra, the voices rise to a crescendo, strings and bells, both choirs, highest and lowest notes — the bell insists, insists, rings out again and again. Crescendo. Silence. Applause.

A Mother’s Journey

Archbishop’s Hilarion new symphony was performed this evening as part of a “Country of Resurrection” Musical Festival held in the framework of an annual “Orthodox Russia” exhibition. This concert closed the exhibition.

But it was not the music alone which drew me to this concert hall this evening. It was also the chance to meet an extraordinary woman, Valeria Alfeyeva — the mother of Archbishop Hilarion. (His father passed away some years ago.)

“Is it so important to you to meet her?” he asked me. “I will let you sit next to her.”

And so I sat next to her.

I felt privileged, not because I was being seated in a VIP section among a number of wealthy benefactors of the Russian Orthodox Church, but because I had just discovered and started to read a book by Valeria called A Pilgrimage to Dzhvari: A Woman’s Journey of Spiritual Awakening.

The book is a loosely autobiographical account of a Russian woman’s “coming to faith” in the waning days of the Soviet Union, in about the year 1980, and particularly of her pilgrimage to two Orthodox monasteries in Georgia, the first called Dzhvari.

In this story, shortly after the death of her husband, the narrator, a journalist like Alfeyeva, and her teenage son, called Dmitri (”Mitya”) in the book, arrange an unusual visit to a famous monastery — unusual because women are traditionally forbidden entry.

But it was actually a journey this mother made with her 15-year-old son. It was the journey which sparked her own spiritual awakening — and Hilarion’s vocation as a monk, and now an archbishop, in the Orthodox Church.

The monks in the story urge Valeria to abandon her “intellectual” appreciation of Christianity for a more profoundly spiritual faith, while Mitya is encouraged in his desire to become a priest.

Six years later, Mitya becomes a monk.

The fascination of this work comes not only from the depiction of the monks’ human weaknesses and constant spiritual self-testing, but also from Alfeyeva’s thoughtful explanation of the Orthodox faith and her lyrical descriptions of the natural beauty of the Georgian countryside.

“Even at the age of two, I could tell he was special,” Valeria tells me about her son. “Listen carefully to this music tonight: it is all about the psalms, from the ‘de profundis‘ to the sorrow by the rivers of Babylon.”
She tells me how, at the age of 22, she circumnavigated the USSR, traveling northward up the entire Pacific coast of the country, then turning west through the Arctic Ocean along the top of the country.

I realize that Alfeyev’s mother was willing to take risks, as he is. It explains something.

I urge others to read this moving story of her spiritual journey during the Soviet time.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Inside the Vatican magazine is produced by journalists and scholars with many decades of experience reporting from Rome. Inside the Vatican is Catholic but editorially independent of any faction or interest group, in or outside of the Church. Subscribe here.

Inside the Vatican

Thursday, November 12, 2009

For those who think the Fort Hood incident is an Isolated one...

Let the evidence stand for itself. Islam is at war with the West.
Here are latest headlines from around the world regarding islam:

Norwegian Women 'Fair Game' for Muslim Rapists...

Saudi Man Given 300 Lashes for Being a 'Home Wrecker'...

Muslim 'Poet' Speaks of Blowing Up the 'Earth of New York'...

Ft. Hood Shooter a Big Fan of Sharia Law...

Older Buddhist Couple Taken Down by Religion of Peace...

11-Year-Old Boy Assaulted for Eating Salami Sandwich...

(Sweden) Teens Sign Up for Jihad at Taxpayer Funded Center

Muslim Goes Wild in California Mall, Rips off Man's Crucifix...

Cleric Who Praised Ft. Hood Massacre Called 'Preacher of Peace'

Kansas City Police: Statutory Rape of 14-Year-Old Based on 'Islamic Views'...

22,000 Pakistanis Killed by Islamic Terror in Past Six Years...

Christian Janitor Dies Saving Muslim Students...

(Australia) Father Kills Boy with Steak Knife, Utters 'Allah'...

Pakistan President Racked Up $4.3 Million in a Single Bribe...

Iran Enraged over Oxford Scholarship Honoring Slain Girl...

Ottawa Cabbie Jailed for Threatening Daughter over Hijab...

Church Service Broken Up by Muslims with Machetes, Clubs...

CAIR Promises to Quiz FBI over Search of Shooter's Mosque...

(pdf) Full Copy of Nidal Hasan's 2007 Army Presentation...

Ft. Hood Victims Called 'Maggots'

CAIR Speaker to Muslims: OK to Attack US Planes...

US Defense Department Ignored al-Qaeda E-Mail...

Chicago Mayor Blames Fort Hood Massacre on Gun Laws...

(US) Muslim Beltway Sniper Executed...

al-Qaeda Encourages 'Lone Wolf' Attacks on Westerners...

Iran Prepared to Amputate Hands for Theft...

Denmark Offers $20,000 to 'Anti-Social' Immigrants Who Leave...

Imam Hails Ft. Hood Killer as Hero

Obama Keeps Fort Hood Speech Free of 'Terror', 'Jihad'...

Iran Accuses U.S. Hikers of Espionage - Could Face Death...

(Turkey) 953 Women Murdered in First 7 Months of 2009...

Kansas City Convert 'Marries' 14-Year-Old Girl...

School Principal Beheaded by Religion of Peace Militants...

Italian Feminist Calls Muhammad a 'Pedophile'...

Ft. Hood Killer was Lay Muslim Leader in Chaplain's Absence...

(US) Substitute Teacher Refuses to Condemn Ft. Hood Massacre...

Calling Card of Psychiatrist Killer: 'Soldier of Allah'...

Ft. Hood Shooter Said Infidels Should Have Their Throats Cut...

Sharia Police Hit the Streets in Indonesia...

Hezbollah Attempts to Ban the 'Diary of Anne Frank'...

(UK) Muslim Trashes Church Over Late Food Stamps...

Asylum Seeker Rapes Three British Women and One Boy...

Kuwaiti Woman 'Beaten Merci-lessly' after Spurning Advances...

Killeen Mosque Member Defends Ft. Hood Shooting...

Texas Killer Attended Morning Prayers Hours Before Rampage...

Iran Pressures Jailed Christians with Sleep Deprivation...

Arizona Honor Killing Victim 'Just Wanted to be Normal'...

Christian Arrested for 'Praying Without a License'...

Adulterer Stoned - 'Screaming, Blood Pouring from His Head'...

Ft. Hood Killer Said Goodbyes, Passed Out Qur'ans...

NPR: Ft. Hood Killer was on Probation for Proselytizing Islam...

Texas Mass Murderer Yelled 'Allah Akbar' During Rampage, Wore Islamic Garb Shortly Before

Ft. Hood: 'Muslims Should Stand Up and Fight the Aggressor'...

U.S. Muslims Quick to Play Victim in Wake of Texas Massacre...

Rising Gang Rape in the UK Placed in 'Cultural Context'...

Somali Islamists Destroy Graves

Muslim Psyciatrist Guns Down 13 US Soldiers in Texas...

Turks Pelt Israeli Ambassador with Eggs...

Two Female School Teachers Shot to Death by Hardliners...

8th Grade Christian Girl Kidnapped, Converted, 'Married'...

10-Year-Old Girl Attacked with Acid, Gang-Raped, Killed...by muslims

Husband Slits Children's Throats after Wife Asks for Divorce...

British City Councillor Arrested for Sex Assault...

CAIR Sues Book Authors, Yet Alleges No Falsehood...

'Rogue' Afghan Policeman Murders Five British Troops...

Islamic TV Cleric Explains that 'Everyone Hates Jews'...

Hamas Brings Tel Aviv Within Reach of Missiles...

Arizona Woman Dies of Injuries from Honor Killing Attempt...

Fear that Missing McCann Toddler May Have Been Taken by Muslim Human Traffickers...

Holocaust Condoner, Gay Stoning Advocate is 'Theological Consul-tant' for New Muhammad Movie...

Muslims Called on to 'Reap the Heads of Infidels'...

Fatwa against Muslims Singing Indian National Anthem...

Maker of '2012' Spared Muslim Landmarks in Film Out of Fear...

Iranian Cleric Urges Muslims Not to Pray Toward Mecca...

UK Woman with 'Obsessive Interest' in Jihad Walks Free...

Muslim Immigrant Starts Anti-Semitic Party in Sweden...

Blogger Offered Prison Release if He Will Convert to Islam...

Nuns Rescue Discarded Children in Bangladesh...

Jihad du Jour: Thirty Bank Customers Massacred...

60-Year-Old Homosexual Pulled from Home and Beaten to Death...

UK Rapist Escapes Deportation...

(US) Man Beats Brother to Death over Insulting Remark...

50 Pakistani Christians Murdered Since 2001 over 'Blasphemy'...

Afghan Heroin Killing More Victims than the War...

(UK) Muslim Clerk Snubs Mother for Supporting Injured Troops...

Qur'an 'Faith Healer' Suspected in Burning Death of Lesbian...

(Somalia) 50 Women Rounded Up and Beaten for Not Wearing Veil...

CAIR Official Ejected from Capitol Hill Conference...

Brave Islamists Attempt Revenge on Woman Who Fought Back...

Victim of Muslim Clawhammer Attack Struggles with Brain Injury

9/11 Father Fights to Have Son's Death Remembered as 'Murder by Muslim Terrorists'...

CAIR Financed Legal Appeal for Atlanta Cop-Killer...

(US) Mainstream Muslims Call for Investigation into Death of 'Non-Mainstream' Radical

Islamic Party Advises Men to Take Moms as Second Wives...

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/


Clearly, islam is a problem, but the biggest problem is Political correctness that is tying the arms of those who would resist this. The irony is that those who impose Political Correctness(ie those on the left of the dial who support socialism, abortion and gay marriage etc) would find themselves quite un-tolerated in an islamic sharia society.

D.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Remembering our Veterans, both alive and the dead, God bless them and have mercy on the United States of America

Because how America goes, so goes the world. God help us all.

D.


In Flanders Fields
By Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD
(1872-1918) Canadian Army
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders Fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders Fields.
[Source: Arlington Cemetery]

Monday, October 26, 2009

The link between the Pill and Cancer

Don’t Think, Wear Pink!

October 23rd, 2009

by Jenny Senour

I’ve been visually assaulted this month by proliferation of pink popping up… everywhere. The grocery store, the gym, my favorite coffee shop… I swear, if I get a pink-foil wrapped burrito at Chipotle, my head is going to explode.

Now pink is my very favorite color, it’s true. So why the rage? Why did the mere sight of that blushing, bubbly white-zinfandel colored wrist band on the NFL ref during last week’s Broncos game cause my blood pressure to spike?

Well, for the same reason that other women are experiencing elevated levels of blood pressure. And increased risk of strokes and heart disease. And skyrocketing risk rates for breast cancer:

The Pill.

The very same Pill that so many of these merchants tout as the panacea to the problems of the modern world, particularly to those faced by members of the fairer sex. The Pill, our culture proclaims from every magazine spread, television broadcast and billboard, is the answer to our over-populated, under-sexed and insufficiently satiated appetite for more.

But it’s delivered a whole lot more than we could have expected. Which brings me back to the infuriating “think pink” campaign which has somehow replaced our collective conscience for the time being, (giving the tiresome ‘go green’ mantra a break) and opened up a marketing opportunity for everyone from Safeway to Starbucks to the National Football League to show how much they care.

Except, they don’t.

At least, not enough to stop marketing or manufacturing that very same substance which is largely to blame for the skyrocketing increase in breast cancer rates over the past several decades.

Breast cancer is a terrible scourge, a vicious disease. It is heartless in its selection of victims, aggressive in its course, and cruelly demanding of its victims.

But what is far more terrible and in fact much more insidious is the idea of a collaboration of industries whose monetary interests far outweigh their humanitarian concerns.

But when you’ve got companies like Subaru and Wells Fargo funding Planned Parenthood, when you’ve got Ortho and Depo and Yaz and the like being pushed over the counter at Kroger’s to teens and middle aged mommies alike… you start to wonder. How much do these companies actually care about those customers of theirs - girls and women like you and me?

Sure, there are races for the cure, posters saluting fallen heroines who lost their battles, pink sleeves for coffee cups to show that one stands “against” breast cancer.

Because doing something, anything, in the face of overwhelming evil feels better than doing nothing at all. But the funny thing is, after all those dollars are collected at the checkout counter, after all the fundraisers and campaigns for a cure are safely in November’s rearview mirror… will those same companies and indiviudals who proclaim their concern so conspicuously still be speaking out? Will they continue to let their wallets talk for them, reconsidering purchases which might benefit the manufacturers of the Pill in an effort to “fight the good fight?”

Or will this be sufficient? Is it enough to wear a little pink for 30 days? Is no further action required to curtail the epidemic that is stalking our generation? Are we not, in fact, compelled by justice to inform women honestly about the risks associated with consumable, injectible and insertable hormonal contraceptives?

Such an inconvenient truth, this link between cancer and the Pill. It couldn’t possibly be true, could it? No, no… it’s little more than a “right wing scare tactic” or a “dogmatic religious falsehood,” a pro-life “myth”… that’s what the media continually reassures us in soothing tones.

“Don’t worry, nobody’s going to take your contraception away. You don’t have to fret; there are no consequences, and nobody is going to get hurt. Here, put on this pink hat. Affix this bumper sticker to your vehicle. Shhhh, now, doesn’t that feel better?”

I’d argue, no.

So rethink pink, my friends. And ask yourselves who the real losers are when lies become so oft- repeated they become the truth.

Jenny Senour is a graduate student at Franciscan University of Steubenville, where she studies, writes and speaks on Theology of the Body to college aged audiences. She blogs at agreatdeception.blogspot.com on matters of chastity, human sexuality, and the dignity of the human person. A newly published freelance writer, her articles can be found in Our Sunday Visitor. She is a Program Director of Mission Development for FOCUS (Fellowship of Catholic University Students), in Denver, CO, where she works to reach college students for Christ.

Friday, October 16, 2009

The need for prayer and fasting: Lord forgive them, they know what they do, and don't really care...

Abortion Practitioner Writes of Doing Abortions While Pregnant With Unborn Baby

by Steven Ertelt

LifeNews.com Editor
October 16
, 2009

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- In a post that is quickly causing jaws to drop from readers across the world, a Michigan-based abortion practitioner has written of how she does abortions at the same time she is pregnant. Lisa Harris is an abortion practitioner and a assistant professor at the University of Michigan.

In a blog post titled "Second Trimester Abortion Provision: Breaking the Silence and Changing the Discourse," Harris reveals a terrible hypocrisy that pro-life advocates are calling a "cognitive dissonance."

Harris' article originally appeared in the May 2008 issue of the journal "Reproductive Health Matters" but has gained its greatest attention as a blog post at the blog "Abortioneers."

"There was a leg and foot in my forceps, and a ‘thump, thump’ in my abdomen. Instantly, tears were streaming from my eyes," Harris notes of doing an abortion while pregnant.

She calls the experience of doing an abortion on an unborn child at 18 week gestation a "brutally visceral" experience given she is 18 weeks pregnant herself.

"Abortion is different from other surgical procedures," Harris admits, calling it "violent."

"Even when the fetus has no legal status, its moral status is reasonably the subject of much disagreement. It is disingenuous to argue that removing a fetus from a uterus is no different from removing a fibroid," she says.

she explains how she was "more interested than usual in seeing the fetal parts when I was done, since they would so closely resemble those of my own fetus."

"I went about doing the procedure as usual," she says in the blog post. "I used electrical suction to remove the amniotic fluid, picked up my forceps and began to remove the fetus in parts, as I always did. I felt lucky that this one was already in the breech position - it would make grasping small parts (legs and arms) a little easier."

Harris sees a need to "cross borders and boundaries (including seemingly inflexible ones like ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life’)" so people can "reflect seriously on the question of how providers determine their limit for abortion," but admitted that doing so "may frankly be too dangerous for pro-choice movements to acknowledge."

She says the violence of abortion must be acknowledged and also notes how she once killed an unborn child of the same age as a prematurely born baby she watched struggle to survive.

She goes further to challenge the pro-abortion movement's refusal to recognize "the violence and, frankly, the gruesomeness of abortion" and that it "contradicts an enormous part of" the experience of abortion practitioners, who see directly the destruction of human life.

"Of course, acknowledging the violence of abortion risks admitting that the stereotypes that anti-abortion forces hold of us are true - that we are butchers, etc.," she continues.

She admits seeing the destruction of human beings for what it is could have negative consequences for abortion backers.

"We might conclude at this point that a provider who feels that abortion is violent is simply ambivalent, conflicted, is not really committed to women’s abortion rights, and just shouldn't be doing this work," Harris writes. "’Pro-life’ supporters may argue that the kind of stories and sentiments I've relayed spell the end of abortion - that honest speech acts regarding the reality of abortion will weaken the pro-choice movement to the point where it cannot sustain itself any longer."

However, she says acknowledging that abortion kills children can "be the basis for a stronger movement - one that makes it easier for providers and the teams they work with to do all abortions, especially second trimester abortions."
Thomas Peters of the American papist blog noticed Harris' post and said it "goes far in revealing the sort of extreme cognitive dissonance that is necessary for someone to perform abortions."

"And yet, even in this situation, it's impossible for her to avoid her own humanity - and the humanity of the young human person she is destroying," he says.

"If anything we've ever read has convinced us we need to pray for an end to an abortion, for the conversion of those who perform them, and work with greater self-conviction in the knowledge that our cause is just and desperately-needed in this world ... this was it," he concludes.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Homosexual Hate Crimes Law Poised to Become Law after Passing U.S. House

"" The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness.

For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."" Romans 1:18-32
Pro-Life

Homosexual Hate Crimes Law Poised to Become Law after Passing U.S. House

October 14th, 2009 by Kathleen Gilbert

In what appears to mark the end of a years-long battle over homosexual hate crime legislation in America, the U.S. House of Representatives Thursday passed a law authorizing the federal government to intervene in violent crimes that appear motivated by hatred of homosexuals.

The hate crimes language passed in a 281-146 vote as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill, with 15 Democrats and 131 Republicans voting against the must-pass bill in apparent protest against the hate crime language.

The expanded hate crime legislation would extend special protection to victims of crime based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. The measure is now poised to become law after final approval by the Senate. President Obama, as an avowed supporter of the homosexual lobby, is expected to sign the measure.

In April, the House approved similar language as the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act, but no legislation mirroring the act was approved by the Senate. Homosexual hate crimes legislation passed both House and Senate in 2007, but was vetoed by President Bush.

Conservative leaders condemned the new law and its mode of passage.

“This is radical social policy that is being put on the defense authorization bill, on the backs of our soldiers, because they probably can’t pass it on its own,” said House Republican leader John Boehner.

“As a strong supporter of our troops, and the father of three Marines, I will not allow myself to be blackmailed this way,” wrote Congressman Todd Akin (R-MO) in a Townhall blog post.

Commenting on Thursday, Family Research President Tony Perkins called the legislation “a direct violation of the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, since all violent crimes are hate crimes, and every victim is equally important.”

“This measure is about giving special rights based solely on sexual behavior,” he said.

Perkins also said that the law “sets us on a slippery slope toward serious infringements of the freedom of speech and freedom of religion.”

“‘Hate crime’ legislation will lay the legal foundation and framework for investigating, prosecuting and persecuting pastors, business owners, and anyone else whose actions reflect their faith,” Perkins concluded.

Critics say the bill is apt to chill the free speech of those who voice a moral objection to homosexuality because, under federal law, individuals whose speech is seen to “aid and abet” a violent crime share in the guilt of that crime. While the House bill was changed to include more protection for the expression of Biblical perspectives on homoesxuality, conservative leaders said the gesture was deficient, with Family Research Council president Tom McClusky calling the last-minute alteration “pretty flimsy.”
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Controversial Homosexual “Hate Crimes” Act Set for Senate Vote Thursday
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09071505.html

Free Speech Concerns Ignored as “Hate Crimes” Bill Passes Fed. Judiciary Committee
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09042407.html

Saturday, September 26, 2009

A question answered

A reader recently asked me to investigate if the Gamaliel Foundation is still funded by the CCHD. Sadly I must report, they do.

Credit actually goes to Mary Ann Kreitzer, founder of the Catholic Media Coalition.

Here is a full and recent article (September 10, 2009) on the activities of the CCHD and the Gamaliel Foundation from Spero News:


Worldly Children shrewder than Children of Light
Catholics should "just say no" to appeals at their parishes to donate to the politicized Catholic Campaign for Human Development. It promotes Alinskyian organizations at odds with Christian morality.

Thursday, September 10, 2009 By Mary Ann Kreitzer

You gotta give President Obama credit for being one shrewd puppy. Last August he held a conference call to promote his health care initiative sponsored by a number of "religious" groups (under the name 40 Days for Health Reform) that attracted 140,000 participants. The "Catholic" sponsors on the list included well known dissent groups Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United. Both are George Soros-funded fronts which use the name Catholic to imply Church support while actually working to promote abortion, same sex "marriage" and other abominations condemned by Church doctrine. Their purpose is to neutralize the true Catholic voice which is pro-life and pro-family. If you examine their beliefs and agenda you find they are more in line with a leftist political agenda than traditional Catholic morality.

The sad thing, however, is that the Catholic Church helped stage this morality masquerade through the funding of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) collection. Among the groups listed as supporters for the "40 Days" initiative is the Gamaliel Foundation. Gamaliel receives a significant amount of its funding from CCHD to advance its liberal agenda.

To see the intimate and lucrative connection between Gamaliel and the bishops, a few illustrations suffice. In 2002 Rev. Robert J. Vitillo, then Executive Director of CCHD addressed the Gamaliel Foundation and accepted an award on behalf of the bishops. Among Fr. Vitillo's comments were these:

The Campaign has particularly enjoyed its work in solidarity with projects affiliated with the Gamaliel Foundation. Over the years, CCHD offered approximately $7 million to 188 Gamaliel-affiliated projects. CCHD is especially grateful for your foundation's work in the areas of metropolitan organizing.

Gamaliel is a leader in promoting President Obama's health care plan. The group is a member of Health Care for America Now, a coalition that, according to researcher Stephanie Block, "includes several other Alinskyian organizing networks, such as ACORN, as well as some pro-abortion groups like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice and Planned Parenthood Federation of America. And DART – the Direct Action and Research Training Center." According to Block, Gamaliel affiliates rake in 4-5% of CCHD grants. While they claim to take a neutral position on abortion, Gamaliel's activist role in promoting Obama's universal government health care partnering beds them with radical advocates of unrestricted abortion. How compromised can you be?

Can an organization actively working with radical advocates of abortion, abortifacient birth control, forced participation of health care workers against their consciences, etc. still claim neutrality? Gamaliel's buddies in the network are proponents of the liberal creed including positions anathema to Catholics. Faith in Public Life is one of the umbrella group that pulls together faux religious communities to neutralize moral issues in the public debate. Spearheaded by Jim Wallis, head of the liberal Sojourners, Faith in Public Life has been very effective at shilling for liberals including Kathleen Sebelius, the Kansas governor so enamored with late-term abortionist George Tiller.

On their website, Gamaliel proudly acclaims their relationship with President Obama and his roots as one of their community organizer. Gamaliel is deeply rooted in liberalism. That the Catholic Church would fund this group that does little to actually help the poor, but much to radicalize the Church to engage in advancing the liberal agenda is a scandal that continues year after year. Catholics need to realize that not only is CCHD funding liberalism around the country primarily focused on creating support for Democratic pro-abortion, pro-sodomy polticians, but it also funds "education" in parishes that teaches the principles of liberation theology. Instead of planting mustard seeds that grow into trees of faith, CCHD plants ACORNS that grow into Catholic dissent groups.

More from Spero:

An Open Letter to Notre Dame President Jenkins

Pro-life demonstrators at the 2009 Notre Dame commencement, where President Obama was the featured speaker, continue to face prosecution. Notre Dame's response has been ambivalent. A retired professor writes an epistle to President Rev. John Jenkins.

Church says Niger's omissions caused violence

Government inaction brought about the deaths of 2000 people during the Islamist uprising in August. The Boko Haram sect in Nigeria opposes western education and other values: government had foreknowledge of attacks.
Catholics should boycott CCHD when the time comes for its annual collection at parishes throughout the country. The collection is taken up in most dioceses in November. Catholics should ask their bishops to boycott it as well. The money that goes to CCHD will not go to the poor. In fact grants to groups working directly to feed and shelter the hungry and perform other corporal works of mercy are specifically prohibited. They are ineligible for CCHD grants which are reserved for "empowering" the community. The "charity" was developed specifically to fund Saul Alinsky networks. Msgr. Jack Egan and Saul Alinsky were the brains behind it, with the help of Cardinal Deardon, finding a way to funnel Catholic money into liberal political groups masquerading as non-partisan non-profits.

Wake up and smell the coffee! CCHD operatives are all about advancing, not the kingdom of God, but the kingdom of this world. Don't be an enabler. It's time for Catholics in the pew to be as shrewd as the Gamaliel community organizer in the White House. Just say no to the CCHD this year. There are plenty of real charities that deserve your support.

Thirteen news stories designed to tear back the curtain on the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) or perhaps a more accurate description: Catholic Cash Helping Democrats.

Mary Ann Kreitzer is a founder of the Catholic Media Coalition. She blogs at Les Femmes/The Truth.

Info: http://www.catholiccitizens.org/platform/platformview.asp?c=10015

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Adding a new link to the side bar

I'm adding a new link to the sidebar.
I hope you all take a moment to peruse it as it has very good and useful ...and shocking (but not surprising) information about the crude and depraved lives of abortionists.

THESE are the people who are expected to 'MINISTER" to women in their most vulnerable and desperate hours.

Here are two of the entries. For more go to Deathroe.com

Lifestyle of an abortionist


On January 15, 1999, abortionist Neville W. Duncan was placed on 18 months' probation, sentenced to 30 days in jail and fined $250 after pleading no contest to charges that he beat his wife and was arrested with crack cocaine in his pocket.

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article, Doctor sentenced to 30 days in jail, A prosecutor in the case stated that,

"When you are providing medical services to others, they expect you to be healthy and in a good way. . . . In this case, I want him to be monitored. If he is to continue as a medical professional, he needs to remain absolutely drug-free."

Here is the mug shot of Duncan from the time of the event.




Abortionist's hygiene - Can you say gross?


During a Kansas House Committee on Health and Human Services hearing March 15, 2005, Kansas City Police Detective William Howard gave the following testimony concerning the appearance of abortionist Krishna Rajanna when he responded to a call at Rajanna’s clinic:

“Abortionist Dr. Krishna Rajanna lacked personal hygiene. His hair was messy, hands dirty, and his clothing was wrinkled and stained. He put on old, used foot booties while we were there. In a statement to me one witness/suspect related how Dr. Rajanna was a filthy man who did not properly sterilize his equipment."


Thursday, September 17, 2009

the bride of Christ...how beautiful

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

And yet, they insist they are a religion of peace....


Persecutions of Christians in an Islamic State of Pakistan

7 Christians burnt alive in Gojra


4 August 2009 (Pakistan) -
Christians in Pakistan are persecuted by the militant Muslims. In the most recent wave of persecution of Christians three major incidents took place in a short time of one month. In June, 57 houses in Bamni Wala, Kasur were destroyed. On 30th of July, 50 houses of Christians in Krian Wala and on 1st of August 7 Christians were burnt alive and 70 houses destroyed. More than 50 Christians have also been injured.


There have been several other organized attacks also against helpless Christians in the past years as well. In Shanti Nagar in 1997 and in Sangla Hill a couple years ago. In March 2009 a woman lost her life in Gujrawala after an attack on Church, in April the attack on a Church and Christian settlement in Taiser Town in Karachi one young person was killed and sever injured by firing. In these incidents properties worth millions of dollars have been destroyed. Christians built these houses after hard labor of decades of years but destroyed by the blasts of militant Muslims within seconds. Such acts of violent attacks against Christians are strongly condemned. It is very unfortunate that so far not a single fanatic Muslim has been brought to justice and no one is punished for such acts of vandalism. All of this acts religiously motivated violence has been done in the name of religion – under one false accusation that Holy Quran has been desecrated.

The most violent attack which took place on 1st of August when a angry and armed mob of radical Muslims from Gojra, along with Muslims from other cities of TobaTek Singh and Jhang attacked a Christian Colony in Gojra and completely destroyed about 70 houses and burnt 7 Christian alive. These Christians included 4 women 2 children and one man. The children tried to run out of their home for safety but they were caught by the fanatic Muslims and thrown back to their home and blown up with a chemical. Al these 7 Christians were members of one Catholic family of Mr. Hameed Masih. I have visited this home where the incident took place. It is completed burnt. I also saw the other houses as well. It looked like a night mare to me. In one house there was preparation ceremony going on for the wedding of their daughter. This angry mob came, looted their valuebles in and blow up the entire home. I visited a small church which was destroyed with Bibles and crosses all scared on the floor. Almost all Christians who houses have been destroyed in this colony literally nothing is left. Not a single cup to have tea or glass to drink water or a plate to eat food. I did not see any piece of cloth which they could wear. You can imagine the trauma they have gone through. The mental shock they have going through. The money which they saved for several year to build small room was blown up within seconds.

It is very unfortunate that the police of Gojra and other security agencies did not do any thing to prevent this ugly incident. The government of Punjab sent rangers in the evening when everything was over and all houses of Christians were ransacked and 7 Christians were burnt alive on account of their faith. The situation in Gojra was tense and it was mounting since 9.00am in the morning of 1st August and in spite of repeated appeals to the government of Punjab no one came to their rescue. When the rangers came in the evening - it was too late. It is also manifestation of the attitude and protection which our government claims to give to minorities.

Now Mr. Asif Ali Zardari, President of Pakistan, Mr.Yousaf Raza Gillani, Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Shabaz Sharif, Chief Minister of Punjab have strongly condemned this act and have announced some compensation to rebuild the houses of these poor Christians. The government of Pakistan has announced to provide justice, to do a judicial inquiry and compensation to the affected Christians. But the question remains that how can the sense of security, dignity, honor and sense of ‘religious’ freedom can be restored among Christians.

It is also sad to mention that the police authorities were reluctant to register First Information Report (FIR) of this incident. It took more that 9 hours of protest to get this FIR registered with the pressure and intervention from Mr. Shahbaz Sharif, Chief Minister of the Punjab, Mr. Sana Ullana, Provincial Law Minister, Mr. Shabaz Bhatti, Federal Minister for Minorities Affairs, Mr. Kamran Michael, Provincial Minister for Human Rights and Minorities Affairs, and
several other Members of the Provincial Assembly of Punjab, religious leaders such Bishop Joseph Coutts of Faisalabad, Bishop John Samuel of the Church of Pakistan, Gojra and Fr James Channan, Prior Vice Provincial of the Dominican Vice Province Pakistan. Moreover, there was strong protest from the Christians who had blocked the railway track with the coffins of 7 slain Christians and were determined not to burry these victims of violence unless FIR is registered. I was also part of the crowd who protested on the railway tracks to get FIR registered. You can imagine if FIR has registered with such a
difficulty for this major incident how much difficulty do the ordinary people face to get their cases registered with the police in Pakistan.

All of these acts of the persecution of Christians and terrorism against them have been done in the name of religion. On the false accusation of the desecration of the Holy Quran. It is worth mentioning that there are Blasphemy Laws 295 B and 295C of the Pakistan Penal Code, which give mandatory death sentence who profanes the name of Muhammad – the Prophet of Islam and desecrates the Holy Quran. It is very easy to kill any person in Pakistan under the accusation of blasphemy against Muhammad and desecration of the Holy Quran. If some one is accused of blasphemy of the Muhammad or Holy Quran that is the end of his life. He or she will be killed by the angry mob or if he/she is proved innocent by the courts, event than
the that person cannot live in Pakistan for any fanatic Muslim can kill him or her. Hundreds of people are behind the bars in Pakistan under these laws and interestingly most of them are Muslims. There are more than 400 Muslims who are jailed under the 295B and 295C. In the case of Christians – if one Christian is accused whole community suffers and is made victim of wrath. The entire Christian colony is burnt and totally demolished on this accusation – which have been proved false all the times so far. Not a single Christian has desecrated the Holy Quran. All accusations against Christians have been false.

Now what should be done. As it is said “enough is enough”. The Christians of Pakistan demand total repeal of the 295B and 295C. The government of Pakistan should address the root causes of such incidents.

All Catholic and Protestant Bishop have announced three days of mourning and all Christian institutes will remain closed for three days in protest to this incident of Gojra. In several cities including Lahore, Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Faisalabad, Karachi, Multan, Bahawalpur and Sargodha Christians have protested against these attacks and have demanded justice and security for their lives and property and have demanded total repeal of the Blasphemy laws in the country.

Several Muslims along with religious leaders including Maulana Abdul Khabir Azad, Grand Imam of the Badshahi Mosque Lahore have condemned the attacks against Christians. Such incidents could be a conspiracy to create tension among Christians and Muslims, to derail the efforts of Christian Muslim dialogue we are doing for the last several decades. It could also be a deliberate act to defame Islam and create gulf among Islam and Christianity around the world.

It is appealed that human rights organization in the world take note of this incident and approach our government to repeal blasphemy laws and give protection to the Christians. We also appeal to the religious leaders and promoters of peace and harmony intervene in this grave matter and urge our government so that persecution of Christians and such fanatic attacks are prevented in future and that justice is done.


Fr James Channan OP
Prior Vice Provincial
Dominican Vice Province Pakistan


Tuesday, September 1, 2009

You will know a tree by it's fruits

Reading the letter was all about political manipulation of the ‘catholic vote’. Bloggers were all a twitter that there was no public Vatican statement of condolences as there were for with Eunice Kennedy Shriver, who was a saintly woman by all accounts. So the Left has to do *something* SO why NOT use the letter, used Ted Kennedy’s death and religion is always so useful too, for political advantage like Micheal Jackson’s family continues to use his
‘corpse’ to make money. It’s absolutely nauseating to watch the Catholic liberals jump through the hoops like a bunch of pink prancing poodles.

The irony is that they will now memorialize Kennedy with a ‘health care’ bill that will the crowning glory to the Culture of Death Ted Kennedy labored so hard to build.

You will know a tree by it’s fruits.

D~

Pro-Abortion Kennedy Lauded as “Champion for Those Who Had None” at Funeral Mass

September 1st, 2009 by Kathleen Gilbert

Despite the warnings of pro-life Catholic leaders that the public honoring of pro-abortion Sen. Ted Kennedy by the Catholic Church would lead to an enormous scandal, the Boston Archdiocese hosted an elaborate televised funeral Mass for the senator this past Saturday. The service, presided over by Boston’s Cardinal Sean O’Malley, included prayers of the faithful endorsing health care reform and homosexualist policies, and a eulogy by President Obama, who remembered Kennedy as a "champion for those who had none."

The Catholic Sen. Kennedy, one of U.S. Congress’ most powerful legislators against the right to life for unborn children, died of brain cancer Tuesday night at the age of 77. Ecclesial participants included Rev. Raymond Collins, Rector of the Basilica; Rev. Mark Hession, Kennedy’s parish priest from Our Lady of Victories Church in Centerville on Cape Cod; Rev. J. Donald Monan, Chancellor of Boston College; and Sean Cardinal O’Malley, Archbishop of Boston.

Hession referred to the section of the gospel reading in which Christ tells the just why they are bound for Heaven: "For I was hungry and you gave me food. I was thirsty and you gave me drink. I was a stranger and you welcomed me. I was naked and you clothed me. I was sick and you visited me. I was in prison, and you came to me." (Mat. 25:35-6)

"These works of the kingdom were daily concerns of the public life of Teddy Kennedy," said Hession. "They were the fabric of his mind, heart, and hands as he sought to realize them in a society dramatically more complex than the society in which Jesus spoke these words.

"Our hope, our confident Christian hope, is that the fruits of his work as a political and public figure have well prepared him for God’s kingdom," he said.

Kennedy’s "strong suit," said Hession, was "the faith of the great Hebrew prophets" who "stood in defense of the widows, the orphans and refugees of their time."

The Prayers of the Faithful, read by many of Kennedy’s younger family members, included endorsements of many of Sen. Kennedy’s policy goals. On health care reform, grandson Max Allen prayed "for what my grandpa calls the cause of his life … that every American will have decent quality health care, as a fundamental right, and not a privilege."

Great-nephew Jack Schlossberg prayed that America "close the book on the old politics of … straight against gay."

It remains unclear, however, whether any of the several intensely pro-abortion politicians in attendance - including Vice President Joe Biden and Senator John Kerry - received communion.

At communion time, "every camera suddenly developed an intense interest in the musicians, the organ, or the ceiling," noted Examiner writer Christopher Nowak.

Following two eulogies from Kennedy’s sons, President Barack Obama gave his own eulogy, praising Kennedy as "a champion for those who have none." Obama also alluded to Kennedy’s support for ending the ban on open homosexuality in the military, noting his defense of "the young soldier denied her rights because of … who she loves."

Boston’s Cardinal Sean O’Malley, who presided at the Mass, greeted President Obama and other dignitaries in the pews at the kiss of peace and thanked the president for his words and presence. The cardinal also met with the president for a brief conversation, but the details of the discussion have not been disclosed. O’Malley has in the past been strongly critical of President Obama’s pro-abortion agenda.

At the final commendation, O’Malley called Kennedy "such an important part of our history and our country" who "shared our belief in prayer and in eternal life."

Noting the constant presence of Kennedy’s family at his deathbed, O’Malley said, "We die in dignity when we are surrounded with love and such care."

The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts decried the scandal of the funeral, where they say the diocese celebrated the life of "one of America’s most notorious opponents of Catholic morality."

The Catholic Action League called the event "a tragic example of the Church’s willingness to surrender to the culture, and serve Caesar rather than Christ."

"Senator Kennedy supported legal abortion, partial-birth abortion, the public funding of Medicaid abortions, embryonic stem cell research, birth control, federal family planning programs, and so-called emergency contraception," noted Catholic Action League Executive Director C. J. Doyle.

"No rational person can reasonably be expected to take seriously Catholic opposition to abortion when a champion of the Culture of Death, who repeatedly betrayed the Faith of his baptism, is lauded and extolled by priests and prelates in a Marian basilica,’ said Doyle.

"This morning’s spectacle is evidence of the corruption which pervades the Catholic Church in the United States. The right to life will never be recognized by secular society if it is not first vindicated and consistently upheld within the institutions of the Church itself."

This article is courtesy of LifeSiteNews.com.


Commentary by Tim Mosser: the advancing culture of death

he Church, Contraception and the Culture of Death: Pt. 1 of 6

February 27th, 2009 by Tim Mosser

In this series we will examine the history of contraception and its integral connections to the culture of death. Seeing the “big picture” from a historical perspective is vital to a proper understanding of the Church’s unchanging teaching on contraception as well as a deeper appreciation of the Theology of the Body.

“The” Connection
Pope John Paul II addressed the relationship between contraception and abortion in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae. In it he notes that many people assert that the easy availability of contraception to everyone is the best weapon against abortion and that because of her stance against contraception, the Catholic Church is accused of actually promoting abortion. To these claims he stated:

When looked at carefully, this objection is clearly unfounded. It may be that many people use contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative values inherent in the “contraceptive mentality”…are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation [to abort] when unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro-abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church’s teaching on contraception is denied. (Evangelium Vitae 13)

There might be no other issue that has so profoundly affected modern society as contraception has. In less than eighty years, Christianity has moved from a unanimous condemnation of contraception to an almost universal acceptance of the practice – and many other harmful acts associated with it. While a few generations may seem like a great deal of time to some, in the eyes of the Church and of world history, it is barely the blink of an eye. The above words from the late-great Pope John Paul II provide a keen insight into our current culture of death.

The situation above begs many questions. Here are a few:

  • How did our society move so quickly from one side of the contraception issue to the other?
  • What are the societal implications of this practice?
  • What does the Catholic Church teach about contraception?
  • What is the connection between contraception and abortion?

We will answer each of these in turn by focusing on three specific aspects of contraception.

1. We will review the issue of contraception from a historical perspective.
2. We will examine the teaching of the Catholic Church on the issue of contraception throughout this history.
3. We will discuss some ways that contraception affects our society focusing especially on the connection between contraception and abortion.

Centuries of Unified Teaching
3The Catholic Church has always taught that contraception is wrong and that the only morally acceptable use of the sexual powers is sexual intercourse within a valid marriage that always respects the God-given gift of fertility. Early Church Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, St. Hippolytus of Rome, St. John Chrysostom, Lactantius, and many others including St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas all spoke against contraception.

For example St. Augustine wrote:

I am supposing, then, that although you are not lying for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility. (Marriage and Concupiscence, 1:15:17)

Referring to contraception St. Thomas declared:

Nor, in fact, should it be considered a slight sin for a man to arrange for the emission of semen apart from the proper purpose of begetting and bringing up children….the inordinate emission of semen is incompatible with the natural good of preserving the species. Hence, after the sin of homicide whereby a human life already in existence is destroyed, this type of sin appears to take next place, for by it the generation of human nature is impeded. (Summa contra gentiles, 3, 122)

Unknown to many Christians today, all the reformers, including Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli condemned contraception. Luther called it a sin worse than sodomy, and Calvin likened it to murder. Charles Provan cites dozens of Protestant theologians who rejected contraception and concludes from his research, “We have found not one orthodox theologian to defend birth control before the 1900’s. NOT ONE!” (The Bible and Birth Control, p. 63)

We clearly see that from the time of Christ to past the time of the Reformation, the Christian world was unified in their teaching against contraception. And even though the exact biology of the sexual act was not known in early Christian and medieval times, the force of the moral argument remains strong.

Cracks in the Dam – Pressure Mounts

In 1798 Thomas Malthus, an Anglican clergyman, caused a population scare when he predicted that the world’s population would increase faster than its food supply. Despite this (erroneous) prediction, he advocated self control – not birth control – to moderate our population growth. A key technological advance in the 19th century was vital to the promotion of contraception because it gave us a convenient way to make one particular form of contraceptive.

As John Kippley notes:

The accidental discovery of vulcanized rubber by Charles Goodyear in 1839 facilitated the manufacture of condoms, and this new technology helped the neo-Malthusians to promote contraception in the 1860’s just as the Pill helped their philosophical heirs a century later. (Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality p. 225)

Even with this discovery, the weight of popular opinion was still clearly against contraception and one American evangelical in particular – Anthony Comstock - took steps to stop any contraceptive movement. At his urging, the U.S. Congress passed legislation outlawing the manufacture, sale, and distribution of contraceptives in 1873. Many states followed suit and passed similar laws which collectively became known as the Comstock laws. The fact that these legislative bodies were composed primarily of Protestants lends further credence to the fact of the unified Christian belief against contraception.

In response to the contraceptive pressure from secular sources such as Margaret Sanger and Havelock Ellis, the Anglican Church (Church of England) at its 1920 Lambeth Conference reaffirmed its stance against contraception and warned of dire consequences if contraception was practiced.

As quoted by John Kippley:

We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception, together with the grave dangers – physical, moral and religious – thereby incurred, and against the evil with which the extension of such use threatens the race. (Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality p. 226)

This stern warning was given at a time when the known alternatives for spacing children were few and unreliable. Well into the twentieth century, Christian bodies were united in their stance against contraception. Christian leaders taught that there was an inseparable link between sex, marriage and children; that self control – not birth control – should be practiced in the spacing of births, and that there would be widespread negative effects if contraception was accepted. That was all about to change.

Part 2 will examine how this “contraceptive dam” sprung a leak – and how the Church responded.

Praised be Jesus Christ, now and forever!

Sunday, August 30, 2009

The African AIDS crisis and George Bush

Round Two on Bush and AIDS
By Dr. Paul Kengor
August 28, 2009

Dr. Paul Kengor
Dr. Paul Kengor

Last week I wrote about former President George W. Bush’s unprecedented work on behalf of the African AIDS epidemic. That $15 billion package, first proposed in January 2003, was entirely Bush’s doing, and has been ignored by the mainstream media and liberals who should hail the initiative. Similarly, it has been dismissed by many conservatives who did not like the massive spending at a time of record deficits.

I focused on the latest ignored news on the Bush initiative: the remarkable conclusion that it has saved over one million African lives. According to an April 2009 study by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine, the Bush plan is “changing the course of the AIDS epidemic.”

Although the response to the article was overwhelmingly positive, there were some negatives. Here, I’d like to consider those responses, positive and negative; they are instructive:

First, the response from the left remains sadly predictable. There continues to be a refusal to give George W. Bush due credit for this extraordinary act. This was evident in a brief reply by an editor at an Iowa newspaper, who responded to my 1,159-word article with 11 words: “And he [Bush] killed thousands of American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Granted, within that statement was a tiny inadvertent acknowledgment that Bush had saved African lives. That’s an improvement from past emails I’ve received from liberals who refused to concede the program existed. (In fact, the dominant response from liberal newspaper editors was to ignore the article—to not print it.)

Second, I got predictable criticisms from a few conservatives, particularly those who lean libertarian in their economics. One was mean, and I won’t bother recounting what he wrote. Another, however, offered a good point worth noting: “Actually, the credit should go to the American taxpayer,” he wrote, “whose effort and ingenuity afforded Bush and Congress the $15 billion they used for AIDS programs in Africa. Your [article] title should be ‘American Taxpayers Saved a Million African Lives.’”

Point taken. Of course, taxpayers did not come up with the idea and push it and adopt it and make it a reality. That was entirely George W. Bush. In fact, if Bush’s proposal had been placed on referendum, I suspect taxpayers might have handily rejected it. Certainly no group of taxpayers has generously stepped forward with a cool $15 billion for African AIDS relief.

Nonetheless, yes, American taxpayers foot the bill. They are viewed by politicians as an eternal cash-cow always there for the milking, but rarely to be thanked. Without their effort and ingenuity that produces the revenue, the government cannot spend a dime.

Not only is this a worthy matter to bear in mind when it comes to Bush’s AIDS package, but especially as President Obama and Congress tap infinitely larger sums of taxpayer dollars. They do so when the projected deficit for this year—a breathtaking $2 trillion—makes Bush’s deficit in 2003 ($377 billion) look negligible. They also do so as they bash the very producers that provide the revenue for their insatiable redistribution.

Finally, my article prompted some illuminating responses from Grove City College alumni who work this issue.

One is Kelly Dillon, who, under President Bush, was top aid to Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick and special advisor to the G8. “Right on!” wrote Kelly. “I had the privilege to push this initiative and work with our allies in the G8 to try to get them to match it in 2007/2008.” That push was an additional thrust of the Bush plan. As Kelly noted, “To a certain extent the prodding worked, but without a doubt the credit for PEPFAR lies with President Bush alone.” (“PEPFAR” is the acronym for the AIDS initiative.)

Another alumnus is Christopher Doyle, a behavioral research analyst for the Institute for Youth Development. Chris has published excellent work on abstinence programs under PEPFAR, and this week is presenting a major paper at the National HIV Prevention Conference in Atlanta.

Chris and his organization have documented remarkable success in AIDS reduction through abstinence and “be faithful” behavioral-change programs. Uganda, for instance, has experienced a drop in HIV prevalence from over 20 percent in the 1990s to about 6 percent in 2008.

Unfortunately, with the election of an extremely liberal president and Congress, the abstinence mandate that received priority under President Bush has been lifted in favor of “prevention” methods like condoms—the go-to source for liberals in these things, whether dealing with teen pregnancy in American public schools or AIDS in Africa. Tellingly, that funding has been axed despite an enormous escalation in PEPFAR spending, from $15 billion from 2003-8 to $48 billion authorized for 2009-14.

The Atlanta conference is symptomatic of such thinking, as only one in 150 sessions addresses abstinence. Once again, condoms are being heralded as “primary prevention.” Self-expression rules; self-control is dismissed.

In sum, there are many issues within this debate, from prevention methods to huge spending allocations. On the latter, conservatives are right to ask how much?

Either way, the African AIDS crisis has been truly devastating. Kudos to George Bush for genuinely saving lives, even as the Nobel Committee and liberals everywhere continue to refuse him the accolades he deserves.

V & V

Please feel free to add yourself to our distribution list above if you haven't already done so. See the "send to a friend" option as well. If you are interested in learning about supporting the efforts of The Center for Vision & Values, please click here. Thank you.


Paul Kengor is author of God and George W. Bush (HarperCollins, 2004) and professor of political science and director of the Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College in Grove City, Pennsylvania

.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Homeschool mom holds lawmakers' feet to fire

Sparks national movement urging states to defend against federal power grab


Posted: August 19, 2009
8:32 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


A homeschooling mother – who made headlines during the presidential campaign when she received a visit from the Secret Service after calling Obama a "socialist" and criticizing his position on abortion – has launched a movement to hold state lawmakers accountable and promote a return to the rule of law defined in the U.S. Constitution.

Jessica Hughes, a Lufkin, Texas, resident, received a phone call from an Obama volunteer in 2008 asking if she supported the Democratic Party candidate.

Hughes replied, "No, I don't support him. Your guy is a socialist who voted four times in the state Senate to let little babies die in hospital closets; I think you should find something better to do with your time."

The next day, two Secret Service agents visited her home, asking if she said, "I will never support Obama and he will wind up dead on a hospital floor."

Her story was just one in a string of reports about alleged intimidation against Obama critics.

"One of the things that was said was that I had no right to be upset because that happened under the Bush administration," Hughes told WND. "It's absolutely true that there is a terrible danger with these bills that aren't read. It's my understanding that the Patriot Act was never read in its entirety by either President Bush or the Congress who voted it in. … According to that legislation, those secret service agents could have entered my home and searched it without a warrant that was ever seen by any judge. I don't care who's in power. You can't give that kind of power to a government."

Now Hughes, president and chief executive officer of The Founder's Alliance, is leading a movement to hold elected officials accountable and ensure that they pledge to uphold the Constitution, rejecting any effort of the federal government to exceed boundaries of its authority under the founding document.

"We started out with the tea parties in the area, and most of what we noticed was that a lot of our problems stem from our legislators not respecting the Constitution," she said. "So, we wanted to start from an area where we could really have an effect. We felt that local and state legislation was what we should focus on. The idea is to have our state legislators make known where they stand in their interpretation of the Constitution – not just say, 'I'll uphold the Constitution,' but that they will uphold the Constitution as it was originally intended."

The Founder's Alliance has delivered a "Contract with Texans" to state legislators. The pact states:

Be it resolved, that the undersigned pledge to uphold the principles of our nation as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights; and further pledge to uphold the Texas Constitution and defend the inalienable rights of the People of Texas, as follows:

1. I will reject with my words and my vote any effort of the Federal Government to exceed the boundaries of its authority as specifically granted in the seventeen powers listed under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, and understood to limit the exercise of congressional power in the service of the general welfare;

2. I will reject with my words and my vote any and all legislation which infringes on the inalienable rights of the citizens of Texas as defined above;

3. I will reject with my words and my vote any and all legislation which seeks to redistribute wealth according to the caprices of government or the petitions of those who would enrich themselves at the expense of private property of others;

4. I will reject with my words and my vote any and all attempts to alter the understanding of the United States Constitution from the plain meaning of the text;

5. I will support with my words and my vote all efforts of the state of Texas to legislatively re-establish a constitutionally limited federal government on behalf of the people.


Jessica Hghes, (photo: Lufkin Daily News)

The group will announce in a news conference Thursday at the Texas state capitol the names of lawmakers who have signed the agreement and which ones have not.

According to the Lufkin Daily News, Texas Sen. Robert Nichols, R-Jacksonville, was one of the first lawmakers to sign the pledge.

"I did not hesitate to sign it. We need to get elected officials who swear to uphold the Constitution in their oath of office to pledge to do that. We need to get back to the core principals outlined by the Constitution," Nichols told the newspaper.

"We really just want to make this a positive step in engaging citizens with their state and local representatives," Hughes said. "We're not just sitting back and waiting for a presidential election to come along before we pay attention. We want people paying attention at all times."

She said The Founder's Alliance is forming a network of citizens to monitor different areas of government.

"Right now we have a group that is researching all of the amendments that are proposed to the Texas Constitution for next year," she said. "Then they can share with the group what they've found. That way we're able to divide the labor up and all be informed when we go to the voting booth."

Hughes said the effort does not end with Texas. Citizens from other states are already expressing interest in presenting similar contracts to their own state representatives. Hughes plans to spark a national movement with the Texas contract.

"We do have some people from other states who have joined up," she confirmed. "We're anxious to work with other states. It's absolutely within our plans. We think that every state should have a contract with legislators that says where they stand on the Constitution."

Hughes said both Republicans and Democrats have failed to protect American liberties and allowed the federal government to drastically expand its authority.

"The people have allowed themselves to be taken over by a sense of entitlement and a nanny state that really takes away your freedom to protect and defend yourself, your freedom to support yourself," she said. "Health care is a great example. I think it's a very dangerous idea that runs through this country that the government can be trusted with decisions like your health care. "

The Founders Alliance website states, "In every controversial topic today, from health care 'reform' to bailouts, there are only two choices: The individual or the collective. Will the individual be left free to make personal decisions within the family, community or state of their choosing? Or will your will and mine be subjugated to the 'best interests' of society as the government defines them?"


Michael Farris


As WND reported, Michael Farris, chancellor of Patrick Henry College and chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, recently launched a similar petition against the "swell of socialism."

Through WND, Farris announced an invitation to "the citizens of this country that believe in the Constitution, who believe in traditional morality and virtue, who believe in a free America and reject the concepts of socialism and the secularist moral view" to unite with more than 6,300 other citizens in signing a Declaration of the Principles of Liberty.

"Freedom is the ability to make your own decisions," Farris told WND, "but socialism inherently takes away private decision making. When the president can decide who is the chair or CEO of General Motors, that's socialism. America was founded on the principle that Americans can make their own decisions; the government can't tell us what to do. Socialism erases that line and invades the private decision making of companies, of families, of everyone."

Now, says Farris, "Socialism faces an ardent new foe" – not Farris himself, but the combined grassroots voices of Americans he hopes will rally behind the Declaration of the Principles of Liberty. The eventual goal, Farris explained, is to empower everyday Americans to take their organizations, political parties and nation back from those leaders who don't represent the people's values.

"I'm hoping this becomes a grassroots, viral campaign to promote these principles to millions of Americans and that millions of Americans will sign this pledge," Farris said. "If I'm able to tell the leadership in Washington that hundreds of thousands or millions of people have signed these petitions, they're going to have to start paying attention to these ideas, stop giving lip service to conservatism and stop simply being a more 'conservative' form of socialist."

WND has also reported on a movement in which activists and state legislators are focusing their own efforts on state governments as a way to resist federal health care "reform" and stop federal usurpation of state rights. Lawmakers in as many as 10 states are considering or seeking to propose bills and resolutions to nullify federal health care in their states.

In a July interview with the Mark Davis Show, Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicated that his state may join the showdown with the White House over federal health care.

"I think you'll hear states and governors standing up and saying 'no' to this type of encroachment on the states with their health care," Perry said. "My hope is that we never have to have that stand-up. But I'm certainly willing and ready for the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats."

Saturday, August 15, 2009

the third jihad--A real muslim SPEAKS against radical islam

It's interesting, in many ways there really is no fundamental difference between progressives (marxists, liberals etc) and radical islam. Both are part of a Death Culture that honors Death, which embraces death, brings death, savors death, wallows in it while claiming to serve a higher purpose. Muslim Jihadist claim to be serving God...the Creator..

But that seems so strange to me. Why would a God who creates and brings life, and in so many infinite ways serves US every day if even by blessing us with oxygen for the air we breath..why would such a being want his servants to bring death?

God is a God of life. Natural death, that which is part of the cycle of life, brings renewal, and hope...where as, this death that this philosophy brings murder, unnatural death, brings despair and darkness. So does the progressive philosophy with their radical agenda for abortion and socialism. it seems that they both serve the same spirit of death.

It is sad, though...the people of America have an amazing gift from God, the right to worship in peace....and we are squandering it. The one True holy God will not force himself on us, he is a God of life who gave each human being a free will. He will not violate his own gift by forcing us to 'love' him.

God help us all.

dina


PART ONE



PART TWO



PART THREE



PART FOUR

Friday, August 14, 2009

Home schooling: A threat to the liberal agenda

When Institutional Authorities Fail our Children

August 14th, 2009 by Mary Anne Moresco

When parents pull their children from public schools, in order to homeschool them, they are sending a message to authorities. The message is this: “Our family is so unhappy with the job you are doing with our child (our most precious gift from heaven) that we think we can do a better job ourselves.” In a free market economy this should prompt institutions to ask: why are you unhappy and how can we change to better meet your needs? By asking this, authorities might learn how school institutions block children from learning their faith, block some children from learning at all, corrupt good morals and in a plethora of ways disrupt and undermine family life. And then schools might take steps to change these things, and thus bring the children back to school. But public schools are not part of a free market economy. Most authorities have and want to maintain an academic monopoly , and have no particular interest in changing to please rightfully concerned parents. British authorities are finding a way around having to change to please the parents, by entering the home , and thus seeking to change the children and home itself. There is every reason for concern that America will follow suit.

Home education is a blessing not only for the child but for the entire family. Like the institutional school system, homeschooling is not a perfect option. Unlike the school system, homeschooling provides children time to develop hobbies and talents. Our children have, for different reasons been in public, Catholic and Christian schools. But nothing freed our time to live our faith and lives like our five years of homeschooling. Our homeschooling days started early with daily Mass and breakfast. The books were open by 8:00 a.m., well before the school buses in town had picked up the local children to get them to their respective schools.

Children in a non-homeschooling environment can spend hours away from home, then return home with still more hours of homework. Children educated in the home at the elementary school level can usually move through all their subjects in 3-4 hours, leaving plenty of time for reading, ballet, horseback riding, piano and art lessons as well as time for fun and simple uninterrupted play with siblings. Many homeschoolers meet regularly with a homeschooling group, and play during the week with their friends.

Children educated in the home have time to read. Children educated in institutional schools may be given prizes; they may be coaxed by the school to read in a multitude of ways. But the rat race of a busy life has seized hold of many of them. Days at school are often filled with little time to savor reading for the sheer delight of it. The homework and school books loaded into their backpacks and onto their young frames at the end of each day is enough to bend some of their young spines and topple some of them over. Couple this homework with a few after school activities and the time of most children is often monopolized before and after dinner until bedtime arrives. This can transform reading for fun into a near impossibility.

Some authorities neither recognize nor appreciate the strides homeschooled parents have made with their children. On an international level, efforts are being made to control and undermine parental authority in the home. Since the Catholic faith is primarily transmitted to the children through the parents, these efforts undermine our faith. On a global level, the UN has drafted a treaty (Convention on the Rights of the Child) that allows children the right to “choose” their own religion, undermining the right of the Catholic parent (homeschooled or not) to educate children in the faith. Branching off from this treaty, the British government has approved a plan, which seeks direct control over homeschoolers, grants authorities access to the home of homeschoolers, and an astounding “right to speak to each child alone.”

The UN treaty grants children a right to “leisure.” How ironic that governments, who systematically rob school children of much needed rest and family time, would suddenly seek to control whether children are getting the very thing that authorities all along have seemed to care so little about.

As indicated in a Time Magazine article , the amount of time that 9-to11-year-olds spent on homework has increased over the years to more than 3.5 hours a week, stressing out both children and parents. Can someone explain why an 11-year-old, after 7 hours at school, must come home with still more homework when that same 11-year old can be homeschooled in less than four? Despite working fewer hours, children who are educated in the home regularly score higher than public schooled children in virtually every academic area.

If homeschooled students spend less time working, but accomplish more, what are children in modern schools doing all day?

In the modern school of today, entertainment videos are sometimes shown when the children get antsy or the teacher has had enough. There may be some very dedicated teachers in the classroom, but some children have no respect, forcing teachers to use class time to reprimand.

Couple that discipline problem with parties of every imaginable sort. This may include (dependent on age) celebrating the birthday of every child, (perhaps with cupcakes and cookies, and sometimes with teeth-rotting, blood-sugar crashing soda). Some schools offer a 100-day school party, a “Halloween” party, a ‘winter party,” a class “tea,” a valentines party, a class cruise, a class barbecue, a class “pool” party, and an end of school party. The school party possibilities are endless and seem to keep growing. Parents might not mind the parties so much, if it didn’t mean that the work that was not done in school during the day would now need to be done at home, ensuring that there would be no family time, let alone “parties” once the children arrived home at the end of an already long day.

Then there are immodest afterschool dances and the nonsense classes. This includes co-ed sex education classes that have gone goofy. In entering this domain, schools have gone to a place where they had no right to be. History is showing that conducting co-ed sex education in an academic environment has done little more, over recent decades, than shred the natural defenses between boys and girls, and lead otherwise innocent children away from parental family values and straight into promiscuity and STDs.

Could it be that authorities, rather than looking at children educated in the home and saying “What are we doing wrong and how can we help you?” have begun to see the Christian values instilled in many homeschooled children as a threat to the liberal views that institutional education often imparts? Studies show that the number one reason for home education is to “provide religious or moral instruction.” (National Catholic Register Volume 85, No. 26, 2009) Catholic parents have a God-given right to educate their children in the faith. Could liberal government schools, as they morph ever-further into anti-God institutions, have some vested interest in denying parents this God-given right? Might it be that shaping the opinions of the children is what this is really about?

© Copyright 2009 Catholic Exchange

Mary Anne Moresco writes from Monmouth County, New Jersey.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

George Soros and Obama Care

There is a man whose money has facilitated a wide variety of projects in this country and abroad. His name is George Soros, and his ventures run the gamut from politics to helping the poor. Among them, there is his extraordinary work in the area of palliative care (pain relief), death and dying.

In view of the rant currently being propagated by the Pallimed blog, which is a commentary on news and items of interest to hospice and palliative medicine, there is a need to dig deeper and explore the underlying philosophy among those who are outraged that people like me are saying something negative about their agenda.

When those in the business of providing pain relief to patients charge forward with negative descriptive adjectives, meant to demean the work of people like myself and the LifeTree experts, you can pretty much conclude that we are on to something. If not, the supporters of Obamacare would be using logic rather than pointing fingers and attempting to relegate us to the right-wing fringe.

It’s a free country, but the facts are essentially unchanging regardless of the hysteria. In the real world where people live and die, a recent e-mail from a hospice nurse reminds us that all is not well in health care:

How grateful I am to have run across your website! This may be an answer to a desperate prayer! I am a nurse who has practiced for 17 years. I am horrified about hospice, and how they routinely and blatantly murder patients on a regular basis, and somehow convince the patients and their families that their actions are "merciful" and reduce suffering when in actuality they are increasing the suffering of these patients and refusing any life-sustaining and true comfort measures. I feel so powerless to convince people about the truth of hospice, since many have used and been fooled by them and their propaganda. …[I]t is going to be hard to convince people about the truth of hospice, since they have worked very hard to create "trust" in people who clearly don’t know the truth. People need to know the truth; they need to know about how hospice KILLS and does not comfort.

I realize that her comments are anecdotal, and that not every hospice is cost-cutting by killing, but she’s not the only one from whom I’ve heard. Situations like this one and the one I described in a previous commentary , “Imposing death in a government-run hospice,” are not the sort of reports people want to hear, but the truth always stands alone.

And that brings me back to Mr. Soros. One of the facts I learned from LifeTree experts is that Soros is fundamentally necessary to this entire brainwashing cabal who want us to believe that pain relief can mean whatever they want it to mean, as long as the patient is “comfortable” and perhaps even comatose due to overdosing.

As LifeTree makes perfectly clear on their website:

The Obama administration wants "palliative care" (e.g., pain control) because it is a cost-saving alternative to curative treatment. "Palliative care" is presented as both symptom management and curative. That is misleading, and deliberately so. "Palliative care" is symptom management. "Palliative care" has been defined and cultivated by the same people who are pushing universal coverage. Soros-funded doctors have spent the past decade establishing "palliative care" as a new medical sub-specialty. "Palliative care" is a cost-savings device.

LifeTree is by no means a lone voice. Marie Jon , a news analyst and religion writer recently opined

If Obamacare is passed, the same insidious protocols — "Advance Care Planning" — will be set into place to cut the cost of his massive government healthcare program. Our senior citizens will receive mandated appointments for counseling that will determine if they receive minimal medical treatment or are told to go home and die. They will be offered assistance and instructions on how to take their own lives.

Marie sites the actual legislation and quotes from it in the same way we and others have been doing.
John Griffing penned a sobering evaluation of the current Obamacare bill:

… if HR 3200 becomes law, "due process" regarding someone’s life will become a question for bureaucrats. When all is said and done, the ultimate result of the proposed bill is to transfer to government the unprecedented power of determining who lives and who dies.

Once a government adopts this utilitarian stance toward human life, anything becomes possible. Suspend for a moment your jaded response to Hitler references, and note that in Germany, Order T4 required physicians to kill 70,273 people[i] "judged incurably sick, by critical medical examination"[ii] or those "unworthy of life."[iii] 5,000 of these victims were children. The elderly, the mentally infirmed, the deformed, and the racially impure, were put to death by teams of "medical experts." Thousands were sterilized. By 1939, 360,000 people had been sterilized to prevent the reproduction of the socially "unfit."

Although the methods have grown more subtle and the language more libertarian, our attitudes are not so very different in America today. We casually discuss whether people with certain afflictions merit the costs necessary to keep them alive. Quality of life trumps sanctity of life in most quarters. Dr. Jack Kevorkian’s assisted suicide methodology, once unthinkable, is now an acceptable topic for polite conversation.

George Soros is the money behind much of the creative planning that has gone into the Obamacare proposals addressing care at retirement age and beyond. If one examines the history of the Open Society Institute , Soros’ first and foremost think tank, it would not be news to learn that Soros wanted to create change in the way Americans speak about a number of things including death.
In 1996, Soros launched Project on Death in America . The aim of the project was a simple one: “Change the culture of dying .” Writing on the success of the project, Gary LaMarche, vice-president of the Open Society Institute, explained that from the beginning, Project on Death in America was focused on change, on the involvement of politics in health care and the Soros vision of what dying should be like.
Between 2001 and 2003, Soros funded a study group with specific attention paid to palliative care. In his reflections on the project and death in America, Soros tells the reader:

My mother’s death was more recent. She had joined the Hemlock Society and had at hand the means of doing away with herself. I asked her if she needed my help; I offered it, although I wasn’t particularly keen to do it. But I would have helped her because I felt that I owed it to her. At the point of decision, however, she did not want to take her own life, and I’m glad she didn’t.

Soros’ commitment to a benevolently utilitarian program involving pain relief and palliative care is evident in the work of the Project on Death in America. It is not unfair to suggest that the apparent ambivalence Soros has toward assisted suicide further suggests a less than humanitarian, Christ-like perspective that could well be what is permeating the Obamacare proposals. It is no secret, after all, that Obama and Soros have a great deal in common. Soros became an Obama fan early on and his ability to pour huge sums into a project he likes is nearly legend.
Michelle Malkin, a commentator whose work is always carefully documented, has revealed precisely how deep Soros’ financial support for Obamacare goes. The numbers may overwhelm you, as they did me, but we have to understand the man is a billionaire and he likes what Obama is proposing. Wing nut? You decide…

So why do I care? I have a concern for those in our culture who have been and could be ever more marginalized, even to death, by programs, projects and laws that create an illusion of good while advancing an agenda of evil.

Former presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan’s “Time to go, Grandpa ,” reminds us:

To secularists and atheists who believe life begins and ends here … the woman alone decides whether her unborn child lives, and the terminally ill and elderly, and those closest to them, have the final say as to when their lives shall end. As it would be cruel to let one’s cat or dog spend its last months or weeks in terrible pain, they argue, why would one allow one’s parents to endure such agony?

When all the name-calling is set aside, the tortuous debates have ended, and America is left with what I hope is a failed attempt to nationalize health care over the bodies of the vulnerable, one wonders who will be found to be accurate in their assessments and who will not. Only time will tell.

In the interim, the web of deceit has been finely woven and the spiders are working overtime to snap up the unsuspecting.

This article is courtesy of the American Life League.

Health Care Rights Language Raises Questions

August 12th, 2009 by Mary Kochan

What is a right?
Where do rights come from?
On what do they depend?
Is there a hierarchy of rights?
What obligations do one person’s rights place upon the larger society?

I am asking these questions because of the use of rights language being made in public discourse about health care. To be honest, I find the application of rights language in regard to health care troubling for several reasons, even though I am inclined to think that some kind of basic health care is legitimately thought of as a right. If I sound conflicted — well, I am.

Here is the problem as I see it. In this country, rights language is enshrined in our foundational documents and serves a very specific purpose: to limit the power of the government.

From the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The point of the mention of rights in this document was specifically to draw a line between what belonged to man as man, given him by his Creator and what belonged to man that was contingent upon some condition, including some form of government. The point of government, according to this, is to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This document gives the reason for the existence of our government, while the Constitution outlines the form that a government existing for that reason ought to take. Hence rights language, as it appears in the Constitution, is directed toward limiting the power of the state over the person, and the power of the federal government over the several states.

But the right of others also restrains persons and every right creates concomitant obligations. If others have the right to liberty, then I as a citizen am restrained from unduly restricting their liberty. I become obligated to tolerate actions by my fellow citizens that may displease me because while my fellow citizen has a right to liberty, I do not have a right not to be displeased. If, due to my displeasure, I attempt to restrict the liberty of my fellow citizen, the government acts to secure his right.

In a great many areas of life, this delicate equilibrium between rights and mutual obligations and the role of the state has been tested and retested. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right of trial by jury, right of redress — these are all areas in which there is a huge body of case law that spells out the what limits, if any, the state may place upon each right. Extrapolating from these rulings, one can locate one’s obligations as a citizen — we are all mutually obligated to tolerate many things that may not please us in order that our government function so as to secure the rights of all. In order for the government to function at all, of course, it has to have the authority to levy taxes and other authorities all based ultimately on a coercive power that is justifiable only, according to our founders, in order to secure our rights.

Things change though when the “rights” under consideration become, not merely what one has the power to do — such as speak freely, assemble with others, vote, worship as one sees fit — but become rights to have something, such as “affordable housing” or “affordable health care”. Do all people have a right to affordable housing? Does their right to affordable housing trump my right to set a rent price on my property that the market will bear? What if they cannot afford to pay enough to cover the expenses of my ownership of that property? Do all people have the right to affordable health care? Do we mean by that that everyone must have access to the same level of care regardless of ability to pay? What obligations will become incumbent upon us and what limitations on other rights will the rest of us incur once we accept this premise?

It seems apparent that rights language in such contexts — discussing what concrete goods one has a right to, as opposed merely to what one has a right to do — fundamentally alters the role that “rights” historically played in the political thought of our nation. Rather than limiting governmental power, this rights language greatly expands it and seems to change the motivation of the coercive power of the state.

Do we perhaps need some other language to talk about this other than the language of “rights”? And if so, what is it?

© Copyright 2009 Catholic Exchange

Mary Kochan, Senior Editor of Catholic Exchange, writes from Douglasville, Georgia.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

A break from politics...for a bit


I'm tired of the politics of the world, for now. It's really is draining me. So many lies, so many tricks...and people going blindly to slavery, toward a culture of death. I'm overwhelmed.

I'm going to just post about the true reason for our existence. Love. We were created to love. To love God, our neighbor, ourselves...to learn and perfect this love with God mercy and grace here in this life, and then in the one to come. Our destination is towards God. We have to remember that.

This world is passing away.

Lord, Father in heaven, help us to remember that, you are our all in all. Nothing exists that you didn't allow to exist...to test us, for our benefit, for us to learn about you, to love you, because you first loved us. Help me...all of us, to see YOU in our fellow human, each person made in your image, a spark of the divine, help us to love, as you love.
amen

dina

The Living Flame Of Love


The Living Flame Of Love
Songs of the soul in the intimate communication of loving union with God.


1. O living flame of love
that tenderly wounds my soul
in its deepest center! Since
now you are not oppressive,
now consummate! if it be your will:
tear through the veil of this sweet encounter!

2. O sweet cautery,
O delightful wound!
O gentle hand! O delicate touch
that tastes of eternal life
and pays every debt!
In killing you changed death to life.

3. O lamps of fire!
in whose splendors
the deep caverns of feeling,
once obscure and blind,
now give forth, so rarely, so exquisitely,
both warmth and light to their Beloved.

4. How gently and lovingly
you wake in my heart,
where in secret you dwell alone;
and in your sweet breathing,
filled with good and glory,
how tenderly you swell my heart with love.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Why the WEST should listen to Daniel Pipes

Why Shariah Must Be Opposed

August 6th, 2009 by Daniel Pipes

Those of us who argue against Shariah are sometimes asked why Islamic law poses a problem when modern Western societies long ago accommodated Halakha, or Jewish law. In fact, this was one of the main talking points of those who argued that Shariah should become an accepted part of dispute resolution in Ontario in 2005.

The answer is easy: a fundamental difference separates the two. Islam is a missionizing religion, Judaism is not. Islamists aspire to apply Islamic law to everyone, while observant Jews seek only to live by Jewish law themselves.

Two very recent examples from the United Kingdom demonstrate the innate imperialism of Islamic law.

The first concerns Queens Care Centre , an old-age home and day-care provider for the elderly in the coal town of Maltby, 40 miles east of Manchester. At present, according to the Daily Telegraph , not one of its 37 staff or 40 residents is Muslim. Although the home’s management asserts a respect for its residents’ "religious and cultural beliefs," QCC’s owner since 1994, Zulfikar Ali Khan, on his own decided this year to switch the home’s meat purchases to a halal butcher.

His stealthy decision meant pensioners at QCC could no longer eat their bacon and eggs, bangers and mash , ham sandwiches, bacon sandwiches, pork pies , bacon butties , or sausage rolls . The switch prompted widespread anger. The relative of one resident called it "a disgrace. The old people who are in the home and in their final years deserve better. … [I]t’s shocking that they should be deprived of the food they like on the whim of this man." A staff member opined that it’s "quite wrong that someone should impose their religious and cultural beliefs on others like this."

Queried about his decision, Khan, lamely replied he ordered halal meat for the sake of (nonexistent) Muslim staff. Then he backtracked: "We will be ordering all types of meat" and went so far as to agree that religious beliefs should not be imposed on others. His retreat did not convince one former QCC staffer, who suspected that Khan "intended to serve only halal meat at the home but has had to think again because of the row."

A second example of imposing Shariah on non-Muslims comes from southeast England. The Avon and Somerset police force patrols the cities of Bristol and Bath as well as surrounding areas has just issued hijabs to female officers. The hijabs, distributed at the initiative of two Muslim groups and costing £13 apiece, come complete with the constabulary’s emblem.

Now, issuing hijabs as part of uniforms in Great Britain is nothing new – the London police led the way in 2001, followed by other police forces, at least one fire brigade, and even the furniture chain Ikea. What sets the Avon and Somerset hijabs apart from these others is their being intended not just for pious Muslim female staff but also for non-Muslim staff, in particular for their use upon entering mosques.

[Rashad Azami of the Bath Islamic Society finds it "highly pleasing" that the constabulary took this step. One of the seven non-Muslim officers to receive a hijab of her very own, Assistant Chief Constable Jackie Roberts, calls it "a very positive addition to the uniform and one which I'm sure will be a welcome item for many of our officers."

[Dhimmitude is the term Bat Ye'or coined to describe subservience to Shariah by non-Muslims. Assistant Chief Constable Roberts' enthusiasm for the hijab might be called "advanced dhimmitude."]

"Hijab bullies " (as David J. Rusin of Islamist Watch calls them) who coerce non-Muslim females to cover up are just one stripe of Islamist imposing Shar’i ways on the West. Other Islamists focus on impeding the uncensored discussion of such topics as Muhammad and the Koran or Islamist institutions or terrorist financing ; still others exert to bring taxpayer-funded schools , hospitals , and jails into conformity with Islamic law, not to speak of taxi cabs and municipal swimming pools . Their efforts don’t always succeed but in the aggregate, they are rapidly shifting the premises of Western, and especially British, life.

Returning to pork: both Islam and Judaism abominate the flesh of pigs, so this prohibition offers a direct and revealing comparison of the two religions. Simply put, Jews accept that non-Jews eat pork but Muslims take offense and try to impede pork consumption. That, in brief, explains why Western accommodations to Halakha have no relevance for dealing with Shariah. And why Shariah as public policy must be opposed.

Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and the author of several books, including Militant Islam Reaches America and In the Path of God: Islam and Political Power (Transaction Publishers), from which this column derives. You may visit his website by clicking here and purchase his books by clicking here.

(This article courtesy of the Middle East Forum.)

A Kidnapped “Fetus”?

A Kidnapped “Fetus”?

August 6th, 2009 by Media Research Center

Darlene Haynes was only 23 years old when another woman brutally slashed her open and removed her eight-month-old baby girl from her womb. Her decomposing body was found on July 27, wrapped in a blanket and dumped in a closet inside her apartment in Worcester, Massachusetts. The body was so mutilated that when they found it, the police said they couldn’t immediately determine its gender.

The suspected murderer, 35-year-old Julie Corey, lived in the same apartment building and was found soon after the crime in Plymouth, New Hampshire, claiming the baby was her own.

This heart-rending story is also notorious for how the "pro-choice" media sputter and struggle to deny the humanity of a baby, even as the child is slashed away and stolen by a psychopath. I would highly doubt Corey said to bewildered onlookers, "Look at my new fetus."

And yet journalists insult this motherless baby as merely a "fetus," this their dismissive blob-of-tissue word suggesting an unborn baby is subhuman until birth, no matter how many months along in the pregnancy, and no matter how physically able it is to survive outside the womb. The word "fetus" isn’t even synonymous with human, since dictionaries define it as describing any "developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate."

A blog called Verum Serum collected some headlines from media sites on the Internet as the story broke on July 30. The early headlines used "fetus," even though the baby had already been born in a violent way. Fox News started with "Pregnant Massachusetts Woman Killed, Fetus Taken." ABC News reported "Mom-to-Be Darlene Haynes Killed, Cops Search for Her Fetus." CNN’s story was "Woman killed, fetus cut from body."

The same thing occurred in newspapers. The Boston Globe’s headline was "Authorities in Worcester seek killer in case of fetus cut from womb." The Boston Herald echoed: "Officials search hospitals for victim’s fetus."

It’s one thing to insist that a "fetus" is an unborn baby. But once the "fetus" has been removed – and survives – what is the excuse for journalists to search for a "fetus" on the lam? This baby that first saw the light of day in such a foul and violent fashion deserved better than to be described merely a "fetus," with all the compassion you would offer a stolen lab rat.

On television, "fetus" and "baby" were almost interchangeable. On NBC’s Today, news reader Ann Curry relayed that "Darlene Haynes was found dead on Monday in her apartment, her fetus taken from her womb. The baby was found alive last night." Co-host Matt Lauer offered the same contrast: "Her fetus has been taken from her womb. Last night as neighbors and friends mourned outside her home, police reported the missing baby had been found alive, 130 miles away in New Hampshire."

On ABC’s Nightline, reporter Stephanie Sy used both terms as she described the sickening (if rare) criminal trend: "In 2000, the body of an Ohio woman was found in a shallow grave with her fetus removed. In 2004, a Kansas woman’s baby was carved out of her womb with a kitchen knife and just last month, a pregnant woman was killed by a woman she met on Craigslist. The baby died shortly after being ripped from the mother."

Media outlets must have received an avalanche of responses on their terminology, and in the wake of the mother’s violent end, and that she didn’t make the "choice" of terminating her pregnancy, the word "baby" became common. It also helped that the baby girl (named "Alita" by the suspected murderess) survived the assault.

In the second go-round, Fox News carried the headline "Woman Suspected of Cutting Baby From Massachusetts Mom’s Womb Held on $2M Bail." CNN’s story came with the title: "Baby cut from slain mom’s womb found alive." The Boston Herald reported "Suspect in brutal murder, baby snatch held $2M bail." NBC’s Ann Curry announced that the suspect was "arrested in connection with the murder of a pregnant woman whose baby was taken from her womb."

Online, ABC News updated the story with "Baby Cut From Slain Mom’s Womb Found Alive." They ruined the trend with this later headline: "Slain Pregnant Woman Lived in Same Building With Accused Fetus-Stealer."

In a media world that’s sensitive enough to fire radio hosts for saying "nappy" next to "hos," where White House reporters scream for Fox hosts to be fired for suggesting the president is a racist, when will the time come that journalists are sensitive enough to stop denying the humanity of an unborn eight-month-old child? Or at the very least, could they stop demeaning the harsh reality of a child cruelly ripped from a murdered mother’s womb?
L. Brent Bozell III is the founder and president of the Media Research Center. His column appears courtesy of the Media Research Center.

Friday, July 31, 2009

censorship and fear

I posted a comment on a website that is dedicated to exposing secret and esoteric knowledge regarding occult symbols that salt and pepper our cultural background. It's quite fascinating.

I especially found the breakdown and interpretation of the UKs National Memorial and Arboretum statuary very compelling...unnerving actually, in connecting these images to the advancement to the Culture of Death. He writes:


Have you ever seen deceased members of the elite
portrayed naked and lying on the floor, lifeless? No, their sculptures shows them at their best, full of dignity, accentuating their strong traits and giving them a sense of immortality. Conversely, this sculpture focuses on the temporary nature of human life, on the tragedy of the “little people” and their eternal struggle to seek a dignified existence. The same technique is applied in televised news: do you ever see American or British people dead or mutilated on TV? No, but we see hundreds of Palestinians, Irakis or whatever current enemies of the coalition grossly disfigured and mutilated. In his book “Manufacturing Consent”, Noam Chomsky explained that this phenomenon effectively attributed in the minds of viewers a different value for the life of a Westerner versus the life of an Arab, an Asian or an African. The same technique is used here but opposes the untouchable elite versus the mutilated mass.

And you look at the sculpture, and you realize that he is right!
If I were a mother of a fallen soldier, I would HATE this memorial and would never visit it. I would say, 'Not my son'.
In America there has been efforts by atheist groups trying to remove community memorials like the beautiful Mt. Soledad cross at the veterans memorial above San Diego. Mind you this was put up by people in the local community using their community tax dollars, not federal tax dollars...but that doesn't matter to those of the Culture of Death. They would replace it with an odalisque or some ugly meaningless sculpture like that of the UK Memorial.



The same meme has been in church architecture, where truth and beauty is replaced by protestantized banality airplane hangers with fancy sound systems, the tabernacle and Blessed Virgin statue locked away in the back like some embarrassing aunt or uncle. In this ugly church you can see the fertility symbolism that Vigilant talks about.

Then you have the simply blantantly ugly like this space ship Catholic church in Scotland:

Something like this would not attract the eyes, but repell them, repelling them from God and from divine worship.


I commented on vigilants site about the Kaaba, however, how the opening in the Kaaba looks exactly like a vagina.






But I was disappointed.

He didn't approve my post about how the opening in the Kaaba looks exactly like a vagina, especially since that rock dates back to Arabic fertility goddesses.
Given the context of Vigilante's observations about every other religion, I didn't think islam should be excluded. But, given the violence that criticizing islam engenders, it seems he is, and rightly so I assume, concerned for his safety.

Regardless, Kaaba IS quite creepy.

Which seems to be a signature of architecture dedicated to the spirit of the culture of death.

I think that's worth observing.

Dina

Saturday, July 11, 2009

While Micheal jackson was played 24/7, our president gave our country away

Your Deterrent: What’s at Stake?

By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

July 9, 2009 @ 12:00 am

When President Obama wheels and deals this week with his double-headed Russian counterpart - Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin, please keep one thing in mind: As he proposes to make further, dramatic cuts in and otherwise weakens the United States’ nuclear arsenal, it’s your deterrent that is being compromised.

That’s right.

You and those you love are the ultimate beneficiaries of a nuclear deterrent that helps keep us safe in a dangerous world. The arsenal we have fielded for the past sixty-four years has not only prevented nuclear attacks against this country and our allies. It has kept you, or someone you love, from having to fight and possibly die in the kind of global cataclysm using non -nuclear (or "conventional") weapons that engulfed our countrymen and untold millions of others twice in the last century, before the dawn of the nuclear age.

Despite this centrality of nuclear deterrence to our individual security and the common defense, few of us feel any sense of ownership of the systems and required capabilities that make our deterrent credible, safe and effective. Indeed, for far too long, scarcely any Americans have addressed the contribution nuclear weapons make to their well-being, except perhaps to indulge in thoughtless - albeit, politically correct - nostrums about the desirability of abolishing such arms.

We can no longer engage in such irresponsible behavior. For now, we have a president who is committed to pursuing that goal.

In fact, as the New York Times fawningly reported on its front page on Sunday, for Barack Obama the ambition to achieve a "nuclear free world" has been an idée fixe ever since he was a young radical at Columbia University. In the next few days, he is determined to advance that goal by reducing your strategic nuclear forces by fully one-third in an unverifiable treaty with Russians who have a record of cheating on such accords.

To help each of us understand the implications of the Obama denuclearization agenda, an owner’s manual for your nuclear arsenal has just been published by the New Deterrent Working Group, a team of renowned experts sponsored by the Center for Security Policy. Between them, they have hundreds of years of experience with nuclear weapons programs, policies and arms control.

Entitled [1] U.S. Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century: Getting it Right , this book, which will be distributed to Members of Congress during the Moscow summit, is an invaluable resource for every American who wants to ensure, if not their own safety, at least that of their children and grandchildren. It draws upon a variety of official assessments, congressional testimony and the analyses of successive blue-ribbon commissions to examine critically the underpinnings and predictable consequences of Team Obama’s ominous plans for your deterrent.

Even a casual examination of the list of do’s and don’t’s enumerated in Getting it Right underscores one central reality: We are much farther down the road towards unilateral denuclearization than you probably can imagine, or should think desirable.

For example, since 1992, we have chosen not to conduct any underground detonations, the only sort of test of our nuclear weapons certain to confirm that they work, and that any defects detected are successfully corrected. Now, President Obama wants us to make this arrangement permanent by ratifying the unverifiable Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Never mind that a majority of the Senate rejected this accord a decade ago on the grounds that it is not consistent with maintaining an effective deterrent on behalf of the American people. Disregard, too, the fact that that the Russians routinely conduct underground "hydrodynamic" tests Mr. Obama considers to be impermissible under the CTBT - and therefore eschews.

Moreover, we alone among the world’s nuclear powers have not modernized your arsenal in nearly two decades. The Russians, by contrast, are estimated to be on track to upgrading 80% of their strategic forces. Yet, President Obama wants to foreclose even the replacement of your obsolescing weapons with one that promises to provide a safe and reliable deterrent in the absence of nuclear testing.

Not least, Getting it Right warns that - in the sustained absence of testing and modernization, the industrial complex (both the technical experts and the physical plant) required to maintain your deterrent is atrophying at an alarming rate. There are now only a handful of physicists still working for the government who have had first-hand experience with the design and realistic testing of nuclear weapons, and they soon will retire from government service. Even if advanced computers and other sophisticated gizmos could offset the knowledge and infrastructure your deterrent must have - and they cannot - there is no reason to believe they will be acquired by a president who is determined to lead by example to a nuclear-free world.

That determination was on full display as the New York Times reported Sunday that Mr. Obama "insisted" in an interview on the eve of his trip to Moscow that "reducing arsenals…would be the first step toward giving the United States and a growing body of allies the power to remake the nuclear world." Let’s be honest: The only remaking of the nuclear world this president can assuredly accomplish is by unilaterally taking us out of it. If that is not something you want done with your deterrent, now would be a good time to say so.


From Catholic Exchange: http://catholicexchange.com

URL to article: http://catholicexchange.com/2009/07/09/120213/

URLs in this post:
[1] U.S. Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century: Getting it Right : http://204.96.138.161/upload/wysiwyg/center%20publication%20pdfs/NDWG-%20Getting%20It%20Right.pdf

The 'tolerant left"When In Rome...? Actually, not so much - Political Punch


This evening I engaged, or tried to engage in debate on http://blogs.abcnews.com.

It's all about if Obama looked at a girls buttocks...or not. I kid you not. This is classic American political talk...not talk about weird treaties he might or might not be signing, or taxes he is raising...no no no...none of that. We have to talk about if he looked. And it's so stupid, anyone can see the tape and see he didn't (Sarkozy DID however, but not Obama)

ANYWAY, I engaged the conversation. AND all my posts were censored!!!I was NOT rude, nor flaming, nor crude...in fact, posts that were rude crude and obviously flaming even trollish were left untouched, such as this post:


"i do not like master Hussein Obamammy nor his sheeple, but the video shows he was not staring at the other swamp monkey a$$"

Posted by: pedro | Jul 11, 2009 1:43:27 AM

MY post said this:

Most of the more intelligent comments are being censored. Why is the 'tolerant' left so threatened by this comment that they must censor it every time:

The democrat party and the republican party are two sides of the same coin. People should just leave them and stop feeding the beast. They are both hell bent in destroying our country, the republicans are sycophants to the democrats and both work for big money. And quite frankly, the way Obama's followers adore him is all kinds of 'JIM JONES' creepy.

It's time to throw both parties out!
dina

And this one(a variant of the above comment):

Quite frankly, the way Obama's adorers fawn on him is all kinds of 'JIM JONES' creepy. As far as the 'look'...it didn't happen, he looked to distracted, and I saw no lingering look.
Why is this even a topic for discussion except to distract people from whats really going on...Obama is signing our country away in bits and pieces?

No one cares, and ABC covers for him.

Posted by: dina little | July 11, 2009 at 03:48 AM
You can read the article HERE, a real tempest in a teapot too, meant to distract, NOT enlighten, and doing a fairly decent job of it too. But you wont find my posts.

When In Rome...? Actually, not so much - Political Punch

Shared via AddThis

dina