They're planning another election steal

 The problems with voting by mail are numerous.  See here.

There is a long history of vote fraud in the United States.  See here.

Elections are easy to rig.  See here.

Napoléon III (1808-1873), the nephew of Napoléon Bonaparte (1769-1821) and France's first president (1848-1852): "I care not who casts the votes of a nation, provided I can count them." (26 May, 1880)

"As long as I count the Votes, what are you going to do about it? say?" — attributed to William M. “Boss” Tweed in Thomas Nast cartoon, October 7, 1871).

"There’s more to an election than mere votin’, my boy, for as an eminent American once said: 'I care not who casts the votes of a nation if they’ll let me make the count.'" — from Uncle Henry, a novel by George Creel, 1922.

"It’s not the voting that’s democracy, it’s the counting, Archie says." — from Jumpers, a play by Tom Stoppard, 1972.

"Indeed, you won the elections, but I won the count." — Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza (1896-1956), The Guardian (London), June 17, 1977.

Roe v. Wade overturned

 It's official. Roe v. Wade has now been overturned.

And the Department of Homeland Security is already warning Churches,  pro-life centers and other Christian organizations to prepare for the "night of rage," where domestic terrorist groups - largely backed by the Democratic Party and consisting of unstable members of their ranks are threatening violence. 

Is the stage set for civil war?  See here.

Every dictatorship relies on propaganda

 

In Man Against Mass Society, Gabriel Marcel writes, "In spite of everything that can be said to the contrary, is not the real and deep purpose of propaganda after all that of reducing men to a condition in which they lose all capacity for individual reaction? In other words, whether the men in control of propaganda intend this or not, is it not of the very nature of propaganda to degrade those whose attitudes it seeks to shape? And is it possible to be unaware of the fact that propaganda presupposes, in these men in control, a fundamental contempt for the rest of the human race? If we really attach any value at all to what a man is in himself, to his authentic nature, how can we assume the responsibility of passing him through the flattening-out machinery of propaganda?

What we ought to enquire into, however, is the nature of this contempt. There are, of course, fine shades of distinction that analysis ought to bring out: but is there any essential difference between the attitude of someone like Goebbels, for instance, and that of a chief of Communist propaganda? In both cases we are faced with a radical and cynical refusal to recognize the competence of individual judgment, an impatience with what appears, from this point of view, the intolerable presumptuousness of the individual. It is also broadly noteworthy that even the sense of truth cannot fail gradually and unconsciously to be destroyed in those who assume the task of manipulating opinion. It would require a very uncommon degree of simple-mindedness in a professional propagandist for him to remain very long convinced that his truth was the whole truth. Such simple-mindedness is only conceivable in a fanatic." (pp. 50-51).

We witness such a fanaticism in Rudolf Hess, who became deputy leader of the Third Reich, and who said: "It was granted to me for many years of my life to live and work under the greatest son whom my nation has produced in the thousand years of its history. Even if I could I would not expunge this period from my existence. I regret nothing. If I were standing once more at the beginning I should act once again as I did then, even if I knew that at the end I should be burnt at the stake. No matter what men do, I shall one day stand before the judgment seat of the Almighty. I shall answer to him, and I know that he will acquit me."

For such a fanatic, the State is beyond criticism. Its realm is utterly sacred. And even if one should have convictions which run counter to those of the State, these must be subordinated to the State. Hermann Goring expressed this belief when he said, "I have no conscience! Adolf Hitler is my conscience!" and "It is not I who live, but the Fuhrer who lives in me."

As Dusty Sklar notes, "In the suggestible state, the proselyte may attribute divine powers to his leader and accept dogmas which he might have rejected in a more normal state [see here for example]. Some of the men closest to Hitler, for example, acknowledged that they believed in his divinity. Himmler's masseur, Felix Kersten, relates that he once answered the phone and heard Hitler's voice before passing the phone on to Himmler, who exclaimed" 'You have been listening to the voice of the Fuhrer, you're a very lucky man.' Himmler told Kersten that Hitler's commands came 'from a world transcending this one.' and that they should be 'saved' by 'a figure of the greatest brilliance' which had 'become incarnate' in Hitler's person." (The Nazis and the Occult, p. 157).

Even intelligent people are not immune from the desire to conform. As Sklar notes, "We 'catch' ideas, too, because we want to be like others, particularly when we want not to be our despised selves. If we're satisfied, we don't need to conform, but if we're not, we imitate people whom we admire for having greater judgment, taste, or good fortune than we do. Obedience itself is a kind of imitation. Through conformity, the person who feels inferior is in no danger of being exposed. He's indistinguishable from the others. No one can single him out and examine his unique being. Conformity, in turn, sets him up to be further canceled out as an individual, to have no life apart from his collective purpose. This gives a movement tremendous power over the individual...Hoffer [Eric Hoffer] observes: 'Above all, he [the true believer] must never feel alone. Though stranded on a desert island, he must still feel that he is under the eyes of the group. To be cast out from the group should be equivalent to being cut off from life. This is undoubtedly a primitive state of being, and its most perfect examples are found among primitive tribes. Mass movements strive to approximate this primitive perfection, and we are not imagining things when the anti-individual bias of contemporary mass movements strikes us as a throwback to the primitive.'" (Dusty Sklar, The Nazis and the Occult, citing Eric Hoffer, p. 158).

What is a Christian to do when faced with a mass movement which seeks to subjugate the individual to the collective? A movement which "refuses to recognize the competence of individual judgment" and to enslave all in a prison of absolute conformity to the State? The Christian must prepare himself or herself by relinquishing the fear of public opinion and to pray for the Holy Spirit's gift of Fortitude.

It was the Cure of Ars [St. Jean Vianney, patron saint of parish priests] who said: "Do not try to please everybody. Try to please God, the angels, and the saints - they are your public." To which he added: "If you are afraid of other people's opinion, you should not have become a Christian."

There is always a price to be paid for following Jesus. Those committed to their Christian faith must expect a certain amount of unpopularity. God knows I live with this unpopularity every day. So be it. What difference does this make? It was St. Gerard Majella who asked, "Who except God can give you peace? Has the world ever been able to satisfy the heart?" To which I would add: look closely at the photograph at the top of this post. Think of the masses who succumbed to Hitler's propaganda of a "thousand year Reich" which would transform the world. Were these throngs of people any happier at the end of the war? Did the world satisfy their hearts? Were these people not left with the bitter and empty taste of defeat?

What is the absolute worse the world can do to us? Why do we fear the world so much? We must recall the words of Blessed Miguel Pro, S.J., as he faced his firing squad: Viva Christo Rey! Long live Christ the King! For, as St. Paul of the Cross has told us, "The aversions that you experience, the ridicule, the scorn, the jokes, etc., should be received with great gratitude toward God. These serve as the pyre of love on which the victim of love is burned..."

The soul that gives itself completely to God can expect to be persecuted. Even killed. But what of it? We should remember the words of Jesus: "I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body but after that can do no more. I shall show you whom to fear. Be afraid of the one who after killing has the power to cast into Gehenna; yes, I tell you, be afraid of that one. Are not five sparrows sold for two small coins? Yet not one of them has escaped the notice of God. Even the hairs of your head have all been counted. Do not be afraid. You are worth more than many sparrows." (Luke 12: 4-7).

The time has come for those who truly care about this nation to rise up and speak out against this dictatorship.  

Clarence Thomas: We won't be bullied by anti-life activists

 

As reported here

"Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has a message for the radical abortion activists who think they can bully the Supreme Court into revising its draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade: You can’t bully us.

Abortion activists plan to 'raise hell' at churches across the country on Mother’s Day with protests and, some fear, violence as outrage grows in response to a leaked draft opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court that overturns Roe v. Wade.

But Justice Thomas says those mislaid plans will not work in terms of bullying the high court to go back on its apparent decision."

The violence from anti-life activists has already begun.  See here and here for example.

In the same way that the Nazis waged a war against the Jewish People while denying the personhood of every Jewish person they sent to the gas chamber or placed before a firing squad, pro-death politicians in the Satanic Democratic Party attempt to justify the killing of innocent children in the womb by asserting that these victims of genocide cannot be considered human beings until they have reached "viability," which was defined by the United States Supreme Court as that stage of fetal development when the baby is "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb [that is, can survive], albeit with artificial help." (Roe vs. Wade, U.S. Supreme Court, 1973, p. 45).

Pope John Paul II addressed this fallacious argument in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life):

"Some people try to justify abortion by claiming that the result of conception, at least up to a certain number of days, cannot yet be considered a personal human life. But in fact, 'from the time the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. This has always been clear, and...modern genetic science offers clear confirmation. It has demonstrated that from the first instant there is established the program of what this living being will be: a person, this individual person with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization the adventure of a human life begins, and each of its capabilities requires time - a rather lengthy time - to find its place and to be in a position to act." (EV, No. 60).

But the pro-death crowd, servants of the demon Moloch, are prepared to commit acts of violence to create an atmosphere of fear in a feeble attempt to force their demonic agenda on the rest of the populace. 

Exorcism prayer:

POWERFUL EXORCISM PRAYER 

 

Kyrie eleison. God, our Lord, King of ages, All-powerful and Almighty, You Who made everything and Who transforms everything simply by Your will. You Who in Babylon changed into dew the flames of the "seven-times hotter" furnace and protected and saved the three holy children. You are the doctor and the physician of our souls. You are the salvation of those who turn to You. We beseech You to make powerless, banish, and drive out every diabolic power, presence and machination; every evil influence, malefice, or evil eye and all evil actions aimed against your servant. . . Where there is envy and malice, give us an abundance of goodness, endurance, victory, and charity. O Lord, You who love man, we beg You to reach out Your powerful hands and Your most high and mighty arms and come to our aid. Help us, who are made in Your image, send the angel of peace over us, to protect us body and soul. May he keep at bay and vanquish every evil power, every poison or malice invoked against us by corrupt and envious people. Then, under the protection of Your authority may we sing, in gratitude, "The Lord is my salvation; whom should I fear?" I will not fear evil because You are with me, my God, my strength, my powerful Lord, Lord of peace, Father of all ages. Yes, Lord our God, be merciful to us, Your image, and save your servant . . . from every threat or harm from the evil one, and protect him by raising him above all evil. We ask you this through the intercession of our Most Blessed, Glorious Lady, Mary ever Virgin, Mother of God, of the most splendid archangels and all yours saints. Amen."

Make no mistake about it.  This is a spiritual war between the Children of Light and Satanic servants of Moloch who have found a home base in the Democratic Party.   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."

How the Democrats stole the election

 

Church Militant on how the Democratic Party stole the election here.

“And they adored the beast, saying, who is like to the beast? And who shall be able to fight with him?” (Revelation 13:4).

As Rev. P. Huchede explains in his book History of Antichrist, “All vile parasites of fortune, astonished at the rapidity with which Antichrist achieves his conquests and also at the unlimited sway of his power, deceived by his prodigies, will prostrate themselves before him and adore him as their god. As soon as he believes himself master of the bodies and souls of all peoples, he will decree and proclaim his divinity and establish a new religion. According to the Apostle, he will lift himself up above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God showing himself as if he were God (2 Thessalonians 2:4). He will command all peoples to place his statue in the public places to be worshipped, the image of the beast whose wound was healed (Revelation 13: 13-15)…..Then he shall think himself able to change times and laws – religious, political, and sacred – by which the world had been governed up to his advent (Daniel 7: 25)…None but adorers of this new god can enjoy the possession of riches or honors. This god shall increase their glory and shall give them power over many and shall divide the land for nothing (Revelation 13: 7)….Those who will refuse to obey his impious orders shall be the object of a terrible and universal persecution….No language can give an adequate idea of the atrocity and effects of this frightful persecution. “I beheld and lo that horn made war against the saints, and prevailed over them” (Daniel 7: 21). The beast shall make war against the saints and shall overcome them and kill them (Revelation 11: 7). And he “shall crush the saints of the Most High” (Daniel 7: 25). And he will put to death all those who will not adore the image of the beast (Revelation 13: 15). Then the truth shall be oppressed. The Church shall see her children apostatize in vast numbers, and in the agony of her heart-rending grief, she will cry out in the words of her divine spouse, ‘My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ (Mark 15: 34). Then by order of the tyrant the continual sacrifice shall be abolished (Daniel 9: 27). The holy sacrifice of the Mass shall no longer be offered up publicly on the altars. The Church shall be devastated; the sacred vessels desecrated; the priests shall be scattered and separated from their flocks and put to death….The Church has taken up her abode in the catacombs.” (History of Antichrist, pp. 23-26, Tan Books).

In order for the new religion of humanitarianism to succeed, all dissenting voices will have to be either converted, silenced or removed. The Reign of Antichrist, which will be presented as an age of “love and harmony” will have to be brutally violent in order to achieve world unity. There are already many voices which have called or are calling for such a “global purge” or “cleansing action.” Harvard historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr, in the July-August 1995 edition of Foreign Affairs, said that, “We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money.” Likewise, David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative at the United Nations, has said, “Lucifer comes to give us the final Luciferic initiation…that many people now and in the days ahead, will be facing – for it is an initiation into the New Age…No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian initiation.” Benjamin Crème, another prominent New Age “prophet,” on page 128 of “Maitreya’s mission,” insists that those who refuse to join in this World Initiation will find themselves in the minority and will have to “withdraw from this life.” Creme exhorts his followers to, “Be not afraid, therefore, when the ‘men of cloth’ raise their voices against the Great Lord, naming Him anti-Christ and arch-deceiver, for they know little of the laws which underlie their faiths and act and speak from ignorance and fear.” (April, 1997).

In the New Order, a Police State will employ the use of various technologies to keep the citizenry in line. In the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski, “The Technocratic Age is slowly designing an every day more controlled society. The society will be dominated by an elite of persons free from traditional values who will have no doubt in fulfilling their objectives by means of purged techniques with which they will influence the behavior of people and will control and watch society in all details…it will become possible to exert a practically permanent watch on each citizen of the world.” Mr. Brzezinski was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations who has attended meetings of the Bilderberg Group.

With the help of Big Tech and social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, Conservatives and Christians who actually adhere to Gospel Teaching are being censored or banned outright in preparation for the Democratic Socialist Party and its Luciferic agenda.

Trump 2020

 

"Pope" Francis and the liberal propaganda media support the satanic Biden/Harris ticket.  Francis has made his hatred for Republicans crystal clear.  See here.

I just spent an hour trying to use my Facebook page to promote Trump/Pence.  But the corrupt social media platform, true to form, has censored my posts.

Get out there people.  Once again we all need to take a stand and vote against the Democratic Party and its Luciferic agenda.

And speaking of President Trump and his assertion that hurricane Dorian might have been a threat to Alabama

The liberal msm, little more than a propaganda arm for the Democratic Party, has ridiculed President Trump for asserting that some models showed Alabama in the possible path of Hurricane Dorian.

But...see here.


Meanwhile the same liberal media gave President Obama a free pass on his numerous gaffes.  See here.

Connor Betts' Socialism: Taproot of his violence

The American Catholic reports:

"Something you will have a hard time hearing about the Dayton Massacre from the mainstream media:

Connor Betts, the Dayton, Ohio mass shooter, was a self-described “leftist,” who wrote that he would happily vote for Democrat Elizabeth Warren, praised Satan, was upset about the 2016 presidential election results, and added, “I want socialism, and i’ll not wait for the idiots to finally come round to understanding.”

Betts’ Twitter profile read, “he/him / anime fan / metalhead / leftist / i’m going to hell and i’m not coming back.” One tweet on his page read, “Off to Midnight Mass. At least the songs are good. #athiestsonchristmas.” The page handle? I am the spookster. On one selfie, he included the hashtags, “#selfie4satan #HailSatan @SatanTweeting.”...I personally think that politics normally has little to do with mass shooters.  If you are going to murder as many innocent people as you can, personal demons are obviously at work.  I think it significant, for example, that a victim of Betts was his own sister.  (Thanks to Connor Betts, his parents have lost both their children, and one can only imagine the abyss of grief they currently inhabit.)  However, in regard to the El Paso shooter the media will do their worst to tie this lunatic around the neck of Trump and all Americans concerned about illegal immigration.  Of course, for Leftists, the double standard is the only standard they have."

Politics has little to do with mass shooters?  Or mass murder?  How do we explain the Holocaust perpetrated by the National Socialists?

The Democratic Party has been hijacked by Socialists. And make no mistake about it, these socialists are waiting for the most opportune moment to overthrow this government and to install a tyrannical regime.

It was Pope John Paul II who reminded us that, "..the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socioeconomic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order. From this mistaken conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to private property. A person who is deprived of something he can call 'his own,' and of the possibility of earning a living through his own initiative, comes to depend on the social machine and on those who control it. This makes it much more difficult for him to recognize his dignity as a person, and hinders progress toward the building up of an authentic human community." (Centesimus Annus, No. 13).

Most of those who engage in "exaggerated rhetoric" will never pick up a gun to address their political differences.  No, the violence which we are witnessing across America is rooted in hatred of truth.  Today there is a demand for sex without love, for a licentiousness in sex which has wrought a heartless society in which individuals do not care for anyone but themselves. The fruit of this demonic theology is the slaughter through abortion and euthanasia of human beings created in the Imago Dei. It is a theology of violence which is rooted in hatred of truth. For at the heart of immorality is falsity, the hatred of truth. Fr. Vincent P. Miceli, in an essay entitled "The Taproot of Violence," explains:



"...violence entered creation from the rebellion of Lucifer. This rebellion arose from the heart of pride. But the sin of pride is the offspring of the vice known as hatred of truth. Hatred of truth is the result of the creature's attempt to rearrange God's hierarchy of beings and values into an order which the creature prefers to the plan of God. This attempt immediately produces the violence of disorder, the chaos of falsity and immorality. For hatred of truth is really hatred of God who creates all things wisely and governs them lovingly. Lucifer, the Morning Star, was instantly deformed into the Prince of Darkness because he attempted to live a lie. He wanted to dethrone God and become God himself..." 

We live in an environment where there is a "violence of disorder" because we have abandoned truth.  And hatred of truth leads to violence.  It is the very root of violence.  Jesus said to the Pharisees, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own account, but he sent me.  Why do you not understand what I say?  It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.  You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires.  He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him.  When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.  But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me." (John 8: 42-45).

It is rejection of truth which leads to violence.  And so we read in verse 59 of the same Chapter, "So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple."  

If there is exaggerated rhetoric and violence across our society, it is because many have rejected God's created order.  But there is a consequence to this rejection of truth.  As Dorothy Sayers reminded us, if we will not have Christ, we will have chaos. 

Connor Betts: Proud supporter of the Democratic Party.  See here.

The racist face of today's Democratic Party

As noted here:

"Democratic US congressional candidate Rashida Tlaib..claimed her ancestors provided Jews with a 'safe haven" around the time of the Holocaust. The truth is very different...

Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s antisemitism..has veered clearly into the undeniable. This past Saturday, our organization, The World Values Network, took out a full-page ad in The New York Times highlighting her shocking comments, which should not be allowed to pass unpunished.

A guest of the Skullduggery Podcast, Tlaib was asked to explain her belief in a one-state solution (spoiler: there’s no Israel). Instead of staying on the subject of contemporary politics, Tlaib decided to go down memory lane and right into the Holocaust.

Here are her comments in full, to deflect any accusations of word manipulation:

“Absolutely. Let me tell you – I mean, for me, I think two weeks ago we celebrated – or took a moment I think in our country to remember – the Holocaust. And there’s a kind of a calming feeling, I always tell folks, when I think of the Holocaust and the tragedy of the Holocaust in the fact that it was my ancestors – Palestinians – who lost their land; and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity. Their existence in many ways had been wiped out, and some people’s passports – I mean, just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post the Holocaust, post the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time. And I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that – right? – in many ways. But they did it in a way that took their human dignity away – right – and it was forced on them.”

Nancy Pelosi tweeted, “Republicans’ desperate attempts to smear @RepRashida & misrepresent her comments are outrageous. President @realDonaldTrump & House GOP should apologize to Rep. Tlaib & the American people for their gross misrepresentations.”

This is the face of today's Democratic Party.  Racist and hypocritical.  The same people who accuse President Trump of being "racist" are defending the rabid anti-Semitism of a Democratic candidate for Congress who "celebrated" - her own word - the Holocaust.

Related reading here.

DNC Chairman Tom Perez: The future of the Democratic Party is a concept of society which cannot be reconciled with Christian truth

DNC Chairman Tom Perez admits that Socialism is the FUTURE of the Democratic Party here.

"...numerous are the Catholics who, although they clearly understand that Christian principles can never be abandoned or diminished seem to turn their eyes to the Holy See and earnestly beseech Us to decide whether this form of Socialism has so far recovered from false doctrines that it can be accepted without the sacrifice of any Christian principle and in a certain sense be baptized. That We, in keeping with Our fatherly solicitude, may answer their petitions, We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.

For, according to Christian teaching, man, endowed with a social nature, is placed on this earth so that by leading a life in society and under an authority ordained of God he may fully cultivate and develop all his faculties unto the praise and glory of his Creator; and that by faithfully fulfilling the duties of his craft or other calling he may obtain for himself temporal and at the same time eternal happiness. Socialism, on the other hand, wholly ignoring and indifferent to this sublime end of both man and society, affirms that human association has been instituted for the sake of material advantage alone.

Because of the fact that goods are produced more efficiently by a suitable division of labor than by the scattered efforts of individuals, socialists infer that economic activity, only the material ends of which enter into their thinking, ought of necessity to be carried on socially. Because of this necessity, they hold that men are obliged, with respect to the producing of goods, to surrender and subject themselves entirely to society. Indeed, possession of the greatest possible supply of things that serve the advantages of this life is considered of such great importance that the higher goods of man, liberty not excepted, must take a secondary place and even be sacrificed to the demands of the most efficient production of goods. This damage to human dignity, undergone in the "socialized" process of production, will be easily offset, they say, by the abundance of socially produced goods which will pour out in profusion to individuals to be used freely at their pleasure for comforts and cultural development. Society, therefore, as Socialism conceives it, can on the one hand neither exist nor be thought of without an obviously excessive use of force; on the other hand, it fosters a liberty no less false, since there is no place in it for true social authority, which rests not on temporal and material advantages but descends from God alone, the Creator and last end of all things.

If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist. " (Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo Anno: On the Reconstruction of the Social Order, Nos. 117-120).

This

, according to the DNC Chairman, is the direction of the Democratic Party.

Intelligent people of good will are able to discern bovine scatology..

Remember when Francis chided President Donald Trump for wanting to build a border wall?  He referred to the President as "Non-Christiano."

Why was he silent about this?


Is Francis really interested in the Gospel of Life and Gospel values or is he merely a liberal partisan looking to prop up a political party which has become a tool of the Devil?

 As Dr. David Carlin has said, "..when clerical leadership is weak or foolish, we can't be surprised when the quality of lay Catholicism sinks." (Can a Catholic Be a Democrat? How the Party I Loved Became the Enemy of My Religion," p. 106).

Pope Benedict XVI once said that while, "everyone has the right to leave home to seek better conditions of life in another country...At the same time, states have the right to regulate migration flows and to defend their own frontiers, always guaranteeing the respect due to the dignity of each and every human person."

Pope Benedict XVI also said that immigrants have the duty to integrate into their host countries and respect their laws and national identities.

The challenge, as the Holy Father noted, is to "combine the welcome due to every human being, especially when in need, with a reckoning of what is necessary for both the local inhabitants and the new arrivals to live a dignified and peaceful life”.  See here.

Why is it that President Trump is demonized as a "bigot" and "non-Christian" for defending the United States frontier when President Obama was given a free pass to do the same?

Clerics such as Francis and Cardinal Dolan (see here) need to provide us with an answer.

In the meantime, intelligent people of good will can see through the bovine scatology.

Cardinal Dolan finally gets it: The Democratic Party has abandoned Catholicism

It is impossible to be a Democrat and a Catholic at the same time.  You're one or the other.  You can't be both.  The Democratic Party has abandoned Catholicism and has embraced the demonic.

David Carlin is a lifelong Democrat. From 1981 to 1992, he served as a Rhode Island state senator, serving as senate majority leader in 1989 and 1990. In 1992 he was his district's Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives. For more than twenty years, Mr. Carlin has been a professor of philosophy and sociology at the Community College of Rhode Island.

In his book entitled "Can a Catholic Be a Democrat: How the Party I Loved Became the Enemy of My Religion," he writes:

"..an excuse that appeals to the 'separation of church and state' seems to be among the silliest rationales for a Catholic's support of the secularized Democratic Party. This separation, so we're told, is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and it prohibits the intrusion of religion into the affairs of government. Yet the First Amendment says nothing about keeping religion out of government; it's concerned instead with keeping government out of religion. Its two religion 'clauses' say (1) that there will be no 'establishment of religion' and (2) that there will be no interference with the 'free exercise' of religion. That's it: government must keep its hands off religion; nothing about religion keeping its hands off government.

However, it should be considered that in writing the religion section of the First Amendment, the framers were no doubt remembering the history of England and how the government of that nation, from the time of Henry VIII until what was then the present day (the 1780's), established a national religion and interfered with the free exercise of dissenting religions. This was a case of government controlling religion, but at the same time it was a case of religion controlling government. That is to say, government persecuted, or at least discriminated against, all religions other than the Church of England, but one of the main reasons it did so was because the Church of England, both through its bishops and its lay members, had tremendous influence over government (only members of the Church of England could serve in Parliament or government). In other words, in its competition with other churches, not to mention its competition with outright infidelity, the Church of England used government to put down the church's rivals.

This is the kind of thing people, many of them Catholics, have in mind when they say that advocating laws against abortion or same-sex marriage violates the principle of separation of church and state. They fear that an alliance of conservative churches might someday gain enough governmental power to impose religious values on everybody else, non-believers included. This is what they mean when they speak, as they often do, of the looming danger of 'theocracy.' Behind the moral-conservative political activism of Christian churches they see would-be theocrats, or 'dominionists,' who want to take over America, stamp out abortion, subjugate women, drive homosexuals back into the closet, and enact other items allegedly on the agenda of the Religious Right. Yet this would be clearly un-American, violating the philosophical, religious, and moral pluralism that has long been, and should be, characteristic of the United States.

One obvious and oft-given answer is this: few liberals have made similar objections to the modern civil-rights movement, which was in large measure inspired by religion and based on churches. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Protestant minister - even, it might be said, a Christian martyr. Are the objectors ready to say that the great legislative fruits of this religio-political movement, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, are illegitimate, that they're instances of the imposition of theocratic values? Will they say that the spirit of American 'pluralism' demanded that the pro-segregation values of the KKK and other racists should have been respected? Of course not. And so it appears that what's at stake for these people isn't a matter of principle (separation of church and state) but a matter of policy. Some policies they like )e.g., civil rights legislation), and some they dislike (e.g., laws restricting abortion). A religion-driven politics is okay when it produces laws they like, but it's very naughty when it produces laws they don't like. And so we may conclude (may we not?) that all this talk about the separation of church and state is nothing but dust they throw in people's eyes." (Can a Catholic Be a Democrat: How the Party I Loved Became the Enemy of My Religion, pp. 129-131, Sophia Institute Press, 2006).

Pope Benedict XVI has spoken clearly enough. And he has condemned "gay marriage" and abortion as "among the most insidious and dangerous challenges" to society. The Democratic Party advances both.

The National Coalition of Concerned Mental Health Experts: Blinded by partisan politics and moral schizophrenia

Dr. Bandy Lee*, the Quack-Physician who violated medical ethics in an asinine attempt to diagnose President Donald Trump without an examination, is a member of the "National Coalition of Concerned Mental Health Experts." The organization's website may be found here.

Not surprisingly, this organization, which claims to be concerned about violence across our culture, links to numerous Democratic organizations and individuals and extremist leftist publications.

In other words, their recent letter to Congress (see here) is partisan and politically motivated.

While these mental-health "experts" have engaged in partisan rhetoric to question the mental stability of President Trump (after Hillary Clinton lost the election - apparently these "experts" couldn't locate any signs of mental instability in Donald Trump prior to the election, read into that what you will, they have nothing to say about about the Democratic Party and it's promotion of violence against children in the womb.  See here for photographs of murdered children.

These "concerned experts" assert that, "As mental health professionals, some of us with an expertise on violence, we deal with the risk of harm as a routine part of our practice.  When someone exhibits signs of danger to oneself, others, or the general public, it is considered an emergency."

By that very definition, abortionists who rip apart babies with surgical instruments and the politicians who make this possible through their policies are a danger and the situation may be described as "an emergency."

But don't expect the "experts" at the "National Coalition of Concerned Mental Health Experts" to acknowledge this truth.  Their partisan ideology has blinded them to their own moral schizophrenia.

*  Update: Bandy Lee's license to practice has lapsed.  See here.

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the conspiracy to create conditions favorable for declaring martial law...

As reported here:



U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch is coordinating with Democratic activists to so disrupt the upcoming Republican and Democratic National Conventions that martial law will be declared.

That’s the stunning discovery revealed in a series of direct messages between three activists.

On Friday, June 10, 2016, someone hacked into the Twitter account of #BlackLivesMatter (BLM) leader and former Baltimore mayoral candidatecc. McKesson later confirmed the hack to The Baltimore Sun.

On June 11, 2016, a Twitterer who calls himself The Saint (@TheSaintNegro) tweeted a direct-message conversation on June 10 between KcKesson and another BLM leader Johnetta Elzie (Netta), in which the two discussed talking with Attorney General Loretta Lynch about plans to bring on martial law by causing chaos at the upcoming Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, and the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, PA, so as to keep Obama in office.


Here’s the conversation over the course of several days between black activists DeRay McKesson (DM) and Johnetta Elzie (JE), and between McKesson and a “white ally” named Sam (S):

JE: “Have you spoken with Mrs. Lynch [Attorney General Loretta Lynch] recently about the plan for the summer and fall leading up to the elections.”

DM: “We spoke two weeks and they want us to start really pushing how racist Trump is now instead of waiting so the others can start getting the protesters ready to shut both conventions down.”

DM: “If we can get both conventions shut down for messing over Bernie and for having racist Trump, then get martial law declared so Obama can stay in office we will win. Call you soon when I get to my dads so I can use his landline and we can talk more on this.”

DM: “We have to make sure that we use our voices to keep people disrupting Trump all summer and through the fall so martial law can be declared….”

S: “I wanted to touch base with you about the summer of chaos. So far we have over 2,000 people bused in from different cities and another 6,000 to 8,000 expected to drive into Cleveland for the Convention.”

S: “They will not be ready for the crowds we are bringing and they will blame Trump for it, especially if we shut it down. The GOP will have to replace him at that point or we will continue the disruptions nationwide.”

DM: “I will pass the info along. Good work, Sam. You never let us down. It’s so important we stop Trump. He can not be president. He will destroy everything we worked so hard for and we can’t trust….”

DM: “…today and he [Sam?] confirmed that there will be around 10,000 protesters disrupting the [Republican] convention. Plans are being made for other cities as well for upcoming Trump events. Ads have already been placed looking for people to help. I know you don’t care for them [white people] but this is the time we need our white allies doing a lot of the work for us. They are the ones who listen the best.”

JE: “That will put fear into the GOP and the country when they can’t have their convention for all their racist supporting Trump. We’ve worked too hard and closely with the Obama administration to have that racist ass take it all away and Hillary…. You know I can’t stand those white allies, but yo right this is the best to use them. They hang on every word you say and will do whatever is asked. I just hate all that kiss ass they try to do. Like that changes who they are.”

DM: “We have a lot of white allies volunteering for Trump’s campaign to pass along information to us before it’s made public so we know when rallies are coming up before they areannounced. That way we can plan major disruptions in those cities in advance. We just have to keep our names out of this and let these [white] people do the work for us by pushing how Trump’s racist ways will destroy….”

JE: “That’s all those white people are good for in my eyes. I couldn’t imagine even pretending to like that racist ass Trump even to get info on his events. I’ll be glad when we shut his ass down.”

DM: “With the support we have from Mrs. Lynch and the help we’ve got from Sam and others it won’t be hard to cause enough….”

Father Charles Arminjon, in his book entitled 'The End of the Present World," explains that, "..the Antichrist will be lord of the world" and that, "It is abundantly clear that the effect of all the events of the present time is to prepare the social setting in which the dominance of the man of sin will be exercised...any careful observer [this would rule out the vast majority today] of the events of the present time cannot escape the conviction that everything is being done to bring about a social environment where the man of sin, by combining in his person all the depravity and every false doctrine of his age, will be produced spontaneously and effortlessly, like the parasitical tapeworm that breeds naturally in gangrenous flesh and organs.."

Men, crippled by their atheistic humanism, are today forging their own net of despotism which will be encompassed by the walls of new concentration camps. Already citizens find themselves being monitored by a surveillance society which is merely a preparation for the fish-tank men will find themselves within when the Man of Sin assumes power. "Man," Father Vincent Miceli, S.J., explains, in attempting to be both an atheist and his own God, "has only succeeded in establishing an inhuman humanism, a political and religiously perverted atheism which violently forces him..into total bondage to the father of lies and the unnatural perversions that lead to nihilism. Idol-perverted through the worship of itself, atheistic humanism practices the licentious liturgy of feeding its Man-God on man-god victims, a sort of divine-human cannibalism. The adventure of atheism is seen, in the last analysis, to be that unfathomable iniquity which attacks the very roots of reality, divorcing things, persons, societies from God and organizing them into a militant Kingdom of hate that ceaselessly and sacrilegiously assaults the sanctity of God and the dignity of men."

Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas once commented on the way that oppression can subtly arise in our midst: "As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."

"From man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting for human life..."

INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, May 2, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton promised this weekend to “defend Planned Parenthood” from Indiana’s new law banning abortion on the basis of a baby’s race, sex, or disability diagnosis.

“I will defend a woman's right to make her own health-care decisions,” said Clinton at a campaign stop Sunday.  “I’ll tell ya, I’ll defend Planned Parenthood against these attacks.  And I commend the women of this state, young and old, for standing up against this governor and this legislature.”
The law, which is scheduled to take effect on July 1, makes it illegal for doctors to knowingly abort babies because they have a disability, such as Down syndrome, or because of their race, sex, national origin, or ancestry.

Around 90% of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome in the United States are killed in the womb.
Investigations by the pro-life group Live Action reveal that abortion facilities in Texas, New York, Arizona, Hawaii, and North Carolina are complicit in aiding the abortions of baby girls because of their sex.

Indiana’s new law, House Bill 1137, also “prohibits an individual from acquiring, receiving, selling, or transferring fetal tissue” and requires that aborted and miscarried babies’ bodies be cremated or buried.  Under the new law, women whose babies are diagnosed with fetal anomalies must be given information about prenatal hospice care and abortionists with hospital admitting privileges must renew them annually.

“Accounts of the bodies of aborted babies being found in dumpsters, left on loading docks, and being ground up in garbage disposals in abortion facilities are being reported across the nation,” Cathie Humbarger of Indiana Right to Life testified in support of the bill.  “Indiana Code must address the respectful disposition of the bodies of babies aborted here and prevent the bodies of babies being aborted in other states from being sent to Indiana landfills.”

The American Civil Liberties Union is suing Indiana over the law, which it claims limits women’s freedom to abort babies for any reason.

“Repeatedly the U.S. Supreme Court has said that a woman may get an abortion within the first trimester for whatever reasons she deems best, based on her circumstances,” said Jane Henegar, the Executive Director of the ACLU.

Throughout the primary election, Clinton has repeatedly defended her far-left support of abortion on demand.  “We need a president who is passionate” about expanding abortion, she said in March.
The Indiana primary is Tuesday.




"Man's life comes from God; it is his gift, his image and imprint, a sharing in his breath of life. God therefore is the sole Lord of this life: man cannot do with it as he wills. God himself makes this clear to Noah after the Flood: "For your own lifeblood, too, I will demand an accounting ... and from man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting for human life" (Gen 9:5). The biblical text is concerned to emphasize how the sacredness of life has its foundation in God and in his creative activity: "For God made man in his own image" (Gen 9:6).

Human life and death are thus in the hands of God, in his power: "In his hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind", exclaims Job (12:10). "The Lord brings to death and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up" (1 Sam 2:6). He alone can say: "It is I who bring both death and life" (Dt 32:39).

But God does not exercise this power in an arbitrary and threatening way, but rather as part of his care and loving concern for his creatures. If it is true that human life is in the hands of God, it is no less true that these are loving hands, like those of a mother who accepts, nurtures and takes care of her child: "I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a child quieted at its mother's breast; like a child that is quieted is my soul" (Ps 131:2; cf. Is 49:15; 66:12-13; Hos 11:4). Thus Israel does not see in the history of peoples and in the destiny of individuals the outcome of mere chance or of blind fate, but rather the results of a loving plan by which God brings together all the possibilities of life and opposes the powers of death arising from sin: "God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. For he created all things that they might exist" (Wis 1:13-14).

The sacredness of life gives rise to its inviolability, written from the beginning in man's heart, in his conscience. The question: "What have you done?" (Gen 4:10), which God addresses to Cain after he has killed his brother Abel, interprets the experience of every person: in the depths of his conscience, man is always reminded of the inviolability of life-his own life and that of others-as something which does not belong to him, because it is the property and gift of God the Creator and Father.

The commandment regarding the inviolability of human life reverberates at the heart of the "ten words" in the covenant of Sinai (cf. Ex 34:28). In the first place that commandment prohibits murder: "You shall not kill" (Ex 20:13); "do not slay the innocent and righteous" (Ex 23:7). But, as is brought out in Israel's later legislation, it also prohibits all personal injury inflicted on another (cf. Ex 21:12-27). Of course we must recognize that in the Old Testament this sense of the value of life, though already quite marked, does not yet reach the refinement found in the Sermon on the Mount. This is apparent in some aspects of the current penal legislation, which provided for severe forms of corporal punishment and even the death penalty. But the overall message, which the New Testament will bring to perfection, is a forceful appeal for respect for the inviolability of physical life and the integrity of the person. It culminates in the positive commandment which obliges us to be responsible for our neighbour as for ourselves: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself" (Lev 19:18).

The commandment "You shall not kill", included and more fully expressed in the positive command of love for one's neighbour, is reaffirmed in all its force by the Lord Jesus. To the rich young man who asks him: "Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?", Jesus replies: "If you would enter life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:16,17). And he quotes, as the first of these: "You shall not kill" (Mt 19:18). In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus demands from his disciples a righteousness which surpasses that of the Scribes and Pharisees, also with regard to respect for life: "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ?You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment'. But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment" (Mt 5:21-22).

By his words and actions Jesus further unveils the positive requirements of the commandment regarding the inviolability of life. These requirements were already present in the Old Testament, where legislation dealt with protecting and defending life when it was weak and threatened: in the case of foreigners, widows, orphans, the sick and the poor in general, including children in the womb (cf. Ex 21:22; 22:20-26). With Jesus these positive requirements assume new force and urgency, and are revealed in all their breadth and depth: they range from caring for the life of one's brother (whether a blood brother, someone belonging to the same people, or a foreigner living in the land of Israel) to showing concern for the stranger, even to the point of loving one's enemy." (Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) Nos. 39-41).

The sexual morality popular in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah brought them to complete and utter destruction.  Today we are building a New Sodom, a Moloch State which offers not law and justice but an oppressive demonic order which claims total jurisdiction over man and defies God and His plan for humanity.  So it is no surprise that many politicians such as Hillary Clinton openly promote both abortion and same-sex "marriage." Rousas Rushdoony exposes the nature of the demonic Moloch State which so many politicians now willingly serve:

"The Moloch state simply represents the supreme effort of man to command the future, to predestine the world, and to be as God.  Lesser efforts, divination, spirit-questing, magic and witchcraft are equally anathema to God.  All represent efforts to have the future on other than God's terms, to have a future apart from and in defiance of God.  They are assertions that the world is not of God but of brute factuality, and that men can somehow master the world and the future by going directly to the raw materials thereof."
The Devil seduces men through the deceitful tactics of pseudo-saviors.  And ours is a perverse age in which many pseudo-saviors pretend to offer liberation through sex without love, violence and drug abuse as well as the occult.  As Fr. Miceli, S.J., warned: "In the name of its new secular gods, Progress and Liberty, titles that are false fronts for Rebellion and Licentiousness, many formerly Christian nations are driving their sons and daughters through the demonic fires of sacrificial murder.  Thus..so-called Christian nations, having legalized abortion and while preparing to legalize euthanasia, have become Moloch states."

 

Creighton University underscores a much larger problem within the Catholic Church in the United States...

Matt Lamb notes how, "An analysis by The College Fix of political party registrations among Creighton University’s theology professors found zero registered Republican scholars in the group.

Of the 19 theology professors teaching at the private Catholic university in Omaha, Neb., there are 13 registered Democrats, one is registered as nonpartisan, and the remaining five scholars’ party affiliations could not be determined using the state’s online database of voter registration data.

What’s more, the finding underscores a larger trend identified across the entire university. Of the 295 scholars looked up in the voter registration database, 41 percent of Creighton’s professors are Democrat, 15 percent are Republicans, 16 percent are nonpartisan, and almost 25 percent were not able to be determined.

The undetermined professors either were not registered or did not have easy-to-find registrations. Some professors may have been registered to vote in nearby Iowa as well.

So while the data may be partially incomplete, it illustrates that Democrats heavily dominate teaching positions at the Catholic university."

Does this really surprise anyone? Across the entire country many have witnessed the ugly spectacle of local churches which hold themselves up as Catholic even while prostituting the faith, or at the very least watering down Catholic moral teaching while genuflecting before the world and its Prince.  See here for example.

The Catholic Church in the United States has become way too comfortable with the party of abortion, contraception and sodomy.

Small wonder that so many faithful Catholics are disillusioned.  Those who hold themselves up as Catholic while voting among democratic party lines, are liars.  Catholics in name only.

No one who is sane can claim to be Catholic while advancing the killing of children within the womb or a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance.

Year of Mercy or Year of Presumption?

Recommended reflection: Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2092.

Democrats created and own the Confederate Flag...

Writing for National Review, Deroy Murdock quotes Governor Nikki Haley, referring to the Confederate Flag, as saying, "My hope is that by removing a symbol that divides us, we can move forward as a state in harmony."

Then Murdock correctly notes, "Haley, a rising Republican star, is correct to lower the Confederate flag. It has reflected Democratic racial oppression since it was stitched together in 1861, and has been hoisted by Democrats ever since. Just as Republicans — led by President Abraham Lincoln — valiantly crushed the Democrat-run Confederacy, Republicans proudly should banish the Stars and Bars to private property and history museums. They also should remind Americans that Democrats waved this frightful banner until very recently.

 As the Civil War began, the Army of Northern Virginia, led by eventual Democratic activist Robert E. Lee, adopted the battle flag that is under contention today. It became the secessionists’ national banner in 1863. Its designer, William T. Thompson, praised it in the Savannah Daily Morning News that May 4:

As a national emblem, it is significant of our higher cause, the cause of a superior race, and a higher civilization contending against ignorance, infidelity, and barbarism. Another merit in the new flag is, that it bears no resemblance to the now infamous banner of the Yankee vandals.

Two years later, that flag was in tatters. The North beat the South, and the Confederacy was gone with the wind.

How did this symbol of a pro-slavery breakaway republic wind up atop South Carolina’s state capitol? As the debate raged over civil rights in 1961, the Democratic legislature under Governor Ernest “Fritz” Hollings, a Democrat, raised the Stars and Bars to mark the “Confederate War Centennial.”

About that time, Hollings presented a Confederate flag to President John F. Kennedy, another Democrat.

Of course, Democratic U.S. senators such as former KKK Grand Cyclops Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Tennessee’s Albert Gore Sr. (father of you know who), and Arkansas’s J. William Fulbright (Bill Clinton’s mentor) stood shoulder to shoulder with Hollings and other segregationist Democratic governors, most notably Arkansas’s Orval Faubus and Alabama’s George Wallace. (Wallace installed the rebel flag over his statehouse in 1963, the day before Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy arrived to discuss integration.) While Byrd and Company filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964, these state executives blocked schoolhouse doors to exclude blacks.

Illinois’s Republican senator Everett Dirksen finally broke the bigoted Democrats’ filibuster and got the Civil Rights Act approved for the signature of Democratic president Lyndon Johnson." Full article here.

Father Lawrence Lovasic, in his book The Hidden Power of Kindness, explains that, "You practice professional hypocrisy when, in public office or business, you speak against some evil and in reality practice it yourself, or when you complain of losing money while you yourself are making an unjust profit..." (The Hidden Power of Kindness, pp. 138-139).

These words apply to Democrats like President Obama who attempt to distance themselves from the negative stigma attached to the Confederate Flag while attempting to manufacture a narrative which lays the flag at the doorstep of Republicans or Conservatives in general.

President Obama, your hypocrisy is showing.

The Democratic Party has become the enemy of religion

As noted here, Catholics are abandoning a Democratic Party which is increasingly hostile toward religion and religious values.

According to the article, "Steve Krueger, head of the group Catholic Democrats, notes that conservative bishops have been beating the war drums since the George W. Bush administration, even going so far in some cases as to argue that 'good' Catholics can’t vote for Democrats because of their support for abortion rights and, more recently, same-sex marriage — which has resulted in an increased politicization of the church.

Stephen Schneck of Catholic University’s Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies has noted that there’s been a certain 'distillation' of the Catholic vote as a record number of presumably more liberal-leaning Catholics — some one-third of those raised Catholic — have left the faith altogether. 'More and more of those who remain are those who actively choose to embrace the church and its teachings,' he wrote.

But neither of these trends explains why white Catholics have abandoned the Democratic Party so suddenly and so dramatically. After all, in 2008 Barack Obama managed to keep his margin of loss of white Catholic voters to John McCain to just 5 points. But four years later, he lost the white Catholic vote to Mitt Romney by a stunning 19 points.

Krueger points to the Catholic bishop’s demonization in 2011 of the 'contraceptive mandate' in the Affordable Care Act, and their subsequent ginning up of the war on 'religious liberty' — which was joined by elements of the religious right and fused with its war on Obamacare — as another factor helping to drive Catholics toward the GOP. And the numbers bear Krueger out. According to Pew, between 2009 and 2014, the number of white Catholics who said the Obama administration — and by inference the Democratic Party — was 'unfriendly to religion' more than doubled from 17 percent to 36 percent.

'The shift in the Catholic vote should really be a wakeup call to the Democrats, says Krueger. 'White Catholics are 18 percent of the electorate and Catholics vote 1 to 2 percentage points above their representation in the overall population. This is a significant voting bloc that now perceives Republicans as being more welcoming to people of faith.'"

David Carlin is a lifelong Democrat. From 1981 to 1992, he served as a Rhode Island state senator, serving as senate majority leader in 1989 and 1990. In 1992 he was his district's Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives. For more than twenty years, Mr. Carlin has been a professor of philosophy and sociology at the Community College of Rhode Island.

In his book entitled "Can a Catholic Be a Democrat: How the Party I Loved Became the Enemy of My Religion," he writes:

"..an excuse that appeals to the 'separation of church and state' seems to be among the silliest rationales for a Catholic's support of the secularized Democratic Party. This separation, so we're told, is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and it prohibits the intrusion of religion into the affairs of government. Yet the First Amendment says nothing about keeping religion out of government; it's concerned instead with keeping government out of religion. Its two religion 'clauses' say (1) that there will be no 'establishment of religion' and (2) that there will be no interference with the 'free exercise' of religion. That's it: government must keep its hands off religion; nothing about religion keeping its hands off government.

However, it should be considered that in writing the religion section of the First Amendment, the framers were no doubt remembering the history of England and how the government of that nation, from the time of Henry VIII until what was then the present day (the 1780's), established a national religion and interfered with the free exercise of dissenting religions. This was a case of government controlling religion, but at the same time it was a case of religion controlling government. That is to say, government persecuted, or at least discriminated against, all religions other than the Church of England, but one of the main reasons it did so was because the Church of England, both through its bishops and its lay members, had tremendous influence over government (only members of the Church of England could serve in Parliament or government). In other words, in its competition with other churches, not to mention its competition with outright infidelity, the Church of England used government to put down the church's rivals.

This is the kind of thing people, many of them Catholics, have in mind when they say that advocating laws against abortion or same-sex marriage violates the principle of separation of church and state. They fear that an alliance of conservative churches might someday gain enough governmental power to impose religious values on everybody else, non-believers included. This is what they mean when they speak, as they often do, of the looming danger of 'theocracy.' Behind the moral-conservative political activism of Christian churches they see would-be theocrats, or 'dominionists,' who want to take over America, stamp out abortion, subjugate women, drive homosexuals back into the closet, and enact other items allegedly on the agenda of the Religious Right. Yet this would be clearly un-American, violating the philosophical, religious, and moral pluralism that has long been, and should be, characteristic of the United States.

One obvious and oft-given answer is this: few liberals have made similar objections to the modern civil-rights movement, which was in large measure inspired by religion and based on churches. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Protestant minister - even, it might be said, a Christian martyr. Are the objectors ready to say that the great legislative fruits of this religio-political movement, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, are illegitimate, that they're instances of the imposition of theocratic values? Will they say that the spirit of American 'pluralism' demanded that the pro-segregation values of the KKK and other racists should have been respected? Of course not. And so it appears that what's at stake for these people isn't a matter of principle (separation of church and state) but a matter of policy. Some policies they like )e.g., civil rights legislation), and some they dislike (e.g., laws restricting abortion). A religion-driven politics is okay when it produces laws they like, but it's very naughty when it produces laws they don't like. And so we may conclude (may we not?) that all this talk about the separation of church and state is nothing but dust they throw in people's eyes." (Can a Catholic Be a Democrat: How the Party I Loved Became the Enemy of My Religion, pp. 129-131, Sophia Institute Press, 2006).

Pope Benedict XVI has spoken clearly enough. And he has condemned "gay marriage" and abortion as "among the most insidious and dangerous challenges" to society. The Democratic Party advances both.

And this is leading to a major crisis for the Party.

Brian Williams and Hillary Clinton have demonstrated their contempt for the American people

The New Orleans Advocate reports:

"NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who apologized on the air Wednesday night for lying about an experience covering the Iraq War, is now facing scrutiny over his gripping accounts of Hurricane Katrina, the disaster that burnished his nightly news bona fides almost a decade ago.

Williams’ account of seeing a body float by in the French Quarter — which remained largely dry — and even a claim of catching dysentery from drinking Katrina floodwaters have raised eyebrows among bloggers and elsewhere since he took it on the chin this week over a claim that he rode in a helicopter that was downed by a rocket-propelled grenade in Iraq."

Jesse Walker, at his Hit and Run Blog, recalls a story which some of us conservatives remember all too well. He notes that, "Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on [March 25, 2008, that] she made a mistake when she claimed she had come under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996 while she was first lady.

In a speech in Washington and in several interviews last week Clinton described how she and her daughter, Chelsea, ran for cover under hostile fire shortly after her plane landed in Tuzla, Bosnia.

Several news outlets disputed the claim, and a video of the trip showed Clinton walking from the plane, accompanied by her daughter. They were greeted by a young girl in a small ceremony on the tarmac and there was no sign of tension or any danger.

"I did make a mistake in talking about it, you know, the last time and recently," Clinton told reporters in Pennsylvania where she was campaigning before the state's April 22 primary. She said she had a "different memory" about the landing.

In her speech, Clinton had claimed: "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

Lying to promote one's own image and to manipulate others.  And this from two individuals who spend their lives in the pursuit of influencing public opinion.

In Man Against Mass Society, Gabriel Marcel writes, "In spite of everything that can be said to the contrary, is not the real and deep purpose of propaganda after all that of reducing men to a condition in which they lose all capacity for individual reaction? In other words, whether the men in control of propaganda intend this or not, is it not of the very nature of propaganda to degrade those whose attitudes it seeks to shape? And is it possible to be unaware of the fact that propaganda presupposes, in these men in control, a fundamental contempt for the rest of the human race? If we really attach any value at all to what a man is in himself, to his authentic nature, how can we assume the responsibility of passing him through the flattening-out machinery of propaganda?

What we ought to enquire into, however, is the nature of this contempt. There are, of course, fine shades of distinction that analysis ought to bring out: but is there any essential difference between the attitude of someone like Goebbels, for instance, and that of a chief of Communist propaganda? In both cases we are faced with a radical and cynical refusal to recognize the competence of individual judgment, an impatience with what appears, from this point of view, the intolerable presumptuousness of the individual. It is also broadly noteworthy that even the sense of truth cannot fail gradually and unconsciously to be destroyed in those who assume the task of manipulating opinion. It would require a very uncommon degree of simple-mindedness in a professional propagandist for him to remain very long convinced that his truth was the whole truth. Such simple-mindedness is only conceivable in a fanatic." (pp. 50-51).

But fanaticism is precisely what we find in the Democratic Party and those liberals who pretty much dominate every corner of the mainstream media which long ago buried any remains of journalistic integrity and objectivity.

This is nothing less than a moral tragedy. When communicating with others, we all have certain responsibilities.  For example, we all have a responsibility to submit ourselves to truth when communicating.  Dr. Germain Grisez explains that, “As creatures, human persons are utterly dependent on God.  Their freedom and action presuppose realities whose meaning and value cannot be changed.  Therefore, human fulfillment requires knowing and conforming to the truth, and especially to the truth about what is good.  But since genuine community is cooperation in seeking common fulfillment, it depends on submission to truth. Consequently, since all parties to communication should be open to genuine community, they should submit themselves to truth.  The alternative is pursuing what they want regardless of truth, caring about no common good beyond themselves, and so, while using means of communication, failing to promote genuine community.”

This is exactly what Brian Williams and Hillary Clinton have shown.  They care not so much for the common good as they do for their own good and their desire to control and manipulate others.