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.

Selective outrage and hypocrisy from the Democrats and the liberal msm

The Washington Examiner is reporting that President Trump denies using vulgar language attributed to him.  See here.

Rolling Stone Magazine has listed examples of vulgarity employed by a host of presidents, vice-presidents and presidential candidates:

Abraham Lincoln: "There is nothing to make an Englishman shit quicker than the sight of General George Washington."

Barack Obama: “Obama really drew the ire of the pious, calling opponent Mitt Romney a ‘bullshitter.’ Sometimes the dirty word is the most precise.”

Joe Biden: "This is a big f**king deal."

Dick Cheney: “Cheney reportedly told Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy to ‘go f**k [himself]’”

George W. Bush: “Commented on the presence of New York Times reporter Adam Clymer. Believing he had an audience of one, Bush called Clymer a ‘major-league asshole.’”

Barack Obama: "I don't think I should take any sh*t from anybody on that, do you?"

Richard Nixon: “The Watergate tapes put the phrase ‘expletive deleted’ on the map.”

Lyndon Johnson: "I do know the difference between chicken sh*t and chicken salad,"

John F. Kennedy: "This is obviously a f**k-up."

Harry Truman: “In Truman's eyes, General Douglas MacArthur was a "dumb son of a bitch," and Nixon was ‘a shifty-eyed goddamned liar.’”

So why is  President Trump being singled out for describing certain governments (not the people) as "shit-holes"?

I think we all know.

And while the liberal "mainstream media" are busying themselves with bashing the President over his language, their outrage is most selective.  Where is the concern over well-documented comments made by Nancy Pelosi?  See here.

Or what about President Obama's disparaging remarks regarding white middle-class voters in old industrial towns?  See here.

Hypocrisy is the pretension to qualities which one does not possess. Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, in a sermon delivered in the presence of Pope Benedict XVI on March 11, 2007, explained the gravity of hypocrisy: "Hypocrisy is the sin that is most powerfully denounced by God in the Bible and the reason for this is clear. With his hypocrisy, man demotes God, he puts him in second place, putting the creature, the public, in first place. "Man sees the appearance, the Lord sees the heart" (1 Samuel 16:7): Cultivating our appearance more than our heart means giving greater importance to man than to God.


Hypocrisy is thus essentially a lack of faith; but it is also a lack of charity for our neighbor in the sense that it tends to reduce persons to admirers. It does not recognize their proper dignity, but sees them only in function of one's own image.

Christ's judgment on hypocrisy is without appeal: "Receperunt mercedem suam" (They have already received their reward)! A reward that is, above all, illusory, even on a human level because we know that glory flees from those that seek it, and seeks those who flee from it.

Jesus' invectives against the scribes and the Pharisees also help us understand the meaning of purity of heart. Jesus' criticisms focus on the opposition between the "inside" and the "outside," the interior and the exterior of man. 'Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones and filth. So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity' (Matthew 23:27-28).

The revolution which Jesus brings about here is of incalculable significance. Before him, except for some rare hint in the prophets and the Psalms — 'Who will ascend the mountain of the Lord? Those whose hands are innocent and whose hearts are pure' (Psalm 24:3) — purity was understood in a ritual and cultural way; it consisted in keeping one's distance from things, animals, persons or places that were understood to contaminate one and separate one from God's holiness. Above all, these were things associated with birth, death, food and sexuality. In different forms and with different presuppositions, other religions outside the Bible shared these ideas.

Jesus makes a clean sweep of all these taboos and does so first of all by certain gestures: He eats with sinners, touches lepers, mixes with pagans. All of these were taken to be highly unsanitary things. He also sweeps away these taboos with his teachings. The solemnity with which he introduces his discourse on the pure and the impure makes apparent how conscious he was of the novelty of his doctrine. "And he called the people to him again and said to them: 'Hear me all of you and understand; there is nothing outside a man that by going into him can defile him. It is the things that come out of a man that can defile him.... For from within, out of the heart of a man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man'" (Mark 7:14-17,21-23)."

Jesus knew that the pharisees often preached a good game but that they failed to live up to what they preached. Which is why He told His listeners, "Do as they say, not as they do." Might not the same be said of the Democrats and the liberal mainstream media with its selective outrage?

Related reading here and here.

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone and charitable dialogue based on truth

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, addressing the March for Marriage yesterday, said that: "In our Catholic faith tradition, young people around the age of junior high school or high school receive the sacrament of Confirmation, normally administered by the bishop. At a Confirmation ceremony I celebrated recently in a large, Hispanic parish, two of the young people shared some reflections on what their Confirmation meant to them. They said that their Confirmation gave them the grace to go forth and 'build a civilization of truth and love.'

 I could not have said it better myself! And that, my friends, is why we are here. Both are necessary, both, together, if we wish to have a flourishing society: truth and love. This is the legacy we have received from our ancestors in faith. To my fellow believers in Jesus Christ I would call our attention to those first generations of Christians in the city of Rome, who were so often scapegoated by the powerful pagan Roman government. But when a plague would strike the city and the well-to-do fled to the hills for safety until the plague subsided, it was the Christians who stayed behind to care for the sick, at great risk to their own health and very lives. And not just the Christian sick: all the sick, regardless of religion, of how they lived their lives, or even what they thought of the Christians themselves.

The historian Eusebius noted about the Christians of his time, 'All day long some of them tended to the dying and to their burial, countless numbers with no one to care for them. Others gathered together from all parts of the city a multitude of those withered from famine and distributed bread to them all.' Likewise, the Emperor Julian complained to one of his pagan priests, '[They] support not only their poor, but ours as well.'

It is this kind of love and compassion in the service of truth, especially the truth of the human person, that has marked the lives of the holy ones of our own faith tradition and others as well: hospitals, orphanages, schools, outreach to the poor and destitute – giving without concern for getting anything in return, seeing in each human being, especially in the poor and destitute, a priceless child beloved by God, whom God calls to turn away from sin and toward Him, so that they might be saved. In1839 Jeanne Jugan met one such priceless child of God, a blind old crippled woman whom nobody cared for. That night, Jeanne carried the woman home to her apartment, and put her to sleep in her own bed. From this profound encounter was born the Little Sisters of the Poor, who even today are loving, caring for and providing homes for thousands of elderly who deserve dignity as well as care. These are the very nuns who now face the possibility of being shut out of spreading the love of Jesus to the needy because of their refusal to comply with a healthcare mandate that violates their moral convictions, convictions which stand on the truth of basic human dignity.

Let us, then, take our cue from the best our predecessors in faith have inspired, and not humanity’s frequent failings and sins. Like them, we now in our own time need to proclaim and live the truth with charity and compassion as it applies to us today: the truth of a united family based on the union of the children’s father and mother in marriage as the foundational good of society. Every child comes from a man and a woman, and has a right, a natural human right, to know and be known by, to love and be loved by, their own mother and father. This is the great public good that marriage is oriented towards and protects.

The question is then: does society need an institution that unites children to the mothers and fathers who bring them into the world, or doesn’t it? If it does, that institution is marriage – nothing else provides this basic good to children. Yes, this is a foundational truth, and one to which we must witness by lives lived in conformity to it, and which we must proclaim with love. Love for those millions of loving single mothers and fathers who struggle to pick up the pieces of their lives and succeed in creating loving homes for their children – they need and deserve our love, affirmation and support. Love for the husband struggling with fidelity, for the woman who feels abandoned and pressured into abortion, for the teenager struggling to believe in the heroic vision of love that makes sense of chastity, for the single person who cannot find a mate, for the childless couple trying to cope with infertility, for the wife who finds herself nursing a sick husband in her marriage bed, for the young person trying to navigate through sexual identity issues and may feel alienated from the Church because of it, maybe even because of the sort of treatment received from those who profess to be believers. To all of you, I say: know that you are a child of God, that you are called to heroic love and that with God’s help you can do it, that we love you and want to support you in living your God-given call. And let us not forget: we must also proclaim this truth especially with love for those who disagree with us on this issue, and most of all, for those who are hostile toward us. We must be careful, though, not to paint our opponents on this issue with broad strokes. There is a tendency in our culture to do this to groups of people the powerful don’t know and think they don’t like. We must not do that. We must recognize that there are people on the other side of this debate who are of good will and are sincerely trying to promote what they think is right and fair. It is misdirected good will. But even those from whom we suffer retribution – and I know some of you have suffered in very serious ways because of your stand for marriage – still, we must love them. That is what our ancestors in faith did, and we must, too. Yes, it is easy to become resentful when you are relentlessly and unfairly painted as a bigot and are punished for publicly standing by the basic truth of marriage as a foundational societal good; it is tempting to respond in kind. Don’t.

For those of us who are Catholic, we just heard our Master command us in the gospel proclaimed at Mass the day before yesterday: 'love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you' (Mt 5:44). We must not allow the angry rhetoric to co-opt us into a culture of hate. Yes, we must show love toward all of these and more. Love is the answer. But love in the truth. The truth is that every child comes from a mother and a father, and to deliberately deprive a child of knowing and being loved by his or her mother and father is an outright injustice. That is our very nature, and no law can change it. Those with temporal power over us might choose to change the definition of marriage in the law even against all that we have accomplished through very generous participation in the democratic process, but our nature does not change. If the law does not correspond to our nature, such that there is a conflict between the law and nature, guess which will prevail? And people will figure it out. We can take heart from what we see happening now in the pro-life movement. Back in the early 1970’s, just before the Court issued its infamous Roe vs. Wade ruling, public support for abortion was growing rapidly. And as with marriage redefinition today, a generation gap opened up in the polls, leading many to predict that opposition to abortion would literally die off. That was the future; before long, it would not even be an issue. Instead, something unexpected happened. A relatively small band of faithful believers held the line on the sanctity of human life in the womb, and today, two generations later, the pro-life movement is flourishing like never before. We now have the most pro-life generation of young adults since the infamous Roe decision. People have figured out that it is a human life that is within the mother’s womb, and that abortion, yes, really does harm women; they’ve figured out that it’s good to cherish that human life and surround the mother with love and support so a truly happy choice can be made, the choice for life. People, too, will figure out that a child comes from a father and a mother, and it’s good for the child to be connected to his or her father and mother. These truths may seem obvious to us, but they aren’t to everyone while in the heat of controversy. They will figure out this truth about marriage, though, because it, too, is in our nature, and it is a key to individual and societal flourishing. All we have to do is look around and see that our society is broken and hurting in so many ways; there is so much work to do to fix it and bring healing.

Yes, it is very complex, and many different things need to be done: we need to fix our economy; we especially need to pay a living wage to working class families; we need to fix our broken immigration system; we need to improve our schools, especially those that are failing children from poorer families. Yes, we need to do all this and more. But none of these solutions will have a lasting effect if we do not rebuild a marriage culture, a culture which recognizes and supports the good of intact families, built on the marriage between a man and a woman committed to loving faithfulness to each other and to their children. No justice, no peace, no end to poverty, without a strong culture of marriage and the family. This noble cause is a call to love we cannot abandon, that we will not give up on, and that in the end we know will triumph. So take heart: the truth spoken in love has a power over the human heart. We are here today to March for Marriage, to pick up the torch, and pass on to a new generation the truth about marriage, not just the abstract truth, but the lived reality that makes a difference in children’s lives. So, my friends, we must not give up: the truth will not go away, and we will not go away. Let us take heart from the legacy we have received, let us place our trust in God, and let us go forth to build a civilization of love."

Well said! In his Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam, Pope Paul VI told us that, "The Church must enter into dialogue with the world in which it lives. It has something to say, a message to give, a communication to make." (No. 65).


The Holy Father goes on to say that, "Dialogue, therefore, is a recognized method of the apostolate. It is a way of making spiritual contact. It should however have the following characteristics:

1) Clarity before all else; the dialogue demands that what is said should be intelligible. We can think of it as a kind of thought transfusion. It is an invitation to the exercise and development of the highest spiritual and mental powers a man possesses. This fact alone would suffice to make such dialogue rank among the greatest manifestations of human activity and culture. In order to satisfy this first requirement, all of us who feel the spur of the apostolate should examine closely the kind of speech we use. Is it easy to understand? Can it be grasped by ordinary people? Is it current idiom?

2) Our dialogue must be accompanied by that meekness which Christ bade us learn from Himself: "Learn of me, for I am meek and humble of heart." It would indeed be a disgrace if our dialogue were marked by arrogance, the use of bared words or offensive bitterness. What gives it its authority is the fact that it affirms the truth, shares with others the gifts of charity, is itself an example of virtue, avoids peremptory language, makes no demands. It is peaceful, has no use for extreme methods, is patient under contradiction and inclines towards generosity.

3) Confidence is also necessary; confidence not only in the power of one's own words, but also in the good will of both parties to the dialogue. Hence dialogue promotes intimacy and friendship on both sides. It unites them in a mutual adherence to the Good, and thus excludes all self-seeking.

4) Finally, the prudence of a teacher who is most careful to make allowances for the psychological and moral circumstances of his hearer, particularly if he is a child, unprepared, suspicious or hostile. The person who speaks is always at pains to learn the sensitivities of his audience, and if reason demands it, he adapts himself and the manner of his presentation to the susceptibilities and the degree of intelligence of his hearers....In a dialogue conducted with this kind of foresight, truth is wedded to charity and understanding to love." (Nos. 81, 82).

As faithful Catholics, we must recognize and embrace these characteristics of authentic dialogue, even when our partners in dialogue refuse to accept these principles. For we will often encounter those who have succumbed to relativism or who do not possess a love of objective truth. For such people, the purpose of dialogue is not to attain truth but rather to achieve personal victory and to triumph at any cost. As Dr. Montague Brown explains in his wonderful book "The One-Minute Philosopher" (Sophia Institute Books): "An argument (emotional, not rational) is a disorderly confrontation based on an unwillingness to learn from one another. Desire for victory takes precedence over love of truth, with the result that agreement becomes impossible....in an argument, I simply want my position to be the right one and you to agree with me. I am, indeed, looking for agreement, but on my terms, not in terms of objective truth." (p. 33). An authentic dialogue (which such people are not really interested in) is, "..an orderly confrontation based on a mutual willingness to learn from one another. It involves the presentation of evidence by each party and then a good-faith attempt of the participants in the discussion to come to agreement...In a discussion [or dialogue], I do not primarily want to disagree: I want to know the truth.." (The One-Minute Philosopher, p. 32).

It was Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint, No. 36, who said, "There must be charity toward one's partner in dialogue, and humility with regard to the truth which comes to light and which might require a review of assertions and attitudes."

This is what Catholics are called to.  And in that regard, Nancy Pelosi has failed miserably.

Nancy Pelosi, in a fit of satanic pride, accuses Bishop of engaging in "venom masquerading as virtue"

Carla Marinucci, writing for SFGate, reports: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi took the lead this week in a high-profile lobbying effort to pressure San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone not to attend the controversial March for Marriage event, which she characterized as "venom masquerading as virtue." Pelosi, who is one of the country's most powerful Catholic politicians, made a passionate appeal to the archbishop in a letter obtained by The Chronicle not to participate in the National Organization for Marriage's June 19 march on the Supreme Court in Washington. Cordileone, who is one of the featured speakers at the event, was a leader in the campaign for Proposition 8, the 2008 California anti-gay-marriage initiative.

"We share our love of the Catholic faith and our city of San Francisco," Pelosi wrote to Cordileone, who, as head of the 560,000-member Archdiocese of San Francisco, has become the Catholic bishops' point man against gay marriage. She urged him to abandon an event in which some of the participants show "disdain and hate towards LGBT persons.

Invoking the words of Pope Francis with regard to gays and lesbians, she wrote, "If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him?"

The goal of the second annual March for Marriage is to draw thousands of supporters of what they call "traditional marriage" to walk from the U.S Capitol to the Supreme Court. Conservative former presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, as well as Cordileone, are being billed as the star speakers.

The San Francisco Democratic leader is the most influential in a parade of public figures who have come forward to protest the San Francisco archbishop's participation in an event that is also backed by the Family Research Council. Critics have called the organizers "hate groups" that are targeting gays and lesbians.

Last week, San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, along with a host of Bay Area religious leaders, sent a joint letter to Cordileone protesting his plans to attend the march.

Some 20,000 people have signed an online petition by Faithful America demanding that the archbishop cancel his appearance.

The event comes at a time when same-sex marriage is increasingly common and polls show that public opinion - once widely opposed - has dramatically shifted in recent years. The most recent Gallup poll shows public support for gay marriage at 55 percent, an all-time high.

Cordileone has nevertheless become a national leader in the religious movement against gay marriage. He heads the Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage for the politically powerful U.S. Conference of Bishops and was instrumental in raising $1.5 million to get Prop. 8, which banned same-sex marriage, on the California ballot in 2008.

The measure has since been ruled unconstitutional, allowing same-sex marriages to be performed in California.

But Cordileone has remained outspoken in his opposition to gay marriage, saying, "The ultimate attack of the evil one is the attack on marriage."

Public officials, including Pelosi, have expressed respect for the archbishop's religious views, but have taken particular issue with the organizations sponsoring and participating in the event.

The Family Research Council has been labeled an antigay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. It "blamed gay marriage for the recent shootings at Isla Vista," the Faithful America petition notes.

 In 2011, the president of the National Organization for Marriage wrote that gay marriage would "normalize pedophilia," and the organization has also linked gay marriage with incest.

"We ask that you will reconsider your participation and join us in seeking to promote reconciliation rather than division and hatred," Newsom, Lee and dozens of others wrote in their letter to Cordileone.

Their protest characterized the event as "organized by some of the nation's most virulently anti-LGBT organizations and leaders."

Pelosi, in her letter, told Cordileone, "While we may disagree on the subject of marriage equality, we do agree that every person is a child of God, possessed of the spark of divinity and worthy of respect."

Cordileone has publicly defended next week's March for Marriage as "an important means to promote and defend marriage for the good of our culture, to pray for our federal and state governments, and to stand in solidarity with people of good will."

In a letter defending the event, he said, "This is a critical time for marriage in our country, as marriage amendments are being struck down by federal courts and appeals of these decisions are being made."

Since a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in support of same-sex couples, gay marriage has been declared legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia.

Pelosi is living proof that sin nmakes one stupid.  Having engaged for many years in sinful dissent from the Church's teaching, she an no longer discern the truth which has been recvealed by Jesus Christ and authoritatively interpreted by the Church's Magisterium.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its Instruction entitled "Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons," has this to say in nos. 2-4:

"The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.

The natural truth about marriage was confirmed by the Revelation contained in the biblical accounts of creation, an expression also of the original human wisdom, in which the voice of nature itself is heard. There are three fundamental elements of the Creator's plan for marriage, as narrated in the Book of Genesis.

In the first place, man, the image of God, was created "male and female" (Gen 1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level — the personal level — where nature and spirit are united.

Marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons is realized involving the use of the sexual faculty. "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh" (Gen 2:24).

Third, God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special participation in his work of creation. Thus, he blessed the man and the woman with the words "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28). Therefore, in the Creator's plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage.

Furthermore, the marital union of man and woman has been elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is an efficacious sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:32). This Christian meaning of marriage, far from diminishing the profoundly human value of the marital union between man and woman, confirms and strengthens it (cf. Mt 19:3-12; Mk 10:6-9).

There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts "close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

And in an Instruction entitled "Some Considerations Concerning The Response To Legislative Proposals On The Non-Discrimination Of Homosexual Persons," issued on July 22, 1992, the CDF had this to say: "'Sexual orientation' does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder and evokes moral concern." (No. 10). And again: "Including 'homosexual orientation' among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights." (No. 13).

 

 

"Men imitate the gods whom they adore.."

President Obama has now publically stated his support for same-sex "marriage."  Nancy Pelosi has asserted that her Catholic Faith compels her to support sodomy.  A radical homosexual activist who serves as an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist in England proudly proclaims that a majority of Catholics now support same-sex "marriage."

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pray and watch.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi embarasses herself

From the Drudge Report:

"Pelosi, the mother of 5 children and 6 grandchildren, who once said, 'Nothing in my life will ever, ever compare to being a mom,' seemed to imply babies are somehow a burden on the treasury. The revelation came during an exchange Sunday morning on ABC's THIS WEEK.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

I've never been a fan of George Steppinoffthebus. Part of the reason is that he almost always uses the kid gloves when it comes to interviewing Washington liberals. If George had wanted to, he could have challenged Ms. Pelosi's theory with the solid empirical data. The fact is, Ms. Pelosi is just plain wrong. Her economic theory is not consistent with the observable empirical data.

Pope Paul VI, in his Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae, had warned of the negative consequences which would result from societal acceptance of contraception. And his Encyclical Letter has been nothing short of prophetic. Even secular types such as sociobiologist Lionel Tiger have observed that contraception leads to the, "..breakdown of families, female impoverishment, trouble in the relationship between the sexes (mostly because men who contracept tend to lose respect for women), and single motherhood." (See here).

But even if George Steppinoffthebus had challenged Ms. Pelosi, it more than likely wouldn't have produced the slightest crack in her wall of conviction. After all, die-hard Washington liberals are allergic to the truth.

Note: Any resemblance between Nancy Pelosi and the preacher from the film Poltergeist is purely coincidental.