Showing posts with label Hypocrites. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hypocrites. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 18, 2020
Lying and homicide: The marks of the Devil and today's Democratic Socialist Party
Writing for The Wanderer last year, Rey Flores noted that, "The Democrats really do not understand the American people at all, at least not the sane ones. It’s probably not so much that they do not understand people like you and me, but that they refuse to try and accept the reality which so justly keeps backfiring on them every time they think they’ve got us beat.
From the ludicrous Russian collusion fairytales to the Supreme Court nominations and hearings, Democrat socialists, which are one and the same, have no agenda to make America better. They have proven to be the party of absolutely nothing other than hate, lies, and spite. Their hatred for outsider President Trump is greater than any love any of them may have ever had — but it’s very doubtful — for our nation and her people.
They are embarrassingly still smarting from the smashing defeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016 and have had no sleep ever since. The news and entertainment media, and the social media tech giants, which are basically extensions of the Democrat National Committee (DNC), have been working overtime, plotting their next move against our president.
Again, remember that when they are going after Trump, they are coming after all of us. This means everyone from millionaire socialist Bernie Sanders, to America-hater Kamala Harris and that sodomite mayor from Indiana who bears an uncanny resemblance to Mad Magazine mascot Alfred E. Neuman. They are all way off the charts.
Then there’s former Vice President Joe Biden who has spent more than half of his adult life in public office and still has the gall to announce that unless he becomes president, the country will continue to fail. It’s exactly people like Biden who have had more than enough chances to lead, but instead they just become another do-nothing D.C. swamp creature.
It’s interesting how the left has declared war against rich, old white guys, yet two of their strongest contenders — which isn’t saying much with that whole bunch — are both rich and old white guys. I know others have pointed this irony out, but I think it’s worth repeating just to rub their hypocritical noses in that steaming hot pile of you-know-what that they just made on the front lawn of our political system.
While it’s fun to watch the leftists make complete fools of themselves, it’s no laughing matter when they are enacting all types of legislation taking abortion extremism into entirely new hellish realms.
What the Democrats are doing now in states like New York, Illinois, and Virginia is taking their rage out on the unborn citizens of our country. The passage of recent infanticide laws in those states further proves that Democrats’ main strategy in the 2020 races is mainly to “out-abort” each other.
As we have all watched in horror, this isn’t just about aborting innocent children in the womb — these bloodthirsty savages on the left have officially crossed the line from abortion into infanticide. Thank God for the leadership in states like Alabama and Georgia who are countering the tide of human sacrifice going on in other parts of our country!
When a nation can rationalize the kinds of abortion and infanticide laws which are worsening at every step Democrats take today, I say it’s time to take the fight to them at every level. Where are the activist judges on our side? Why is it that we have allowed things to get as ugly as they are when it comes to defending and protecting the sanctity of human life?
Since 2016, many Americans have joined the #WalkAway movement which has seen countless citizens walk away from the Democrat left and join the Republican Party. Now just to make it clear, I’m not a big fan of political parties, but in today’s political climate, I think it’s easy to see which side of the aisle we need to stand on as Catholics and other God-fearing Christians.
2020 is right around the corner. If you think it’s a long way off and that we still have time to be complacent and still win, you are sorely mistaken. Now is the time to make sure that you and everyone who sides with us is registered to vote. Now is the time to start raising awareness about the dreadful future that awaits us if these crooked Democrats steal the election.
Get Busy!"
Lying and homicide, the marks of the Devil (See John 8). These two marks are enshrined within today's Democratic Party.
The Moloch State, which the Democratic Party serves and 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."
We know what we have to do. As Mr. Flores has said, "get busy." Pray, witness to the truth of the Gospels, resist the Democratic Party with its Satanic platform. And those pseudo-Catholics who pretend at serving Christ while voting for the Party of the Devil.
Labels:
Democratic,
Devil,
Evil,
Homicide,
Hypocrites,
Joe Biden,
Kamala Harris,
Lying,
Marks,
Party,
Socialist,
Today's
Sunday, October 09, 2016
Archbishop Samuel Aquila: Voting Democrat is akin to betraying Christ
Archbishop Aquila on voting Democrat:
"Some, both in politics and in the Church, have stated that it is the Church that needs to change Her teaching to include abortion, same-sex unions and even euthanasia...Yet, in faithfulness to Jesus Christ, to the Gospel and to Sacred Tradition, the Church cannot change Her teaching on these issues without denying Christ."
Archbishop Aquila went on to slam the DNC for promoting abortion so flippantly.
"The platform is aggressively pro-abortion, not only in funding matters, but in the appointment of only those judges who will support abortion and the repealing of the Helms Amendment...which prevents the U.S. from supporting abortion availability overseas."
_____________
David Carlin was 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 so the political party which advances a Luciferic agenda will stop at nothing to destroy a political candidate who stands in their way. Donald Trump may be a flawed person, but he doesn't advance an agenda to murder unborn children. And, although he has engaged in inappropriate and offensive talk regarding women in the past, for which he has apologized, Barack Obama has done the same and has never apologized. See here.
And Hillary Clinton has enabled her husband to abuse women for years, not just engage in offensive commentary. See here and here.
Make no mistake, the Democrats and certain RINOs are not really concerned about Trump's comments made years ago. If they really had a respect for women they would not have tolerated a serial womanizer and rapist in the White House for two terms. If they had an authentic respect for women, they would have denounced Barack Obama's comments about a woman's anatomy and his remark, directed at Sarah Palin, that one can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig.
If these hypocrites were concerned about women, they would not advance abortion, which kills innocent children while scarring the mother physically, emotionally and, most significantly, spiritually.
The Democratic Party is the Devil's Party. Mr. Trump may be a flawed person. But there's no evidence, from what I've seen, that he is demon infested like the sick individuals who view killing children as "quality health care."
"Some, both in politics and in the Church, have stated that it is the Church that needs to change Her teaching to include abortion, same-sex unions and even euthanasia...Yet, in faithfulness to Jesus Christ, to the Gospel and to Sacred Tradition, the Church cannot change Her teaching on these issues without denying Christ."
Archbishop Aquila went on to slam the DNC for promoting abortion so flippantly.
"The platform is aggressively pro-abortion, not only in funding matters, but in the appointment of only those judges who will support abortion and the repealing of the Helms Amendment...which prevents the U.S. from supporting abortion availability overseas."
_____________
David Carlin was 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 so the political party which advances a Luciferic agenda will stop at nothing to destroy a political candidate who stands in their way. Donald Trump may be a flawed person, but he doesn't advance an agenda to murder unborn children. And, although he has engaged in inappropriate and offensive talk regarding women in the past, for which he has apologized, Barack Obama has done the same and has never apologized. See here.
And Hillary Clinton has enabled her husband to abuse women for years, not just engage in offensive commentary. See here and here.
Make no mistake, the Democrats and certain RINOs are not really concerned about Trump's comments made years ago. If they really had a respect for women they would not have tolerated a serial womanizer and rapist in the White House for two terms. If they had an authentic respect for women, they would have denounced Barack Obama's comments about a woman's anatomy and his remark, directed at Sarah Palin, that one can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig.
If these hypocrites were concerned about women, they would not advance abortion, which kills innocent children while scarring the mother physically, emotionally and, most significantly, spiritually.
The Democratic Party is the Devil's Party. Mr. Trump may be a flawed person. But there's no evidence, from what I've seen, that he is demon infested like the sick individuals who view killing children as "quality health care."
Friday, March 25, 2016
Francis, who uses Twitter: Facebook users are hypocrites
Francis is building walls again:
Francis is at it again with more strange commentary. In an article which may be found here, Francis reportedly said:
"On Facebook all are good people, are believers, good husbands, happy families. But privately they forget these things, they forget to thank God, they forget to pray and be humble. In real life are the opposite of what they publish
God detests double standards
Stop being hypocritical in social networks. God does not use facebook."
I see. But God does use Twitter? Is that how it works? And how does the enlightened Francis know that all Facebook users are hypocrites?
Apparently "Who am I to judge" is only for homosexual persons. Which would explain why Francis will meet with militant homosexual activists such as Simon Cazal while denouncing Trump as a non-Christian.
Francis is at it again with more strange commentary. In an article which may be found here, Francis reportedly said:
"On Facebook all are good people, are believers, good husbands, happy families. But privately they forget these things, they forget to thank God, they forget to pray and be humble. In real life are the opposite of what they publish
God detests double standards
Stop being hypocritical in social networks. God does not use facebook."
I see. But God does use Twitter? Is that how it works? And how does the enlightened Francis know that all Facebook users are hypocrites?
Apparently "Who am I to judge" is only for homosexual persons. Which would explain why Francis will meet with militant homosexual activists such as Simon Cazal while denouncing Trump as a non-Christian.
Labels:
Am,
Commentary,
Facebook,
Francis,
Homosexual,
Hypocrites,
I,
Judge,
More,
Persons,
Strange,
To,
Twitter,
Users,
Who
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


