Massachusetts and the Dictatorship of Death

The "No More Kings" Party in Massachusetts betrays its hypocrisy by asserting a Dictatorship of Death.

In his Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II warned us that, "....totalitarianism arises out of a denial of truth in the objective sense. If there is no transcendent truth, in obedience to which man achieves his full identity, then there is no sure principle for guaranteeing just relations between people. Their self-interest as a class, group or nation would inevitably set them in opposition to one another. If one does not acknowledge transcendent truth, then the force of power takes over, and each person tends to make full use of the means at his disposal in order to impose his own interests or his own opinion, with no regard for the rights of others. People are then respected only to the extent that they can be exploited for selfish ends. Thus, the root of modern totalitarianism is to be found in the denial of the transcendent dignity of the human person who, as the visible image of the invisible God, is therefore by his very nature the subject of rights which no one may violate — no individual, group, class, nation or State. Not even the majority of a social body may violate these rights, by going against the minority, by isolating, oppressing, or exploiting it, or by attempting to annihilate it.." (No. 44).

We ignore this at our own peril. So many are asleep as this country races toward tyranny. Now is the time to rise up and be heard. If we love this country, we will fight for it. We will fight for what so many died to protect. It was Abraham Lincoln, in a speech given on January 27, 1837, who forewarned: "At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

In Massachusetts,  the force of power has arisen as Governor Maura Healey, an active lesbian and practical, if not material atheist as well, signs into "law" - an unjust law is no law at all - allowing for what amounts to infanticide. 

Update: YouTube,  in a fit of anti-Catholic rage, has banned me for linking to this post in the comments section of several YouTube channels. 

So much for free speech.

The Vatican speaks out here.

The notion that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived

 As reported here:

"In a recent video, Kelsi Sheren, a Canadian combat veteran, host of The Kelsi Sheren Perspective, and an outspoken opponent of Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) policies, shared how Canada’s government-controlled healthcare system plans to euthanize an estimated 15 million Canadians between 2027 and 2047, a staggering figure justified under the pretext of cost savings.

While doctor-assisted suicide in the U.S. has not yet reached the alarming extremes observed in Canada, the 'death with dignity' movement is actively attempting to change that. Pending Governor Hochul’s signature on New York’s recently passed bill, 11 states and Washington, D.C., will permit this abhorrent and immoral practice.

Fortunately, dedicated coalitions – including the disability rights community, pro-life organizations, leaders within the Catholic Church, and other advocates – have helped slow its expansion.

Since Oregon first legalized assisted suicide in 1997, nearly 10,000 deaths have occurred under such laws. Nevertheless, with a culture increasingly embracing death as a solution, it’s difficult to predict whether the U.S. will ultimately follow Canada’s troubling example by normalizing assisted death instead of prioritizing compassionate care.

What often goes unnoticed, however, is that existing U.S. healthcare policies are already enabling the quiet killing of vulnerable Americans – not through legalized suicide, but through hospital protocols and policies that deny care, withdraw treatment, or subtly hasten death.

______________________________________________

For the Nazis, "euthanasia" (which is translated as "good death") represented a euphemistic term for a clandestine murder program created for the systematic killing of mentally and physically disabled patients living in institutional settings throughout Germany. The National Socialist's "Euthanasia" program would set the stage for the Holocaust: the mass murder of Jews and others who were deemed either racially inferior or ideologically unsuitable. In the words of Dr. Leo Alexander, Chief U.S. Medical Consultant at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials: 'Whatever proportions these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them that they had started from small beginnings."

Dr. Alexander referred to "a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of physicians." These physicians came to accept the notion that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived. We are witnessing what appears to be a similar "subtle shift in emphasis" with regard to human life today.

In his Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II reminded us that: "Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person. It requires that the necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the individual through education and formation in true ideals, and of the "subjectivity" of society through the creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility. Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism."

We ignore this warning at our own peril.

America continues on the road toward totalitarianism

 How close are we to an authoritarian police state?  See here. For years I've been warning that America was in twilight.   See here for example.

We cannot say we haven't been warned.  See here.

A Satanic Earth Charter for a New Age.  See here.

The Termite Nations have dispensed with God and His Commandments in their quest for unbridled hedonism. We are being prepared for the Reign of Antichrist. The Rev. P. Huchede, in his work entitled "History of Antichrist," explains the religious preparation, both intellectual and moral, for the Reign of Antichrist which will arrive after economic collapse: "But how shall he deprive the world of Christianity and have himself adored as God? Alas, it is only too true that the minds and hearts of men are admirably disposed for revolution and consequently ready to accept and bear the cruel yoke of such a tyrant. Revolution as the word itself implies means a subversion, but a subversion of all that is true, good, beautiful, and grand in the universe. It is the subversion of religion, representing its dogmas as myths and its moral teachings as tyranical. It is the subversion of authority. Licentiousness under the name of liberty becomes the order of the day; each one is invested with the right to govern himself. It is the subversion of reason: and do we not find leading minds in some of the most enlightened nations denying the principle of contradiction and maintaining the absolute identity of all beings? Revolution is therefore essentially destructive, and it becomes cosmopolitan by the action of secret societies scattered throughout the world. Is it not true to say that the 'mystery of iniquity' is prepared in secret revolutionary dens? But it does not suffice to destroy; it is absolutely necessary to build up again. The world cannot subsist long in a vacuum. It must have a religion; it must have a philosophy; it must have an authority. Revolution will furnish all these. Instead of the reasonable and supernatural religion of Jesus Christ, Revolution will preach Pantheism. The God-humanity will impart the theurgic spirit and thus lead men to adore the demon as the author of universal emancipation...

What frightful immorality must follow in the train of this shameless prostitution of religion! Never has the threefold concupiscence made greater ravage among mankind. And this is the religion sought and hoped for as the cherished boon of the aspirations of our modern free thinkers. To our Christian philosophy, the honor of humanity's revolution will substitute a babel of extravagant and absurd ideas. Instead of a mild and efficient authority consecrated alike by Church and state, despotism and anarchy will rise up and contend for the shreds of religious liberty and human policy...if the state of perversion continue for a while longer, he [Antichrist] will find the world prepared to receive and serve him." (Rev. P. Huchede, History of Antichrist, pp. 13-14, Tan Books).

The spirit of Antichrist is intensifying and hostility toward Christians (and the Catholic Church in particular) is spreading like a cancer.  Father Bernard Maria Clausi. O.F.M. (d. 1849), speaking of the coming chastisement, says that before the Triumph of the Church, "terrible will be the persecution of the wicked against the just.."  

And this persecution will soon become bloody. For the Lucifer State will not tolerate dissent.  Already preparation is underway for killing those who refuse to accept the Satanic programme.

mRNA Inventor stands with Archbishop Vigano

 

The inventor of mRNA is standing with Archbishop Vigano against the Satanic Globalist agenda to usher in a "Great Reset," a totalitarian New World Order in the service of Antichrist.  See here.

And...we we were warned.  See here

On the brink of totalitarianism

 As noted here:

"All your freedoms are belong to us’, that is the sentiment no longer hidden by the totalitarian-minded Director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Appearing on MSNBC, Dr. Anthony Fauci finally admits the objective: freedom must be eliminated if bureaucrats are going to be empowered to run the country.  Forced medical treatments, mandatory vaccinations, must now be mandated by the government. From his statement: 'I’m sorry I know people must like to have their individual freedom… but I think that we’re in such a serious situation now, that under certain circumstances, mandates should be done.'"

For many years I have been warning [in articles and even at this Blog] that this country is heading for totalitarianism. I have even compared the Democratic Party with the National Socialist Workers Party of 1930s Germany. Henry Lamb apparently agrees. Mr. Lamb, author of "The Rise of Global Governance," writes that, "As the modern-day freedom fighters begin to organize and strategize, the government chooses not to reform, but to entrench and expand its control over the people. The similarity is remarkable, between the rise of the Democratic Socialist Party now in control of Washington and the rise of the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany in the 1930s. Read his full article here.

In his Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II warned us that, "....totalitarianism arises out of a denial of truth in the objective sense. If there is no transcendent truth, in obedience to which man achieves his full identity, then there is no sure principle for guaranteeing just relations between people. Their self-interest as a class, group or nation would inevitably set them in opposition to one another. If one does not acknowledge transcendent truth, then the force of power takes over, and each person tends to make full use of the means at his disposal in order to impose his own interests or his own opinion, with no regard for the rights of others. People are then respected only to the extent that they can be exploited for selfish ends. Thus, the root of modern totalitarianism is to be found in the denial of the transcendent dignity of the human person who, as the visible image of the invisible God, is therefore by his very nature the subject of rights which no one may violate — no individual, group, class, nation or State. Not even the majority of a social body may violate these rights, by going against the minority, by isolating, oppressing, or exploiting it, or by attempting to annihilate it.." (No. 44).

We ignore this at our own peril. So many are asleep as this country races toward tyranny. Now is the time to rise up and be heard. If we love this country, we will fight for it. We will fight for what so many died to protect. It was Abraham Lincoln, in a speech given on January 27, 1837, who forewarned: "At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

Francis and constructive criticism

In an article which may be found here, Francis is quoted as having said, "...criticism is always useful, always. If someone receives criticism, he should immediately do a self-criticism and ask, ‘Is this true or not, or how much so?’ I always learn from criticism. Sometimes [criticisms] make you mad, but there are advantages.”

Francis always learns from criticism?  Is this why he refuses to listen to constructive criticism and dismisses his critics as "rigid"?  See here.


Father Felix Sarda Y Salvany, in Chapter twenty of his critically important classic entitled, "Liberalism is a Sin," has this to say:

Liberalism never gives battle on solid ground; it knows too well that in a discussion of principles it must meet with irretrievable defeat. It prefers tactics of recrimination and, under the sting of a just flagellation, whiningly accuses Catholics of lack of charity in their polemics. This is also the ground which certain Catholics, tainted with Liberalism, are in the habit of taking."

This is the preferred tactic of Francis the false prophet. As New Oxford Review put it: "For the past four-plus years, faithful Catholics have bent over backwards to give Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt, telling themselves that the Argentine Jesuit means well, that he is a faithful son of the Church, that he — like his immediate predecessors — has an enduring love of Catholicism and Western civilization, even if at times he comes across as ambiguous, contradictory, and intellectually deficient. The NOR, more than most Catholic-oriented journals, has published critical assessments of Francis’s confusing statements, pontifical missteps, muddled theological writings, and misguided initiatives (we have an entire online dossier devoted to this pontificate: http://www.newoxfordreview.org/dossier.jsp?did=dossier-francis).

Nevertheless, we have always approached the subject with an eye toward giving Francis the benefit of the doubt. We respect the Petrine ministry and we respect the office, but that presupposes the man elected to that office respects the ministry too. The time has come to offer an unvarnished look at the fruits of this papacy and to suggest that we move beyond giving Francis the so-called benefit of the doubt. Frankly, doubt is no longer an issue. Four-and-a-half years of evidence shows that Francis has fomented division, preached politics over the Gospel, and conducted himself more like a South American strongman than a vicar of Christ."

Of course.  Francis, as with the majority of liberal ideologues, isn't interested in meeting the demands of truth.  He's not interested in an authentic dialogue. He has succumbed to a totalitarian ethic.

In his Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II warned us that, "....totalitarianism arises out of a denial of truth in the objective sense. If there is no transcendent truth, in obedience to which man achieves his full identity, then there is no sure principle for guaranteeing just relations between people. Their self-interest as a class, group or nation would inevitably set them in opposition to one another. If one does not acknowledge transcendent truth, then the force of power takes over*, and each person tends to make full use of the means at his disposal in order to impose his own interests or his own opinion, with no regard for the rights of others. People are then respected only to the extent that they can be exploited for selfish ends. Thus, the root of modern totalitarianism is to be found in the denial of the transcendent dignity of the human person who, as the visible image of the invisible God, is therefore by his very nature the subject of rights which no one may violate — no individual, group, class, nation or State. Not even the majority of a social body may violate these rights, by going against the minority, by isolating, oppressing, or exploiting it, or by attempting to annihilate it.." (No. 44).

*  See here.

Francis isn't interested in dialogue, he has succumbed to totalitarianism

Father Felix Sarda Y Salvany, in Chapter twenty of his critically important classic entitled, "Liberalism is a Sin," has this to say:

Liberalism never gives battle on solid ground; it knows too well that in a discussion of principles it must meet with irretrievable defeat. It prefers tactics of recrimination and, under the sting of a just flagellation, whiningly accuses Catholics of lack of charity in their polemics. This is also the ground which certain Catholics, tainted with Liberalism, are in the habit of taking."

This is the preferred tactic of Francis the false prophet. As New Oxford Review put it: "For the past four-plus years, faithful Catholics have bent over backwards to give Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt, telling themselves that the Argentine Jesuit means well, that he is a faithful son of the Church, that he — like his immediate predecessors — has an enduring love of Catholicism and Western civilization, even if at times he comes across as ambiguous, contradictory, and intellectually deficient. The NOR, more than most Catholic-oriented journals, has published critical assessments of Francis’s confusing statements, pontifical missteps, muddled theological writings, and misguided initiatives (we have an entire online dossier devoted to this pontificate: http://www.newoxfordreview.org/dossier.jsp?did=dossier-francis).

Nevertheless, we have always approached the subject with an eye toward giving Francis the benefit of the doubt. We respect the Petrine ministry and we respect the office, but that presupposes the man elected to that office respects the ministry too. The time has come to offer an unvarnished look at the fruits of this papacy and to suggest that we move beyond giving Francis the so-called benefit of the doubt. Frankly, doubt is no longer an issue. Four-and-a-half years of evidence shows that Francis has fomented division, preached politics over the Gospel, and conducted himself more like a South American strongman than a vicar of Christ."

Of course.  Francis, as with the majority of liberal ideologues, isn't interested in meeting the demands of truth.  He's not interested in an authentic dialogue. He has succumbed to a totalitarian ethic.

In his Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II warned us that, "....totalitarianism arises out of a denial of truth in the objective sense. If there is no transcendent truth, in obedience to which man achieves his full identity, then there is no sure principle for guaranteeing just relations between people. Their self-interest as a class, group or nation would inevitably set them in opposition to one another. If one does not acknowledge transcendent truth, then the force of power takes over, and each person tends to make full use of the means at his disposal in order to impose his own interests or his own opinion, with no regard for the rights of others. People are then respected only to the extent that they can be exploited for selfish ends. Thus, the root of modern totalitarianism is to be found in the denial of the transcendent dignity of the human person who, as the visible image of the invisible God, is therefore by his very nature the subject of rights which no one may violate — no individual, group, class, nation or State. Not even the majority of a social body may violate these rights, by going against the minority, by isolating, oppressing, or exploiting it, or by attempting to annihilate it.." (No. 44).

Breaking: Francis supports same-sex civil unions and departs from the constant teaching of the Church.  See here.

The Man of Sin prepares to enter the world stage.

The New America: Moloch State which demands obedience

J. Matt Barber, writing about the emerging totalitarian state in what used to be the American Republic, writes:

While actions speak louder than words, words often predict future actions. Secular progressives' words and actions rarely align. This is because the pseudo-utopian, wholly dystopian perch from which they view the world is so detached from reality that, from a cultural and public policy standpoint, they must disguise their intended actions in flowery and euphemistic language, or face near universal rejection.

When they don't like the terms, liberals redefine the terms to mean something they do not, never have and never can mean. Consider, for instance, the once meaningful words "marriage" and "equality."

Other "progressive" doublespeak includes words like "invest" (meaning socialist redistribution of wealth), "tolerance" (meaning embrace immorality or face total ruin), "diversity" (meaning Christians and conservatives need not apply), "hate" (meaning truth) or "The Affordable Care Act" (meaning unaffordable, unsustainable and utterly inferior socialized medicine).

Even so, it's during those rare moments of candor that our cultural Marxist friends' rhetoric actually aligns with their intended actions. In other words, every so often, and usually by accident, they tell the truth.

Take this recent declaration by President Obama at Georgetown University. He was discussing his contempt for conservative new media in general and Fox News in particular:

"[W]e're going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we're going to have to change how the media reports on these issues," he said.

How Kim Jong-un of him. In sum: Goal 1) Control thought by, Goal 2) Controlling the media.

This is an idea older than – and as well preserved as – Vladimir Lenin himself. How Dear Leader intends to reconcile his scheme to "change how the media reports on these issues" with the First Amendment's Free Press Clause, namely, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom ... of the press," is abundantly clear.

He doesn't.

Our emperor-in-chief will force feed his once-free subjects yet another unconstitutional executive decree – a Net Neutrality sandwich with a side of Fairness Doctrine.

Or take would-be President Hillary Clinton's comments last month on the "rite" of abortion vs. the right of religious freedom.

Reports LifeNews:

"The comment has Hillary Clinton essentially saying that Christians must be forced to change their religious views to accommodate abortions.

"'Far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth. All the laws we've passed don't count for much if they're not enforced,' Clinton said, using the euphemism for abortion.

"'Rights have to exist in practice – not just on paper,' Clinton argued. 'Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.'"

That's a lot of "have tos." See the pattern here? Whether it's Obama saying government will "have to change how the media reports," or Hillary saying "deep-seated religious beliefs have to be changed," such despotic demands should spike the neck hair of every freedom-loving American.

And then there are those left-wing extremists whose designs on despotism require that Christians "must be made" to obey. Homosexual practitioner and New York Times columnist Frank Bruni is one such extremist. In his April 3 column titled, "Bigotry: The Bible and the Lessons of Indiana," Bruni quotes homosexual militant Mitchell Gold, a prominent anti-Christian activist: "Gold told me that church leaders must be made 'to take homosexuality off the sin list,'" he writes. "His commandment is worthy – and warranted," he adds.

Of course, if homosexual behavior, something denounced as both "vile affections" and "an abomination" throughout both the Old and New Testaments, is no longer sexual sin, then there can be no sexual sin whatsoever. To coerce, through the power of the police state, faithful Christians to abandon the millennia-old biblical sexual ethic and embrace the sin of Sodom would likewise require that Christians sign-off on fornication, adultery, incest and bestiality. Such is the unnatural nature of government-mandated moral relativism.

"But this isn't free speech, it's hate speech!" come the mournful cries of the ill-informed and the ill-prepared, desperately afraid to debate the issues on the merits. "Hate speech is excluded from protection," opines CNN anchor Chris Cuomo in a recent tweet on the topic. "But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment," replies UCLA law professor Eugene Volohk in a Washington Post op-ed. "Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas."

Of course this matters not to those to whom the First Amendment is meaningless.

Indeed, one man's "hate speech" is another man's truth, and as I've often said, truth is hate to those who hate truth.

And boy do they hate it.

And so they mean to muzzle it.

The time of which many of us have long warned is no longer on the horizon. The left's full-on assault against freedom, most especially religious freedom, is at hand. Oddly, or maybe not so oddly, it's at once the secular left and orthodox Muslims who lead the charge. These strange bedfellows share a common enemy. He is Truth in the person of Jesus Christ. In order to silence Him, they must silence His faithful followers.

Which brings us to this modern age of American lawlessness. We're fast moving from a soft tyranny to hard tyranny, and "progressive" leaders like those mentioned above are, chillingly enough, emboldened to the degree that they will openly call for it.

Like our brothers and sisters around the world, American Christians must prepare for suffering.

But, like them, we mustn't despair.

For there are different kinds of suffering.

Suffering through cancer, for instance, can, and often does, lead to death. Without Christ, who is mankind's only hope, such suffering is hopeless indeed.

Yet when a young mother suffers through child birth, and while she may experience the same level of pain as the cancer sufferer, her crying out elicits an entirely different response, and her pain serves an entirely different purpose. While one type of suffering leads to death, the other leads to life. While one attends sorrow, the other attends joy.

Similarly, there is a kind of suffering, suffering in sin, which leads to spiritual death, and a kind suffering, suffering in grace, which leads to spiritual life. Anti-Christian persecution, be it efforts to force Christians into disobedience to God, attempts to silence them outright or, worse, the torture, enslavement and even execution of Christ followers – now widespread in both Muslim and Marxist nations across the globe – signifies "the beginning of birth pains" (see Matthew 24:8).

And birth pains lead to new life.

In his Encyclical Letter Centesimus annus, No. 47, Pope John Paul II reminded us that: "Following the collapse of Communist totalitarianism and of many other totalitarian and 'national security' regimes, today we are witnessing a predominance, not without signs of opposition, of the democratic ideal, together with lively attention to and concern for human rights. But for this very reason it is necessary for peoples in the process of reforming their systems to give democracy an authentic and solid foundation through the explicit recognition of those rights. Among the most important of these rights, mention must be made of the right to life, an integral part of which is the right of the child to develop in the mother's womb from the moment of conception; the right to live in a united family and in a moral environment conducive to the growth of the child's personality; the right to develop one's intelligence and freedom in seeking and knowing the truth; the right to share in the work which makes wise use of the earth's material resources, and to derive from that work the means to support oneself and one's dependents; and the right freely to establish a family, to have and to rear children through the responsible exercise of one's sexuality. In a certain sense, the source and synthesis of these rights is religious freedom, understood as the right to live in the truth of one's faith and in conformity with one's transcendent dignity as a person.

Even in countries with democratic forms of government, these rights are not always fully respected. Here we are referring not only to the scandal of abortion, but also to different aspects of a crisis within democracies themselves, which seem at times to have lost the ability to make decisions aimed at the common good. Certain demands which arise within society are sometimes not examined in accordance with criteria of justice and morality, but rather on the basis of the electoral or financial power of the groups promoting them. With time, such distortions of political conduct create distrust and apathy, with a subsequent decline in the political participation and civic spirit of the general population, which feels abused and disillusioned. As a result, there is a growing inability to situate particular interests within the framework of a coherent vision of the common good. The latter is not simply the sum total of particular interests; rather it involves an assessment and integration of those interests on the basis of a balanced hierarchy of values; ultimately, it demands a correct understanding of the dignity and the rights of the person."

Men have succeeded in using the courts to attain legal approval for many types of immoral conduct, including abortion and homosexuality, without any consideration for the common good. And this is precisely why America is deteriorating, it has succumbed to a moral cancer which will ruin it from within. In the words of English correspondent Ian Brodie: "The keys to this personality change [from God-fearing nation to pagan society] are a number of Supreme Court decisions which virtually outlaw censorship and decree that obscenity is not illegal...It is a curious irony that the Supreme Court, dedicated to preserving the freedom which is the foundation of American life, has confused it with license. In doing so it has given its seal of approval to the sick society which will undermine the United States from within." (Sir Arnold Lunn and Garth Lean, Christian Counter-Attack, London: Blandford Press, 1969, pp. 50-51).


Or as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn so eloquently warned: "Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror. This is considered to be part of freedom, and theoretically counterbalanced by the young peoples' right not to look or not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil." ("A World Split Apart," Commencement Address at Harvard University, June 8, 1978, reprinted in National Review, July 7, 1978).

Where is all of this leading? Initially to a thinly disguised and then an eventually open totalitarianism. When man becomes God, as Gabriel Marcel noted, society becomes a termite colony and collapses from within. Enter the Man of Sin and the concentration camp. - for this is where atheistic humanism will lead us. To absolute despotism.

"Gay Marriage" and the frenzy of hate

John Zmirak writes, "The expected Supreme Court decision imposing on 50 states an entirely new understanding of marriage, and the frenzy of hatred that gay activists have stoked against Indiana for trying to shelter religious believers from crippling lawsuits should wake us to a cold and stark reality: The age of tolerance in America is vanishing before your eyes. The question is how Christians and other people of faith and good will are going to respond.

Let’s break this down in stark and simple terms: Not only were gay activists willing to overturn an act of Congress (the Defense of Marriage Act) on spurious grounds; they also wish to force their libertine idea of marriage onto voters in each of the 50 states, voiding dozens of laws on an issue that has always rested with the states.

Not satisfied with that, these activists want the full force of the regulatory state to compel every single American to affirm and accept the delusion of same-sex “marriage,” under the same civil and criminal penalties that now forbid discrimination by race. A famous case was a 70-year-old Christian florist who declined to decorate a gay wedding, and was crushed by a successful lawsuit and the full force of the ACLU’s legal team. She was one of the Brave New Law’s first victims. She will be far from the last.

These activists use the power of city governments (as in San Francisco) to try to intimidate isolated Catholic schools into abandoning Christian teaching on sexual ethics. Such zealots corrupt the academic authorities who grant accreditation in order to financially cripple schools such as Gordon College that maintain Christian “morals” clauses as part of their hiring policies.

Those who defend the reality of marriage, including even unbelievers who defend freedom of religion and association, are not simply wrong — they are “bigots” and “haters” who deserve to be fined, boycotted and bankrupted; to lose their jobs like Brendan Eich, the ex-CEO of Mozilla, and face financial ruin — as Elton John hopes to break Dolce & Gabbana, and as Apple CEO Tim Cook hopes to break the entire State of Indiana. Politicians are joining in, with the Connecticut governor, and Seattle and San Francisco mayors, banning official travel to Indiana.

As Austin Ruse points out, states such as Indiana are not giving Christians a pass to broadly discriminate against gays. Such religious freedom laws “deal with the very narrow question of whether vendors can be forced by the state to participate in religious ceremonies that violate their own religious consciences.”

Given the fanatical response to a modest bill virtually identical to a federal law upheld by courts and bills on the books in twenty other states, how long before the call comes out for the “bigots” to be imprisoned? The First Amendment won’t protect us, if leaders like Hillary Clinton have their way; in public statements she followed President Obama in replacing the Constitution’s “free exercise” with “freedom of worship.”

The implicit message shouldn’t be missed: Say what you want in church for an hour every Sunday, but the rest of the week belongs to us. Your homophobic beliefs deserve no more protection than the religious use of peyote."

Readers of this Blog know that I have been warning about the totalitarian nature of the homosexual hate movement for more than 20 years.

I have been warning for years that just prior to the Man of Sin revealing himself to the world, there would be a tremendous push for societal acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex "marriage."  Back in 2009, I warned that: "President Obama wants all Americans to accept and embrace homosexuality....And this really shouldn't surprise us. Those who abandon Divine Revelation and the Natural Law will no longer seek God and His precepts and Commandments but will instead pursue their own lusts and fantasies. Such people will create and adore their own gods which are almost always a mythical projection of their own vices. They attribute a religious dimension to these vices to 'baptize' them, to justify them in their own darkened minds*.


It was Saint Cyprian of Carthage, writing against the Greco-Roman pagan world and its vices, who said: 'That Jupiter of theirs is not more supreme in dominion than in vice, inflamed with earthly love in the midst of his own thunders...now breaking forth by the help of birds to violate the purity of boys. And now put the question: Can he who looks upon such things be healthy-minded or modest? Men imitate the gods whom they adore, and to such miserable beings their crimes become their religion.' (Letters 1:8).

In a series of letters written from 1969-1970, Sister Lucia [of the Fatima apparition] wrote: 'It is indeed sad that so many people let themselves be dominated by the diabolical wave that is sweeping the world, and that they are blinded to the point of being incapable of seeing error! Their principal fault is they have abandoned prayer; in this way they have become estranged from God, and without God everything fails. The devil is very cunning and looks for our weak points in order to attack us. If we are not diligent and careful to obtain strength from God, we shall fall, for our age is very wicked and we are weak. Only the strength of God can keep us on our feet.'

There is a retreat from truth. Those of us who refuse to abandon our Christian faith must be demonized. We must be placed in a ghetto. Isolated. Portrayed as 'backward' and 'archaic.' And eventually placed in internment camps or simply eliminated altogether should we refuse to accept the New Order."


* Have I been wrong so far?  President Obama has attempted to use the Scriptures to justify his decision.  Speaker Pelosi asserts that her Catholic Faith "compels" her to support sodomy.

Benjamin Wiker notes that, "Making [homosexuality] monogamous does not make it any better, any more than a man promising to have sex with only one child would make it any less a reprehensible act of pedophilia."  Why then the push for "gay marriage"?  Because, as Wiker explains, this desire makes sense to "a materialist still nagged by subliminal, vestigial Christian moral habits" or the Christian "who has sold nearly everything in his universe to the materialist."  Or, as I've put it so many times before here at La Salette Journey, the Christian who has lost his faith but who hasn't steeled himself or herself to admit of this. 

Wiker wisely asserts that, "The notion of sanctifying homosexual unions by demanding that they be monogamous will soon enough go the way of limiting abortions to the first trimester.  Furthermore, the push for pedophilia is now the 'extreme' which will push homosexuality out of the spotlight of public debate and into full normality.  That pedophilia is even being debated, rather than simply rejected as unimaginably vile, means that it is likely the next item of sexual liberation due for normalization." ( Benjamin Wiker, Ph.D, Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists, p. 312).

During the Reign of Antichrist, which is almost upon us, every sin, every vile act will be celebrated with abandon.  And every Commandment of God, every principle of morality will not only be laughed to scorn but will be outlawed.

Boston Mayor Marty Walsh and his stormtroopers assist the homosexual movement to hijack the Saint Patrick's Day Parade

Mass Resistance reports:

"Up until now, Boston had been the only St. Patrick’s Day Parade in the country not to cave in to pressure and allow homosexual groups to march. In 1995, after a huge legal battle with the Massachusetts liberal political establishment, the Allied War Veterans Council, which runs the Boston annual parade, won a 9-0 US Supreme Court decision giving them the right to exclude homosexual-themed groups – or anyone – from their parade.

And they’d held their ground.  Last year, as MassResistance reported, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh put enormous pressure on the Council to relent on their own, but they refused to give in. As expected, the Mayor and his political allies boycotted the parade.

But the Mayor, a former union organizer, knows a thing or two about pressure tactics. This year the Mayor’s increased pressure on the Council leadership was successful. But even then, the Council Commander only had a minority of the members supporting this. As we reported, they had to use dishonest and deceitful tactics to exclude the majority of members when they voted to allow the homosexual group OutVets to march in December. And they used the same tacts again in January when the majority tried ro orchestrate a re-vote.

Thus, the Mayor has now announced that he would be marching in the parade, has invited his political allies to march, and has become a big supporter of the event."

I've said it before, the same radical homosexual activists who continually cry for more "tolerance" are anything but tolerant. This is a spiritual war. The homosexual movement is not a civil rights movement. It is an attempt at moral revolution. An attempt to change people's view of homosexuality. It is also about control.  And once again, homosexual activists have gotten their way, hijacking a day meant to honor Saint Patrick and to celebrate community and fostering divisiveness.

Writing in the Chicago Free Press, even homosexual activist Paul Varnell admitted that the homosexual movement is not about civil rights but rather a moral revolution. He wrote, 'The fundamental controverted issue about homosexuality is not discrimination, hate crimes or domestic partnerships, but the morality of homosexuality. Even if gays obtain non-discrimination laws, hate crimes law and domestic partnership benefits, those can do little to counter the underlying moral condemnation which will continue to fester beneath the law and generate hostility, fuel hate crimes, support conversion therapies, encourage gay youth suicide and inhibit the full social acceptance that is our goal. On the other hand, if we convince people that homosexuality is fully moral, then all their inclination to discriminate, engage in gay-bashing or oppose gay marriage disappears. Gay youths and adults could readily accept themselves. So the gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality.' (Paul Varnell, "Defending Our Morality," Chicago Free Press, Aug 16, 2000, http://indegayforum.org/authors/varnell/varnell37.html).

In a previous post, I mentioned how Professor James Hitchcock, in his excellent work entitled "Catholicism and Modernity" (New York: Seabury Press, 1979, p. 86), explains the role of the media in this entire process: "The media's alleged commitment to 'pluralism' is at base a kind of hoax. The banner of pluralism is raised in order to win toleration for new ideas as yet unacceptable to the majority. Once toleration has been achieved, public opinion is systematically manipulated first to enforce a status of equality between the old and the new, then to assert the superiority of the new over the old. A final stage is often the total discrediting, even sometimes the banning, of what had previously been orthodox."

For many years I have been warning [in articles and even at this Blog] that this country is heading for totalitarianism. See here and here for example. I have even compared the Democratic Party with the National Socialist Workers Party of 1930s Germany. Henry Lamb apparently agrees. Mr. Lamb, author of "The Rise of Global Governance," writes that, "As the modern-day freedom fighters begin to organize and strategize, the government chooses not to reform, but to entrench and expand its control over the people. The similarity is remarkable, between the rise of the Democratic Socialist Party now in control of Washington and the rise of the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany in the 1930s. Read his full article here.

In his Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II warned us that, "....totalitarianism arises out of a denial of truth in the objective sense. If there is no transcendent truth, in obedience to which man achieves his full identity, then there is no sure principle for guaranteeing just relations between people. Their self-interest as a class, group or nation would inevitably set them in opposition to one another. If one does not acknowledge transcendent truth, then the force of power takes over, and each person tends to make full use of the means at his disposal in order to impose his own interests or his own opinion, with no regard for the rights of others. People are then respected only to the extent that they can be exploited for selfish ends. Thus, the root of modern totalitarianism is to be found in the denial of the transcendent dignity of the human person who, as the visible image of the invisible God, is therefore by his very nature the subject of rights which no one may violate — no individual, group, class, nation or State. Not even the majority of a social body may violate these rights, by going against the minority, by isolating, oppressing, or exploiting it, or by attempting to annihilate it.." (No. 44).

Mayor Marty Walsh and his stormtroopers have used the force of power to impose their worldview on Catholics, destroying the purpose of the Saint Patrick's Day Parade for their own selfish ends, to promote a perverse agenda and to curry political favor with liberals who long ago jettisoned their Christian faith for an epicurean ideology.

As a result of unrepented sin, the Police State begins to emerge....

As a result of unrepented sin, America is gradually disintegrating and the Police State is beginning to emerge. See here and here for example.

Our Lady warned, "I foretold to you the great chastisement which would strike this poor humanity which has become pagan and built a new civilization without God, and which is threatened by violence, by hatred, by war, and which is running the risk of destroying itself by its own hands....I also foretold to you the great crisis which would take place in the Church, because of the great apostasy which has entered into her, caused by an ever wider diffusion of errors, by her interior division, by opposition to the Pope and by the rejection of his Magisterium. This most beloved Daughter of mine must live the hours of her agony and of her sorrowful passion. She will be abandoned by many of her children. The impetuous wind of persecution will blow against her, and much blood will be shed, even by my beloved sons...Tell everyone to enter the ark of my Immaculate Heart, in order to be protected and saved by me....Because of the generous response which I am receiving everywhere from my littlest children, I promise to intervene to save you in the hour of the great trial.." (Our Lady to Father Gobbi, Spiritual Exercises in the Form of a Cenacle with the Bishops and Priests of the M.M.P. from the United States and Canada, October 13, 1994).

In the words of Dr. J. Coleman, who served as an Intelligence Officer, “The One-World Government is going to consist of hereditary oligarchs who will divide the power between themselves. There is going to be only one legal religion and only one state church. Only Satanism and Luciferism will be the legal religious subjects in state schools. No other schools (private, Catholic, etc.) will be allowed. All present Christian education systems are going to be destroyed (and the fact is — they are destroyed in the most part) from inside, and become extinct. Satanism is already considered to be a 'true and legal religion'. In fact, in some U.S. military bases, they already celebrate black masses and worship Satan.

There will not be any sort of personal freedom, nor sovereignty of nations, and no human rights at all. We will all become slaves. Every man who does not belong to the elite will have his own number which is going to be recorded in the main computer (the "BEAST 666" in Brussels, Belgium). For control purposes, such numbers will be easily accessible for any government agency. Data regarding children and their mothers will be kept in local government computers.

The number of children will be limited and controlled by abortion and sterilization. There will be mind-controlling drugs, and people will be forced to take them. Euthanasia for elder people and the incurably sick will be obligatory. A minimum of four billion 'unusable bread eaters' will be terminated by planned and controlled wars, by planned mass hunger for some regions of the world (at present, Africa, South America, and Asia), and by widespread disease, causing fast death.

In the New World Order, there will be no money for any transaction to 'buy and sell'. All sales and purchases will be done by electronic money transferred by means of biochips implanted under the skin. Any violation of a Government provision will be punished by a suspension of the usage of the biochip for a period of time. Individuals whose biochips are put on the "black list of offenders" will not be able to buy, sale, nor get any kind of service or employment. They will be outlaws with a very slim or no chance to survive."

It was Tacitus who proclaimed, "O man, how prompt to slavery."  And waiting in the wings is a Lawless One who will rule over such men.  The Christian message will not be tolerated.  He will strive to stamp it out altogether.  He will seek to eradicate any expression of Christian thought or prayer.  He will outlaw the Holy Mass.  And then he will demand worship of himself.


Related reading here.

Worcester Diocese under attack from militant sodomites and Attorney General Martha Coakley

Writing for the Christian Post Reporter, Michael Gryboski notes that, "A Roman Catholic diocese in Massachusetts that refused to sell a historic mansion to a gay couple is facing mounting legal pressure. Massachusetts' Attorney General Martha Coakley recently filed a brief in support of the gay couple who are suing the Diocese of Worcester alleging discrimination. Filed before superior court earlier this month on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Coakley argued that the diocese's actions constituted 'sexual orientation discrimination.' 'The commonwealth's compelling interest in protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination derives from their status as a politically vulnerable minority that has suffered a history of discrimination, which continues to this day,' reads the brief in part. '… though the diocesan defendants assert a sincerely held religious belief, their free exercise claim fails the rest of the compelling interest test, and they are not entitled to an exemption.' The Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General provided The Christian Post with a press release sent out last Thursday, wherein Coakley stated that her office respects the freedom of religion."  See here.

But what is tolerance? How do we define it? Dr. Montague Brown, a professor of philosophy at St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, provides us with an excellent definition of tolerance. He writes, "Tolerance is the willingness to accept actions we believe to be inappropriate or even wrong because it would be worse to take action against them. Tolerance is community-oriented. Ideally, all bad behavior should cease, but it is unrealistic to think that society could succeed in enforcing this ideal. Tolerance understands this." (The One-Minute Philosopher, p. 166).

And how would we define relativism? Again, Dr. Montague: "Relativism is the assumption that there is no right or wrong. No action is considered better or worse than any other. If this is so, all actions are equally acceptable. Relativism is profoundly anti-community. If there are no standards of morality to which we should adhere, tolerance is no better than intolerance." (The One-Minute Philosopher, p. 167).

Does the Martha Coakley possess an adequate understanding of what constitutes tolerance?  Freedom of religion? Such would not appear to be the case.

As I've warned so many times before at this Blog, the same radical homosexual activists who continually cry for more "tolerance" are anything but tolerant. This is a spiritual war. The homosexual movement is not a civil rights movement. It is an attempt at moral revolution. An attempt to change people's view of homosexuality. Writing in the Chicago Free Press, even homosexual activist Paul Varnell admitted this. He wrote, "The fundamental controverted issue about homosexuality is not discrimination, hate crimes or domestic partnerships, but the morality of homosexuality. Even if gays obtain non-discrimination laws, hate crimes law and domestic partnership benefits, those can do little to counter the underlying moral condemnation which will continue to fester beneath the law and generate hostility, fuel hate crimes, support conversion therapies, encourage gay youth suicide and inhibit the full social acceptance that is our goal. On the other hand, if we convince people that homosexuality is fully moral, then all their inclination to discriminate, engage in gay-bashing or oppose gay marriage disappears. Gay youths and adults could readily accept themselves. So the gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality." (Paul Varnell, "Defending Our Morality," Chicago Free Press, Aug 16, 2000).

We are involved in a spiritual war.  Martha Coakley's legal brief - see here - really represents a thinly disguised totalitarianism.  The twilight has become darkness.

 

President Obama, dictatorship and control

In my last post, I compared President Obama's new executive order with the Third Reich's "Decree for the Protection of the German People."  Every dictatorship, or every country en route toward dictatorship, justifies its lust for power and control by asserting that such power grabs are for the "good of the people" or "public safety in times of crisis" or for reasons of "national security."  But all of the bovine scatology in the world cannot conceal the fact that control is the driving force behind dictatorship.

In an article for the Canada Free Press entitled "Obama's obsession with control," Doug Hagmann and Joseph Hagmann write:

In the event you missed the Friday news dump, Barack Hussein Obama issued yet another executive order. Titled “Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions,” it may be read in its entirety on the White House website here. At first blush, it appears that the order modernizes previous communications functionality, particularly as it relates to the continuity of governmental communication during wartime or national crisis as defined by Obama.


The text of the order itself consists of 2,205 words and seven-(7) sections and multiple subsections. The policy statement (section one) seems innocuous and actually beneficial to the continuity of communications within the U.S., until one begins to dissect the order and consider it in context with other Obama issued directives. Extensive analysis of this order, in tandem with other recent Obama orders and signed legislation, suggests a disconcerting pattern of potential overreach by Obama into the area of normal and customary commercial communication systems.

Based on our analysis of this order, it would appear that the implementation of emergency communications by Obama, using all forms of wired and wireless communication systems, is redirected through the Executive branch and could expand such takeover abilities beyond the limits of an actual act of war, national emergency, or other event impacting the national security of the U.S. The order also mandates that the Department of Homeland Security develops and submits such a plan to Obama within sixty-(60) days of this order (section 5.2(h)).

Additionally, Obama’s order completely revokes Executive Order 12472 of April 3, 1984, as amended, which established and defined the National Communication System (NCS). The purpose of the NCS is to “assist the President” in matters of emergency communications in war-time emergencies, and during “those crises or emergencies in which the exercise of the President’s war power functions is not required or permitted by law.” By the stroke of his pen, such distinctions are removed.

Security or control?

After reviewing this order, one is forced to wonder whether the actual function of this order is to assure continuity of communications during an actual emergency, or if this order is designed to expand the control of all communications by implementing measures that redefine crises and emergencies. In the context of the most recent orders implemented by the stroke of his pen, it would appear that Obama is more concerned with command and control than ensuring continuity of communications during times of actual national emergencies."

Total control of the means of communication is necessary for a dictatorship, or emerging dictatorship, so that through mass communication the individual may be propagandized and molded into conditioned responses.  It is necessary to destroy the individual's ability to figure things out for himself.  And as this ability atrophies, the individual is inundated with entertainments [think of Juvenal and his comment about bread and circuses] which prevent him from reflecting on the fact that his authorities are deceitful and manipulative.

The dictatorship wants, the dictatorship needs, to reduce the individual to being an apathetic machine devoid of independent, critical thought.  The individual is subjected to a process of "massification" until he or she is completely dependent upon the State.  It was Hitler's boast that: "..sixty thousand men have outwardly become almost a unit, that actually these men are uniform not only in ideas, but that even the facial expression is almost the same.  Look at these laughing eyes, this fanatical enthusiasm, and you will discover how a hundred thousand men in a movement become a single type."

If you believe that Americans are "too intelligent" and too "fiercely independent" to succumb to intellectual and emotional subjection through the use of mass communication, rallies, emotional oratory and slogans, consider how a man of no particular intelligence or experience seduced so many into believing that he would effect positive change in the United States.  Has Barack Obama delivered?  And how often do you come across people whose views are merely a regurgitation of what they read in their local newspaper or hear from the mainstream media?

Once the individual has succumbed to totalitarian ideology, the critical faculty is suspended.  And it is difficult, if not impossible, for the brainwashed individual to revert to his former self.  Collective totalitarian thinking [which again is the goal of every dictatorship] may be compared with schizophrenia.  In both, says Joost Meerloo in The Rape of the Mind, there is, "a loss of an independent, verifiable reality, with a consequent relapse into a more primitive state of awareness."  In both, thought and action are arrested at the infantile level of development.

Such a person is easy to control and manipulate. 

And that's exactly what Barack Obama is about: control.

Presidential frontrunner Ron Paul warns that martial law is being established in America

As this article explains, "Leading GOP candidate Ron Paul has warned in recent interviews that the amendments passed in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) are not only dangerous, but authorize the establishment of total martial law inside the United States. Not only does the bill, in sections 1031 and 1032, declare the unconstitutional right to detain Americans indefinitely without trial, but it authorizes an Internet offensive and online Pentagon takeover under the pretext of cybersecurity and stopping online piracy."

People are being gradually desensitized and lulled into a false sense of security.  Most simply aren't aware of the dangers which are advancing steadily. William Parker, in an article entitled "Your fourth amendment rights under attack by Obama, DOJ," writes: "There is no talk of 'the slippery slope' anymore, which so many people used as an argument against many policies enacted by the Bush administration. Yet, now more than ever, it seems the slippery slope has given way to the sheer drop from the cliffs of sanity. There are intentional actions already in progress to simply take from us the rights we have apparently taken for granted. The Dept. of Justice apparently believes that U.S. citizens do not enjoy a "reasonable expectation of privacy" with respect to cell phone use, and have been attempting to acquire the ability to simply demand user information from the cell phone companies without going through standard procedures to obtain a warrant for specific information on specific individuals for use in specific prosecutions. They are assaulting the fourth amendment in yet another case, asserting that "email over 181 days old should not be protected from warrantless search and seizure."

Where is the outrage? These are not things that are occurring as a consequence of, or as a by-product of, some other action being taken for some otherwise lofty purpose. The government means to take these freedoms, piece by piece, with the hopes that nobody will care until it's too late." Full article here.


In his Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II warned us that, "....totalitarianism arises out of a denial of truth in the objective sense. If there is no transcendent truth, in obedience to which man achieves his full identity, then there is no sure principle for guaranteeing just relations between people. Their self-interest as a class, group or nation would inevitably set them in opposition to one another. If one does not acknowledge transcendent truth, then the force of power takes over, and each person tends to make full use of the means at his disposal in order to impose his own interests or his own opinion, with no regard for the rights of others. People are then respected only to the extent that they can be exploited for selfish ends. Thus, the root of modern totalitarianism is to be found in the denial of the transcendent dignity of the human person who, as the visible image of the invisible God, is therefore by his very nature the subject of rights which no one may violate — no individual, group, class, nation or State. Not even the majority of a social body may violate these rights, by going against the minority, by isolating, oppressing, or exploiting it, or by attempting to annihilate it.." (No. 44).

In England, censorship is being advanced.  And the driving force behind this effort is an organization known for its pro-homosexual ideology. Under Erich Scholz, Minister of the Interior for the Third Reich, the Reich Broadcasting Corporation became nothing but a propaganda tool where dissenting ideas which were deemed dangerous or "degrading" were simply excluded. In the words of Erich Scholz, "The German radio serves the German people. That which degrades the German people is excluded from German radio."  How much longer before the Bible is deemed "hate literature" because it says that homosexual acts are gravely sinful?  How much longer before Christian websites and Blogs are silenced forever because they promote and defend God's Revelation?  How much longer before the Holy Father's words are deemed "degrading"?  Already, a German website has called our beloved Holy Father "anti-human" and "anti-democratic."

Ron Paul is gravely concerned.  As are many other scholars.  Shouldn't we all be?

Lesbian Judge Barbara Lenk is confirmed as Republican Jennie Caissie refers to pro-family individuals and groups as "irrelevant and ignorant."

Mass Resistance is reporting that lesbian judge Barbara Lenk has been confirmed, in a 5-3 vote, for the Massachusetts SJC:


"On Wednesday the elected Governor’s Council met to vote on the nomination of Barbara Lenk to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. As MassResistance has reported and documented, Lenk is an 'out' lesbian activist with troubling record of activism. She brings a stated philosophy that judges can 'evolve' the law, and an apparent intent to promote social change from the bench. Governor Patrick, who owes the homosexual lobby for its tireless support in his election, touted his nomination of Lenk as an important 'first'....Lenk's nomination was an immediate red flag for conservatives. Knowing that, the liberal establishment even more fiercely pushed her confirmation. Their fear tactics came out in force. If you mentioned anything about Lenk's 'sexual orientation' then you were an ignorant bigot. That's been the public party line and it was largely effective.

Thus, just about all the Massachusetts pro-family groups stayed on the sidelines. Only MassResistance, the Catholic Action League, and Joe Ureneck’s fatherhood groups came to the hearing to testify, or participated in any meaningful way. And in the media, only Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr was unafraid to tell the truth. Talk show host Jeff Katz was also vocal in opposition to Lenk, but he was careful to state that her 'sexual orientation' didn’t bother him at all.

As we reported, the pro-family people who came to the public hearing were straightforward in their concerns. The testimony generally centered around (1) Lenk's pro-gay judicial record and her apparent bias toward the homosexual movement; (2) her public self-identification as an 'out' lesbian in a same-sex 'marriage' (thus supporting with the Goodridge decision) – and how that will be used in the public schools and elsewhere; (3) her pro-activist judicial philosophy; (4) concerns about her position on fathers' rights; and (5) her apparent support for the homosexual-themed (and anti-Semitic) play 'Falsettos' produced at a local school.

And of course, it's this same Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that gave us the 'same-sex marriage' Goodridge decision -- the gold standard for radical judicial activism. It shouldn't be considered a surprise that these things would be on peoples' minds. These seemed to be reasonable concerns regarding a judge who would be a final guardian of the Commonwealth’s civil rights. But members of the Governor’s Council obviously saw that differently. At the public hearing, a few of them took the unprecedented action of berating, insulting, and badgering the pro-family witnesses. As we reported, it was terrible. Then on Wednesday, just before the vote, two others stood up to speak about the upcoming vote and continued that bizarre and offensive behavior...Councilor Marilyn Devaney made the outrageous statement that people with pro-family values on homosexuality should not be allowed to speak at all. Devaney told the Council and the attendees:  'I am not responsible for the public who spoke at that hearing. I don't know them. If I was presiding I would have gaveled out of order speakers who used demeaning and inappropriate language.'

Demeaning and inappropriate language from members of the public? That, of course, is a reference to the testimony of pro-family speakers that day. Well, excuse us for having traditional values and voicing our concerns about people who will be judges over us. And obviously Councilor Devaney has some issues with the First Amendment. This is among the most offensive things we've ever heard a public official say, and we’ve heard a lot. And what about the Councilors who actually were demeaning and inappropriate to us? Apparently not a problem for Devaney. Devaney also said that because the actions of people like us other qualified homosexuals were afraid to apply for judgeships, and that bothers her greatly.

But then Jennie Caissie, the newly elected Republican, was equally as offensive. She stood up right after Devaney and said, 'I want to begin by thanking Judge Lenk for her candid testimony at the hearing, for her professionalism, and her stoic presentation in the light of some very unprofessional and irrelevant questioning. I rise because I want to set the basis for my vote and distinguish myself from those irrelevant and ignorant questions.'  'Irrelevant and ignorant?' Again, this is incredibly outrageous. What arrogance. This woman, like Devaney, has no business being an elected official. The 2012 elections can’t come fast enough."

As I said here:

The Homosexual Hate Movement is indeed totalitarian. It seeks to impose its agenda and to punish those who refuse to accept or condone illicit same-sex relationships. For example, British and Canadian homosexual activists want to punish the African State of Malawi because it will not recognize same-sex liaisons...Radical homosexual activists are engaged in a psychological attack in the form of propaganda aimed at those who are opposed to homosexuality. Their goal is to convert the mind and the will. As homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen explain in their book "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s," 'Desensitization aims at lowering the intensity of antigay emotional reactions to a level approximating sheer indifference; Jamming attempts to blockade pr counteract the rewarding 'pride in prejudice'..by attaching to homohatred a pre-existing, and punishing, sense of shame in being a bigot....Both Desensitization and Jamming...are mere preludes to our highest - though necessarily very long-range - goal, which is Conversion. It isn't enough that antigay bigots should become confused about us, or even indifferent to us - we are safest, in the long run, if we can actually make them like us.

Conversion aims at just this...By Conversion we actually mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life, without which no truly sweeping social change can occur. We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack , in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.' (p. 153).

The Homosexual Hate Movement is, by its own admission, engaged in psychological warfare through the use of propaganda to convert people to its agenda. And even that this conversion is 'profoundly threatening to the American way of life.' And when these radical activists fail to get their way, as we've witnessed in California and in other parts of the country, they can become violent. Indeed, this hate movement will use and all means - including economic sanctions - to impose its ideology. And that is totalitarianism."

Senator Frank Lautenberg's comments come as no surprise...

In a post three years ago which may be found here, I quoted from Fr. Vincent Miceli, S.J., who warned that, "Absolute humanism is the sure road to absolute despotism. Denial of God as truth begets the imprisonment of man in the self-imposed darkness of his own myths. Flight from total dependence on God guarantees for man the utter loss of his freedom in a brutal enslavement either to sheer anarchy or to the tyrant who must eventually arise to impose upon the chaos of limitless human liberty the artificial, inhuman order of the concentration camp."

Eventually this 'inner threat' manifests itself externally: in the concentration camp (which might be euphemistically referred to as a 'civilian internment camp'), in torture and in mass-genocide. But first it is necessary to demonize those ideologically unwanted people one wants to silence (or worse). Such people must be cast in the most negative light possible. They must be labelled as being somehow 'backward' or 'obsolete.' They must be portrayed as people who are delusional and even perhaps dangerous."

Was I merely being an alarmist?  Senator Frank Lautenberg, a Democrat from New Jersey, has just gone on record as saying that pro-life advocates "..don't deserve the freedoms in the Constitution."  See here.  The Moloch State which is being prepared for the arrival of the Man of Sin will not tolerate Christian opposition to abortion and homosexuality.    As Fr. Miceli explains, "..a religious pagan state that claims total jurisdiction over man is a state directed by demons through the actions of rulers who justify their tyranny by having recourse to their Moloch god.  Such a state provides its subjects not with law and justice, but with order - a man-centered, oppressive, demonic order.  It begets the totalitarian state.  The modern world everywhere is succumbing to the power of such a Moloch state.  For secular, rational and occult humanism denies that there is any really transcendent, higher-than-human voice of authority that cares for man.  Secular and occult humanists are at one in denying the true God.  They are at one in divinizing man, the secularist through science, the occultist through demonic powers.  Both seek power.  The secularist seeks political power in the name of humanity; the occultist seeks the power of the underworld in the name of humanity.  Both seek power for their own benefit.  And both eventually come together to create the super-instrument of power, the modern omnicompetent state which claims absolute authority over the life and death of each citizen."

General Jerry Boykin: Marxism in America

Retired Lt. General William "Jerry" Boykin issues a sobering warning here.

Related reading here.

Ireland embracing totalitarianism

A controversial civil partnership bill will open those who refuse to carry out same-sex civil partnerships to a fine and a prison sentence. Writing for the Irish Independent, David Quinn noted that Christian's views on the Bill were being ignored.

Of course they were. The world imposes while the Church proposes. In his Encyclical Letter Redemptoris Missio (The Mission of the Redeemer), Pope John Paul II said that, "The Church proposes; she imposes nothing." (No. 39). Such was the teaching of Vatican II: "The Church strictly forbids forcing anyone to embrace the faith, or alluring or enticing people by worrisome wiles. By the same token, she also strongly insists on this right, that no one be frightened away from the faith by unjust vexations on the part of others." (Ad Gentes, No. 13). And Dignitatis Humanae, No. 10 teaches that: "It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man's response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will. This doctrine is contained in the word of God and it was constantly proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church. The act of faith is of its very nature a free act. Man, redeemed by Christ the Savior and through Christ Jesus called to be God's adopted son, cannot give his adherence to God revealing Himself unless, under the drawing of the Father, he offers to God the reasonable and free submission of faith. It is therefore completely in accord with the nature of faith that in matters religious every manner of coercion on the part of men should be excluded. In consequence, the principle of religious freedom makes no small contribution to the creation of an environment in which men can without hindrance be invited to the Christian faith, embrace it of their own free will, and profess it effectively in their whole manner of life."

But while the Church respects freedom of conscience and shuns any form of coercion, our Holy Father reminds us that, "We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires. We, however, have a different goal: the Son of God, the true man. He is the measure of true humanism. An "adult" faith is not a faith that follows the trends of fashion and the latest novelty; a mature adult faith is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ. It is this friendship that opens us up to all that is good and gives us a criterion by which to distinguish the true from the false, and deceit from truth."

This dictatorship of relativism seeks to impose its immoral agenda on Christians in the name of "tolerance." But this "tolerance" is a sham. It is simply an attempt to make an idol out of a false conception of freedom. Again, our Holy Father explains that, "..what clearly stands behind the modern era's radical demand for freedom is the promise: You will be like God...The implicit goal of all modern freedom movements is, in the end, to be like a god, dependent on nothing and nobody, with one's own freedom not restricted by anyone else's...The primeval error of such a radically developed desire for freedom lies in the idea of a divinity that is conceived as being purely egotistical. The god thus conceived of is, not God, but an idol, indeed, the image of what the Christian tradition would call the devil, the anti-god, because therein lies the radical opposite of the true God: the true God is, of his own nature, being-for (Father), being-from (Son), and being-with (Holy Spirit). Yet man is in the image of God precisely because the being-for , from, and with constitute the basic anthropological shape. Whenever people try to free themselves from this, they are moving, not toward divinity, but toward dehumanizing, toward the destruction of being itself through the destruction of truth. The Jacobin variant of the idea of liberation...is a rebellion against being human in itself, rebellion against truth, and that is why it leads people - as Sartre percipiently observed - into a self-contradictory existence that we call hell. It has thus become fairly clear that freedom is linked to a yardstick, the yardstick of reality - to truth*. Freedom to destroy oneself or to destroy others is not freedom but a diabolical parody. The freedom of man is a shared freedom, freedom in a coexistence of other freedoms, which are mutually limiting and thus mutually supportive: freedom must be measured according to what I am, what we are - otherwise it abolishes itself."

In the name of "tolerance," the New World Order seeks to impose its rebellion from truth on all. It will not tolerate any dissent, any disagreement. Coercion is an acceptable tool in a dictatorship. Soon, the New Order will use violence to achieve its goals and not just coercion and propaganda. In the end, every dictatorship must rely on violence in its vain attempt to hold onto power.

And that violence is on its way.

The Homosexual Hate Movement: Another form of totalitarianism

Pope John Paul II, in "Memory and Identity: Conversations at the Dawn of a Millennium," notes how, "If, on the one hand, the West continues to provide evidence of zealous evangelization, on the other hand anti-evangelical currents are equally strong. They strike at the very foundation of human morality, influencing the family and promoting a morally permissive outlook: divorce, free love, abortion, contraconception, the fight against life in its initial phases and in its final phase, the manipulation of life. This program is supported by enormous financial resources, not only in individual countries, but also on a worldwide scale. It has great centers of economic power at its disposal, through which it attempts to impose its own conditions on developing countries. Faced with this, one may legitimately ask whether this is not another form of totalitarianism, subtly concealed under the appearances of democracy." (p. 48).

The Homosexual Hate Movement is indeed totalitarian. It seeks to impose its agenda and to punish those who refuse to accept or condone illicit same-sex relationships. For example, British and Canadian homosexual activists want to punish the African State of Malawi because it will not recognize same-sex liaisons. See here.

Radical homosexual activists are engaged in a psychological attack in the form of propaganda aimed at those who are opposed to homosexuality. Their goal is to convert the mind and the will. As homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen explain in their book "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s," "Desensitization aims at lowering the intensity of antigay emotional reactions to a level approximating sheer indifference; Jamming attempts to blockade pr counteract the rewarding 'pride in prejudice'..by attaching to homohatred a pre-existing, and punishing, sense of shame in being a bigot....Both Desensitization and Jamming...are mere preludes to our highest - though necessarily very long-range - goal, which is Conversion. It isn't enough that antigay bigots should become confused about us, or even indifferent to us - we are safest, in the long run, if we can actually make them like us. Conversion aims at just this...By Conversion we actually mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life, without which no truly sweeping social change can occur. We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack , in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media." (p. 153).

The Homosexual Hate Movement is, by its own admission, engaged in psychological warfare through the use of propaganda to convert people to its agenda. And even that this conversion is "profoundly threatening to the American way of life." And when these radical activists fail to get their way, as we've witnessed in California and in other parts of the country, they can become violent. Indeed, this hate movement will use and all means - including economic sanctions - to impose its ideology. And that is totalitarianism.

Related reading here.