Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts
Monday, July 09, 2012
President Obama, dictatorship and control
In my last post, I compared President Obama's new executive order with the Third Reich's "Decree for the Protection of the German People." Every dictatorship, or every country en route toward dictatorship, justifies its lust for power and control by asserting that such power grabs are for the "good of the people" or "public safety in times of crisis" or for reasons of "national security." But all of the bovine scatology in the world cannot conceal the fact that control is the driving force behind dictatorship.
In an article for the Canada Free Press entitled "Obama's obsession with control," Doug Hagmann and Joseph Hagmann write:
In the event you missed the Friday news dump, Barack Hussein Obama issued yet another executive order. Titled “Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions,” it may be read in its entirety on the White House website here. At first blush, it appears that the order modernizes previous communications functionality, particularly as it relates to the continuity of governmental communication during wartime or national crisis as defined by Obama.
The text of the order itself consists of 2,205 words and seven-(7) sections and multiple subsections. The policy statement (section one) seems innocuous and actually beneficial to the continuity of communications within the U.S., until one begins to dissect the order and consider it in context with other Obama issued directives. Extensive analysis of this order, in tandem with other recent Obama orders and signed legislation, suggests a disconcerting pattern of potential overreach by Obama into the area of normal and customary commercial communication systems.
Based on our analysis of this order, it would appear that the implementation of emergency communications by Obama, using all forms of wired and wireless communication systems, is redirected through the Executive branch and could expand such takeover abilities beyond the limits of an actual act of war, national emergency, or other event impacting the national security of the U.S. The order also mandates that the Department of Homeland Security develops and submits such a plan to Obama within sixty-(60) days of this order (section 5.2(h)).
Additionally, Obama’s order completely revokes Executive Order 12472 of April 3, 1984, as amended, which established and defined the National Communication System (NCS). The purpose of the NCS is to “assist the President” in matters of emergency communications in war-time emergencies, and during “those crises or emergencies in which the exercise of the President’s war power functions is not required or permitted by law.” By the stroke of his pen, such distinctions are removed.
Security or control?
After reviewing this order, one is forced to wonder whether the actual function of this order is to assure continuity of communications during an actual emergency, or if this order is designed to expand the control of all communications by implementing measures that redefine crises and emergencies. In the context of the most recent orders implemented by the stroke of his pen, it would appear that Obama is more concerned with command and control than ensuring continuity of communications during times of actual national emergencies."
Total control of the means of communication is necessary for a dictatorship, or emerging dictatorship, so that through mass communication the individual may be propagandized and molded into conditioned responses. It is necessary to destroy the individual's ability to figure things out for himself. And as this ability atrophies, the individual is inundated with entertainments [think of Juvenal and his comment about bread and circuses] which prevent him from reflecting on the fact that his authorities are deceitful and manipulative.
The dictatorship wants, the dictatorship needs, to reduce the individual to being an apathetic machine devoid of independent, critical thought. The individual is subjected to a process of "massification" until he or she is completely dependent upon the State. It was Hitler's boast that: "..sixty thousand men have outwardly become almost a unit, that actually these men are uniform not only in ideas, but that even the facial expression is almost the same. Look at these laughing eyes, this fanatical enthusiasm, and you will discover how a hundred thousand men in a movement become a single type."
If you believe that Americans are "too intelligent" and too "fiercely independent" to succumb to intellectual and emotional subjection through the use of mass communication, rallies, emotional oratory and slogans, consider how a man of no particular intelligence or experience seduced so many into believing that he would effect positive change in the United States. Has Barack Obama delivered? And how often do you come across people whose views are merely a regurgitation of what they read in their local newspaper or hear from the mainstream media?
Once the individual has succumbed to totalitarian ideology, the critical faculty is suspended. And it is difficult, if not impossible, for the brainwashed individual to revert to his former self. Collective totalitarian thinking [which again is the goal of every dictatorship] may be compared with schizophrenia. In both, says Joost Meerloo in The Rape of the Mind, there is, "a loss of an independent, verifiable reality, with a consequent relapse into a more primitive state of awareness." In both, thought and action are arrested at the infantile level of development.
Such a person is easy to control and manipulate.
And that's exactly what Barack Obama is about: control.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
The Open Conspiracy: Religions in general, and in the first place the Catholic religion, must be neutralized
Speaking about the Earth Charter and related globalism, Msgr. Michel Schooyans said, "In order to consolidate this holistic vision of globalism, certain obstacles have to be smoothed out and instruments put to work. Religions in general, and in the first place the Catholic religion, figure among the obstacles that have to be neutralized." Which certainly explains the HHS contraception mandate - one step in an ongoing process. And now, President Obama has come out in full support of same-sex "marriage." The Open Conspiracy is emboldened. As H.G. Wells, himself a Socialist, had argued, traditional Christianity has been rendered "old-fashioned and unserviceable" [read obsolete] and religion must now "adapt itself" to our modern "forward looking turn of mind."
Enter the Earth Charter. According to its founders, the Earth Charter is "a declaration of fundamental principles for building a just, sustainable, and peaceful global society in the 21st century." The Earth Charter Commission hopes that the Charter will become the common standard "by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions [such as the Roman Catholic Church, my note] is to be guided and assessed."
The globalists who are behind the Earth Charter seek to promote a New Age religion which will neutralize the supernatural faith of Roman Catholicism. In the words of Archbishop Javier Lozano Barragan, "Clearly, we are faced with the total denial of Christianity." Which is why Mikhael Gorbachev, at the three separate press conferences at the RIO + 5 Conference, said that, "The Ten Commandments are out of date. They will be replaced by the [then] fifteen principles of the Earth Charter.
The Termite Nations have dispensed with God and His Commandments in their quest for unbridled hedonism. We are being prepared for the Reign of Antichrist. The Rev. P. Huchede, in his work entitled "History of Antichrist," explains the religious preparation, both intellectual and moral, for the Reign of Antichrist which will arrive after economic collapse: "But how shall he deprive the world of Christianity and have himself adored as God? Alas, it is only too true that the minds and hearts of men are admirably disposed for revolution and consequently ready to accept and bear the cruel yoke of such a tyrant. Revolution as the word itself implies means a subversion, but a subversion of all that is true, good, beautiful, and grand in the universe. It is the subversion of religion, representing its dogmas as myths and its moral teachings as tyranical. It is the subversion of authority...
Licentiousness under the name of liberty becomes the order of the day; each one is invested with the right to govern himself. It is the subversion of reason: and do we not find leading minds in some of the most enlightened nations denying the principle of contradiction and maintaining the absolute identity of all beings? Revolution is therefore essentially destructive, and it becomes cosmopolitan by the action of secret societies scattered throughout the world. Is it not true to say that the 'mystery of iniquity' is prepared in secret revolutionary dens? But it does not suffice to destroy; it is absolutely necessary to build up again. The world cannot subsist long in a vacuum. It must have a religion; it must have a philosophy; it must have an authority. Revolution will furnish all these. Instead of the reasonable and supernatural religion of Jesus Christ, Revolution will preach Pantheism. The God-humanity will impart the theurgic spirit and thus lead men to adore the demon as the author of universal emancipation...What frightful immorality must follow in the train of this shameless prostitution of religion! Never has the threefold concupiscence made greater ravage among mankind. And this is the religion sought and hoped for as the cherished boon of the aspirations of our modern free thinkers. To our Christian philosophy, the honor of humanity's revolution will substitute a babel of extravagant and absurd ideas. Instead of a mild and efficient authority consecrated alike by Church and state, despotism and anarchy will rise up and contend for the shreds of religious liberty and human policy...if the state of perversion continue for a while longer, he [Antichrist] will find the world prepared to receive and serve him." (Rev. P. Huchede, History of Antichrist, pp. 13-14, Tan Books).
Father Huchede addresses the fact of the open conspiracy: "Is it not true to say that the "mystery of iniquity" is prepared in secret revolutionary dens?" This is the revolution called for by atheists, socialists, freemasons and all those who hate the Lord Jesus and His Mystical Body which is the Catholic Church. H.G. Wells described the goal of the Open Conspiracy as, "an adequately implemented Liberal Socialism, which will ultimately supply teaching, coercive and directive public services to the whole world" and added that this, "is the immediate task before all rational people...There must be a common faith and law for mankind" and this will be achieved through a "World-State."
Enter the Earth Charter. According to its founders, the Earth Charter is "a declaration of fundamental principles for building a just, sustainable, and peaceful global society in the 21st century." The Earth Charter Commission hopes that the Charter will become the common standard "by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions [such as the Roman Catholic Church, my note] is to be guided and assessed."
The globalists who are behind the Earth Charter seek to promote a New Age religion which will neutralize the supernatural faith of Roman Catholicism. In the words of Archbishop Javier Lozano Barragan, "Clearly, we are faced with the total denial of Christianity." Which is why Mikhael Gorbachev, at the three separate press conferences at the RIO + 5 Conference, said that, "The Ten Commandments are out of date. They will be replaced by the [then] fifteen principles of the Earth Charter.
The Termite Nations have dispensed with God and His Commandments in their quest for unbridled hedonism. We are being prepared for the Reign of Antichrist. The Rev. P. Huchede, in his work entitled "History of Antichrist," explains the religious preparation, both intellectual and moral, for the Reign of Antichrist which will arrive after economic collapse: "But how shall he deprive the world of Christianity and have himself adored as God? Alas, it is only too true that the minds and hearts of men are admirably disposed for revolution and consequently ready to accept and bear the cruel yoke of such a tyrant. Revolution as the word itself implies means a subversion, but a subversion of all that is true, good, beautiful, and grand in the universe. It is the subversion of religion, representing its dogmas as myths and its moral teachings as tyranical. It is the subversion of authority...
Licentiousness under the name of liberty becomes the order of the day; each one is invested with the right to govern himself. It is the subversion of reason: and do we not find leading minds in some of the most enlightened nations denying the principle of contradiction and maintaining the absolute identity of all beings? Revolution is therefore essentially destructive, and it becomes cosmopolitan by the action of secret societies scattered throughout the world. Is it not true to say that the 'mystery of iniquity' is prepared in secret revolutionary dens? But it does not suffice to destroy; it is absolutely necessary to build up again. The world cannot subsist long in a vacuum. It must have a religion; it must have a philosophy; it must have an authority. Revolution will furnish all these. Instead of the reasonable and supernatural religion of Jesus Christ, Revolution will preach Pantheism. The God-humanity will impart the theurgic spirit and thus lead men to adore the demon as the author of universal emancipation...What frightful immorality must follow in the train of this shameless prostitution of religion! Never has the threefold concupiscence made greater ravage among mankind. And this is the religion sought and hoped for as the cherished boon of the aspirations of our modern free thinkers. To our Christian philosophy, the honor of humanity's revolution will substitute a babel of extravagant and absurd ideas. Instead of a mild and efficient authority consecrated alike by Church and state, despotism and anarchy will rise up and contend for the shreds of religious liberty and human policy...if the state of perversion continue for a while longer, he [Antichrist] will find the world prepared to receive and serve him." (Rev. P. Huchede, History of Antichrist, pp. 13-14, Tan Books).
Father Huchede addresses the fact of the open conspiracy: "Is it not true to say that the "mystery of iniquity" is prepared in secret revolutionary dens?" This is the revolution called for by atheists, socialists, freemasons and all those who hate the Lord Jesus and His Mystical Body which is the Catholic Church. H.G. Wells described the goal of the Open Conspiracy as, "an adequately implemented Liberal Socialism, which will ultimately supply teaching, coercive and directive public services to the whole world" and added that this, "is the immediate task before all rational people...There must be a common faith and law for mankind" and this will be achieved through a "World-State."
Labels:
Be,
Catholic Religion,
Earth Charter,
First,
General,
H.G. Wells,
In,
Must,
Neutralized,
Place,
President Obama,
Reign of Antichrist,
Religions,
Same-sex Marriage,
Socialism,
Ten Commandments,
The Open Conspiracy
Friday, May 11, 2012
"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.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
President Obama, who claims to be a Christian, has denied that America is a Christian nation
Back in 2009, in an article for Salon.com entitled "America is not a Christian nation," Michael Lind wrote, "Is America a Christian nation, as many conservatives claim it is? One American doesn't think so. In his press conference on April 6 in Turkey, President Obama explained: 'One of the great strengths of the United States is...we have a very large Christian population - we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.' Predictably, Obama's remarks have enraged conservative talking heads. But Obama's observations have ample precedent in American diplomacy and constitutional thought..." (See here for full article).
Unfortunately for Mr. Lind, the facts of history do not support his theory. The Charter of New England of 1620 declared that the primary objective of the colony was "the enlargement of Christian religion, to the Glory of God Almighty." The Mayflower Compact stated clearly that the purpose of the colony was the "advancement of the Christian Faith." Larry Schweikart notes, in his book "48 Liberal Lies About American History," that: "The founding documents of every one of the original thirteen colonies reveals them to be awash in the concepts of Christianity and God. Whatever the documents intended by 'religious freedom,' they never in any way, shape, or form intended the state to interfere with Christian religious expression. It is therefore silly and unsupported to claim, as religious historian Jon Butler tries to do, that "Revolutionary America Wasn't a Christian Nation.' Christians played so dominant a role in the American revolution that Joseph Galloway, a Loyalist, complained that the rebellion was led by "Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Smugglers.'.." (Larry Schweikhart, 48 Liberal Lies About American History, p. 75).
President Obama and his minions may believe that America was not founded as a Christian nation. But the Supreme Court, in its unanimous decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892), said that: "Our laws and institutions necessarily are based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind...In this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian...This is a Christian nation."
President Obama and his minions, in their push for a secularist Socialist State, are engaging in revisionist history when they deny that America was founded as a Christian nation. Again Larry Schweikart:
"The Continental Congress in 1777 ordered a day of thanksgiving and praise that the people 'join the penitent confession of their manifold sins...that the day, through their humble and ernest supplication...may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ..." (Schweikart, p. 73). If America was not a Christian nation, what was the Continental Congress doing praying - and exhorting others to pray - through the merits of Jesus Christ? This is, of course, an insurmountable problem for historical revisionists such as Michael Lind and Barack Obama.
Schweikart continues:
"Even the supposed Deist Benjamin Franklin urged the members of the Constitutional Convention to pray, saying, 'I have lived, sir, a long time, and, the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that 'except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.'" (Schweikart, p. 73).
While Barack Obama and his minions are doing their best to re-write American history and to deny our Christian heritage, a Chinese think tank has said that Christianity is what made America great. See here.
Unfortunately for Mr. Lind, the facts of history do not support his theory. The Charter of New England of 1620 declared that the primary objective of the colony was "the enlargement of Christian religion, to the Glory of God Almighty." The Mayflower Compact stated clearly that the purpose of the colony was the "advancement of the Christian Faith." Larry Schweikart notes, in his book "48 Liberal Lies About American History," that: "The founding documents of every one of the original thirteen colonies reveals them to be awash in the concepts of Christianity and God. Whatever the documents intended by 'religious freedom,' they never in any way, shape, or form intended the state to interfere with Christian religious expression. It is therefore silly and unsupported to claim, as religious historian Jon Butler tries to do, that "Revolutionary America Wasn't a Christian Nation.' Christians played so dominant a role in the American revolution that Joseph Galloway, a Loyalist, complained that the rebellion was led by "Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Smugglers.'.." (Larry Schweikhart, 48 Liberal Lies About American History, p. 75).
President Obama and his minions may believe that America was not founded as a Christian nation. But the Supreme Court, in its unanimous decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892), said that: "Our laws and institutions necessarily are based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind...In this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian...This is a Christian nation."
President Obama and his minions, in their push for a secularist Socialist State, are engaging in revisionist history when they deny that America was founded as a Christian nation. Again Larry Schweikart:
"The Continental Congress in 1777 ordered a day of thanksgiving and praise that the people 'join the penitent confession of their manifold sins...that the day, through their humble and ernest supplication...may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ..." (Schweikart, p. 73). If America was not a Christian nation, what was the Continental Congress doing praying - and exhorting others to pray - through the merits of Jesus Christ? This is, of course, an insurmountable problem for historical revisionists such as Michael Lind and Barack Obama.
Schweikart continues:
"Even the supposed Deist Benjamin Franklin urged the members of the Constitutional Convention to pray, saying, 'I have lived, sir, a long time, and, the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that 'except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.'" (Schweikart, p. 73).
While Barack Obama and his minions are doing their best to re-write American history and to deny our Christian heritage, a Chinese think tank has said that Christianity is what made America great. See here.
Friday, April 01, 2011
You were saying Mr. President?
Just recently, President Obama issued a statement saying that, "We do no expect harmful levels of radiation to reach the United States, whether it’s the West Coast, Hawaii, Alaska, or US territories in the Pacific." But scientists have now discovered radioactive iodine in a rainwater sample taken near San Francisco which is 18,100 times higher than the federal drinking water standard. See here.
How dangerous is radioactive iodine? See here. And how can President Obama assert that harmful levels of radiation will not reach the United States when we read this?
How dangerous is radioactive iodine? See here. And how can President Obama assert that harmful levels of radiation will not reach the United States when we read this?
Friday, January 21, 2011
Perez Hilton on Rick Santorum...
I don't know why a Washington think-tank hasn't snatched up celebrity gossip suckhound Perez Hilton. The man is obviously a wordsmith as well as an intellectual. Responding to Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who questioned President Obama's pro-abortion stance saying, "The question is, and this is what Barack Obama didn't want to answer, is that human life a person under the Constitution?..And Barack Obama says no. Well if that human life is not a person then I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say 'now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people," Mr. Hilton writes, "Dear Rick Santorum...This sucks. Wow. Just wow. What makes him think that anything about what he says is okay?" See here.
Obviously Senator Santorum has hit a nerve in the liberal anti-life community, a community which claims to be interested in civil rights while denying the civil rights of the unborn. It was Lisa Graas, a former lobbyist for Kentucky Right to Life, who framed this issue so eloquently:
"...it’s clear that had the Dred Scott decision been allowed to stand, our world would be a far different place right now and there would be no black candidate serving in elected office anywhere in this nation, let alone running for president. Indeed, Senator Barack Obama, who claims it was the Civil Rights movement of the sixties that is responsible for his being conceived, may never have been born. How ironic, then, that Mr. Obama is such a staunch supporter of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that did the same thing to children in the womb that Dred Scott did to people of African descent – stripped them of 'personhood' status under the law."
As Dr. Germain Grisez has said, "Abortion and its legalization are great evils. They differ in some ways from the mass murders carried out under Stalin, Hitler, and others, but also in some ways are comparable to those crimes and in other ways even worse; because of the greater numbers being killed, their total innocence and defenselessness, the essential role played by those primarily responsible for nurturing the victims, the widespread support of this slaughter by both rulers and people in so-called liberal democratic nations, and the complicity in the killings of so many religious leaders, educators, people trained in law, health care professionals, people in the mass media, and so on..Everyone who recognizes the evils of abortion and its legalization should do something to oppose them."
Yes indeed. Mr. Hilton has a firm grasp of this issue. And I date supermodels on the weekend.
Related reading: Stubborness and stupidity.
Obviously Senator Santorum has hit a nerve in the liberal anti-life community, a community which claims to be interested in civil rights while denying the civil rights of the unborn. It was Lisa Graas, a former lobbyist for Kentucky Right to Life, who framed this issue so eloquently:
"...it’s clear that had the Dred Scott decision been allowed to stand, our world would be a far different place right now and there would be no black candidate serving in elected office anywhere in this nation, let alone running for president. Indeed, Senator Barack Obama, who claims it was the Civil Rights movement of the sixties that is responsible for his being conceived, may never have been born. How ironic, then, that Mr. Obama is such a staunch supporter of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that did the same thing to children in the womb that Dred Scott did to people of African descent – stripped them of 'personhood' status under the law."
As Dr. Germain Grisez has said, "Abortion and its legalization are great evils. They differ in some ways from the mass murders carried out under Stalin, Hitler, and others, but also in some ways are comparable to those crimes and in other ways even worse; because of the greater numbers being killed, their total innocence and defenselessness, the essential role played by those primarily responsible for nurturing the victims, the widespread support of this slaughter by both rulers and people in so-called liberal democratic nations, and the complicity in the killings of so many religious leaders, educators, people trained in law, health care professionals, people in the mass media, and so on..Everyone who recognizes the evils of abortion and its legalization should do something to oppose them."
Yes indeed. Mr. Hilton has a firm grasp of this issue. And I date supermodels on the weekend.
Related reading: Stubborness and stupidity.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Do as President Obama says, not as he does
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 President Obama? At a memorial on Wednesday for those killed and wounded by Jared Lee Loughner in Tucson, Arizona, President Obama said (in part): "At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized - at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do - it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds...As we discuss..issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility.."
But the same president who is urging us to talk with each other "in a way that heals..not a way that wounds," not long ago "..rejected a series of bipartisan town halls, and said that if there's a political knife fight, he'd bring a gun." See here. Yes, that is certainly a shining example of meaningful dialogue and calm rhetoric. One can feel the charity and humility in such discourse. President Obama is so determined to engage in peaceful dialogue that when Pope Benedict XVI telephoned him after the election to congratulate him on his victory and brought up the subject of abortion, he responded simply, "We agree to disagree." (See here). And, referring to Christians, Jews, Muslims and others who are opposed to homosexuality on moral grounds, he said that such people are clinging to "worn arguments and old attitudes." (See here). Yesiree, a good does of humility right there.
As one of those whom President Obama has dismissed as "clinging to religion" (I do not own a gun), I'll certainly reflect very carefully on his words. And I will listen as well to my Master: "Do as he says, not as he does."
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 President Obama? At a memorial on Wednesday for those killed and wounded by Jared Lee Loughner in Tucson, Arizona, President Obama said (in part): "At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized - at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do - it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds...As we discuss..issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility.."
But the same president who is urging us to talk with each other "in a way that heals..not a way that wounds," not long ago "..rejected a series of bipartisan town halls, and said that if there's a political knife fight, he'd bring a gun." See here. Yes, that is certainly a shining example of meaningful dialogue and calm rhetoric. One can feel the charity and humility in such discourse. President Obama is so determined to engage in peaceful dialogue that when Pope Benedict XVI telephoned him after the election to congratulate him on his victory and brought up the subject of abortion, he responded simply, "We agree to disagree." (See here). And, referring to Christians, Jews, Muslims and others who are opposed to homosexuality on moral grounds, he said that such people are clinging to "worn arguments and old attitudes." (See here). Yesiree, a good does of humility right there.
As one of those whom President Obama has dismissed as "clinging to religion" (I do not own a gun), I'll certainly reflect very carefully on his words. And I will listen as well to my Master: "Do as he says, not as he does."
Monday, November 08, 2010
Obama: Americans are stupid
Sophocles, in Antigone 1. 1023, says, "Stubborness and stupidity are twins." How so? Dr. Montague Brown explains as he makes the distinction between tenacity and stubborness: "Tenacity is the dedicated adherence to something we know to be worthwhile. As such, tenacity is positive. It involves a clear purpose - to persevere in what is good - and welcomes new evidence and perspectives that clarify or enrich that good...Tenacity is particularly evident when the adherence required is difficult. If my perseverance requires great effort of body or mind, or if it requires me to face a great deal of peer pressure and perhaps even ridicule, then my holding fast to my good purpose shows strength of mind and courage. In such cases, there may be little to gain in terms of social standing, but much in moral standing. Tenaciously holding to what is true and good not only benefits me in terms of virtue; it also works to ensure the stability of these goods in the community....Stubborness is the uncompromising insistence on having our own way. As such, stubborness is negative. It involves a kind of blindness, along with a willful rejection of evidence and the perspectives of others. Stubborness is particularly evident when the compromise required is easy. If the evidence I need to convince me to change my mind is readily available, or if accepting another's perspective would mean giving up little of importance, then my refusal to yield is not reasonable, but is motivated by stubborness. There is little to lose except my desire to be in control. Such rigid clinging to my own will hurts the community, because I refuse to cooperate with others, and it also prevents me from becoming successful and virtuous." (Dr. Montague Brown, Ph.D, The One-Minute Philosopher, pp. 162-163, Sophia Institute Press).
Rather than addressing the serious and substantive criticisms – or just plain concerns – directed at his policies, Obama has chosen time and again to dismiss his critics by painting them as dishonest, emotionally unstable or simply obstinate. And now, he is suggesting that the American people are stupid. In an article which may be found here, we read how Obama told Steve Kroft during a "60 Minutes" interview that, "..leadership isn't just legislation..it's a matter of persuading people..making an argument that people can understand."
How patronizing. How insulting. If the American people are not convinced of Obama's policies, it is not because they lack understanding, it is because his policies are inane and his ideas lack substance. Remember when this mental giant suggested that those who oppose homosexuality (because of Divine Revelation and Natural Law) were clinging to "worn out arguments"? How about when Pope Benedict XVI telephoned Obama after the election to congratulate him on his victory? The Holy Father brought up the subject of abortion and Obama said simply, "We agree to disagree." See here.
Authentic leadership also involves acknowledging when one is wrong and not blaming one's failures on other people. Our president is grossly immature. And that fact is chilling.
Rather than addressing the serious and substantive criticisms – or just plain concerns – directed at his policies, Obama has chosen time and again to dismiss his critics by painting them as dishonest, emotionally unstable or simply obstinate. And now, he is suggesting that the American people are stupid. In an article which may be found here, we read how Obama told Steve Kroft during a "60 Minutes" interview that, "..leadership isn't just legislation..it's a matter of persuading people..making an argument that people can understand."
How patronizing. How insulting. If the American people are not convinced of Obama's policies, it is not because they lack understanding, it is because his policies are inane and his ideas lack substance. Remember when this mental giant suggested that those who oppose homosexuality (because of Divine Revelation and Natural Law) were clinging to "worn out arguments"? How about when Pope Benedict XVI telephoned Obama after the election to congratulate him on his victory? The Holy Father brought up the subject of abortion and Obama said simply, "We agree to disagree." See here.
Authentic leadership also involves acknowledging when one is wrong and not blaming one's failures on other people. Our president is grossly immature. And that fact is chilling.
Monday, August 30, 2010
President Obama and the basic incapacity to listen...

It comes as no surprise that President Obama admits to ignoring the Restoring Honor rally (which he refers to as the "Beck Rally." See here. When the President and other liberals aren't dismissing their opponents as being "bigots", they simply ignore them. This is the characteristic sign of irreverence.
Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand defines irreverence as, "the basic incapacity to listen..the attitude that already knows everything before being has the opportunity to inform us. Irreverence is the impertinent, arrogant attitude that makes our minds deaf and blind to reality - the more so, the deeper and more sublime the object.." (The Charitable Anathema, p. 112).
Irreverence is not the proper response to value. But what more can one expect from an egocentric opportunist who poses as a statesman? President Obama is not at all interested in meeting the demands of truth or in acknowledging those valid points raised by political opponents. Which is why he dismisses the Restoring Honor rally by implying that "a certain portion of the country" has been stirred up by Mr. Beck - the implication being that those in attendance cannot think for themselves.
As time marches on, it is becoming increasingly clear to the American people that President Obama, the "Yes we can" President, is nothing more than an intellectual fraud. Especially since he now admits he is powerless to fix the economy.
He has proven himself to be most competent in one area: taking vacations. One should stick to what one is good at I suppose.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Plenty of immaturity to go around....

The White House is now questioning General Stanley McChrystal's judgment and maturity because of comments which he made to a reporter for Rolling Stone magazine. See here. But perhaps we should also be questioning the judgment and maturity of President Barack Obama. When he was still just a Senator from Illinois campaigning for the presidency, Mr. Obama painted religious belief as a sort of crutch saying that, "You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and a like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them....And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them.."
And speaking of antipathy toward people who are different, as President, Barack Obama described the thinking of millions of Americans as backward, saying that those who are morally opposed to homosexuality because of their belief in Divine Revelation and or Natural Law are clinging to "worn arguments and old attitudes." See here.
And speaking of poor judgment, remember when the President said he was bowling as if he were in the Special Olympics? Isn't it true that such a statement also reflects immaturity? At least the President apologized for that comment. But then, the General has apologized for his comments.
Yes the General works for the President - the Commander-in-Chief. But the President works for the American people. And some of his remarks have been nothing less than immature, insensitive and even cruel. And they too demonstrate a lack of good judgment and even common sense.
Compare President Obama's attitude toward religion and the American people with that of our first President, George Washington. In his Farewell Address given on September 19, 1796, President Washington said in part that, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them..."
But President Obama hasn't respected the great pillars of religion and morality. Instead, he views these as a sort of crutch. And while Mr. Obama doesn't hesitate to insult the American people - the same people he is supposed to be working for - President Washington's attitude was markedly different. In the same address, he said, "Though in reviewing the incidents of my Administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence..."
There is plenty of immaturity to go around these days. If the White House is really concerned about the problem of immaturity, it should first look within.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Senate Bill would grant the President far-reaching emergency powers over the internet....

"As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
- Justice William O. Douglas, US Supreme Court (1939-75)
"This is more than a war against terrorism. This is a war against the citizens of all countries. The current elites are creating so much fear that people don't know how to respond. But they must remember. This is a move to implement a world dictatorship within the next five years. There may not be another chance."
- Dr. Johannes Koeppl, a former German defense ministry official and NATO advisor
Related reading here.
- Justice William O. Douglas, US Supreme Court (1939-75)
"This is more than a war against terrorism. This is a war against the citizens of all countries. The current elites are creating so much fear that people don't know how to respond. But they must remember. This is a move to implement a world dictatorship within the next five years. There may not be another chance."
- Dr. Johannes Koeppl, a former German defense ministry official and NATO advisor
Related reading here.
Saturday, June 05, 2010
The Fallout from the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill
From Father Euteneuer's Spirit & Life newsletter:
We Don't Believe You, Mr. President...
Dear President Obama,
Every citizen with a modicum of insight into public affairs would say that America is now at a crossroads of decision about what kind of future we want for our nation - and, by extension, for the rest of the world. Whether we like it or not, you are the one who is designated by a vote of the electorate to lead us in that decision-making process. You have asked for the job, and you have proposed yourself as being competent for it. History will judge your Administration on its own merits when your term is complete, but we, the citizens of this country, must judge it for what we see happening before our very eyes. Quite frankly, the picture isn't pretty, and you haven't earned our respect as a leader.
The reason for this, Mr. President, is that we can't believe what you say, and frankly, what you do is utterly unbelievable at times.
The recent Gulf Coast oil spill disaster is indicative of your utter carelessness with the onerous burden of governance. Not only did you dis the families of the 11 workers killed in the disaster, but you also attended fundraisers in CA, a trip to the golf course and several state parties in the White House during the whole time the Governor of Louisiana has been screaming frantically for your attention. How can you expect us to believe that you were actually "in charge" of handling the disaster? In six weeks we have seen hardly a shred of evidence to convince us of that. A leader who says he is in charge of something and then conducts a systematic campaign of blaming, dodging, obfuscating, ignoring and even now prosecuting the others involved - instead of fixing the problem - will hardly go down in the record books as the savior he proposed himself to be when he was elected. You are the Commander-in-Chief who has gone AWOL on a truly national crisis.
On top of all that, you basically blew off a sacred national holiday, Memorial Day, for the sake of a vacation to gangsterland. That slap in the face to our military men and women was not lost on anyone, nor was the narcissistic disregard for American history or anything other than what fits your extreme political agenda. These are appalling traits for the one who holds the highest political office in our land, and only a fawning and dishonest media allows you to get away with this negligence in office.
Speaking of which, what are we to make of your pathetic excuse for the crime of attempting to bribe Congressman Sestak to bow out of the Senate race against Arlen Specter? Do you really think Americans believe the utterly implausible story about offering him a "non-paying" position on some presidential panel? Your Administration's explanation, issued on the afternoon of a holiday weekend, rings hollow, and everyone knows it. "Hollow" is an adequate word to describe your Administration, your political theatre and your rhetoric. Even some of your staunchest ideological supporters admit that it is getting increasingly hard to believe that you mean anything you say.
In the midst of all this domestic incompetence and dishonesty, we have seen no realistic response to North Korean, Iranian or Turkish aggression on the world scene. Foreign politicians know you are a leftist lightweight, and so we can expect more of the same from the rogue nations of the world, further destabilizing the security of our nation and the world. We have, however, seen you and your inept band of political marauders pander to foreign dictators and exploit the Mexican President to abuse us and our national deliberations on serious issues. We have seen your ideological hacks take over whole industries, plunder the private sector, abuse the good will of states and consume sound American institutions as if they were your enemies and with a ferocity that would befit only those who we would call our true national enemies.
Like the Gulf oil spill, your Administration is out of control, and every day is another step closer to disaster. As the oil continues to pollute, kill and damage the external beauty and economy of a whole region, you and your team are doing the same with the trust of the people who built this great country.
We deserve better, Mr. President, and it's time you start doing your job.
Sincerely,
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer,
President, Human Life International
Related reading: BP Chief Tony Hayward, a Bilderberg member, cashed in about a third of his holding in the company one month before the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. See here.
We Don't Believe You, Mr. President...
Dear President Obama,
Every citizen with a modicum of insight into public affairs would say that America is now at a crossroads of decision about what kind of future we want for our nation - and, by extension, for the rest of the world. Whether we like it or not, you are the one who is designated by a vote of the electorate to lead us in that decision-making process. You have asked for the job, and you have proposed yourself as being competent for it. History will judge your Administration on its own merits when your term is complete, but we, the citizens of this country, must judge it for what we see happening before our very eyes. Quite frankly, the picture isn't pretty, and you haven't earned our respect as a leader.
The reason for this, Mr. President, is that we can't believe what you say, and frankly, what you do is utterly unbelievable at times.
The recent Gulf Coast oil spill disaster is indicative of your utter carelessness with the onerous burden of governance. Not only did you dis the families of the 11 workers killed in the disaster, but you also attended fundraisers in CA, a trip to the golf course and several state parties in the White House during the whole time the Governor of Louisiana has been screaming frantically for your attention. How can you expect us to believe that you were actually "in charge" of handling the disaster? In six weeks we have seen hardly a shred of evidence to convince us of that. A leader who says he is in charge of something and then conducts a systematic campaign of blaming, dodging, obfuscating, ignoring and even now prosecuting the others involved - instead of fixing the problem - will hardly go down in the record books as the savior he proposed himself to be when he was elected. You are the Commander-in-Chief who has gone AWOL on a truly national crisis.
On top of all that, you basically blew off a sacred national holiday, Memorial Day, for the sake of a vacation to gangsterland. That slap in the face to our military men and women was not lost on anyone, nor was the narcissistic disregard for American history or anything other than what fits your extreme political agenda. These are appalling traits for the one who holds the highest political office in our land, and only a fawning and dishonest media allows you to get away with this negligence in office.
Speaking of which, what are we to make of your pathetic excuse for the crime of attempting to bribe Congressman Sestak to bow out of the Senate race against Arlen Specter? Do you really think Americans believe the utterly implausible story about offering him a "non-paying" position on some presidential panel? Your Administration's explanation, issued on the afternoon of a holiday weekend, rings hollow, and everyone knows it. "Hollow" is an adequate word to describe your Administration, your political theatre and your rhetoric. Even some of your staunchest ideological supporters admit that it is getting increasingly hard to believe that you mean anything you say.
In the midst of all this domestic incompetence and dishonesty, we have seen no realistic response to North Korean, Iranian or Turkish aggression on the world scene. Foreign politicians know you are a leftist lightweight, and so we can expect more of the same from the rogue nations of the world, further destabilizing the security of our nation and the world. We have, however, seen you and your inept band of political marauders pander to foreign dictators and exploit the Mexican President to abuse us and our national deliberations on serious issues. We have seen your ideological hacks take over whole industries, plunder the private sector, abuse the good will of states and consume sound American institutions as if they were your enemies and with a ferocity that would befit only those who we would call our true national enemies.
Like the Gulf oil spill, your Administration is out of control, and every day is another step closer to disaster. As the oil continues to pollute, kill and damage the external beauty and economy of a whole region, you and your team are doing the same with the trust of the people who built this great country.
We deserve better, Mr. President, and it's time you start doing your job.
Sincerely,
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer,
President, Human Life International
Related reading: BP Chief Tony Hayward, a Bilderberg member, cashed in about a third of his holding in the company one month before the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. See here.
Thursday, June 03, 2010
President Obama wants homosexual persons to take pride in, to glory in their shame
In his Summa Theologica, Saint Thomas Aquinas tells us that, "Shame, being praiseworthy, is either itself a virtue or contributes to virtue....Shame is in fact a recoiling from what is dishonourable and disgraceful.." And what is more disgraceful than homosexual acts? St. Peter Damian, Doctor of the Church, Cardinal, and great reformer of the clergy, says that: "Truly, this vice is never to be compared with any other vice because it surpasses the enormity of all vices...It defiles everything, stains everything, pollutes everything. And as for itself, it permits nothing pure, nothing clean, nothing other than filth....This plague undermines the foundation of faith, weakens the strength of hope, destroys the bond of charity; it takes away justice, subverts fortitude, banishes temperance, blunts the keenness of prudence. And what more should I say since it expels the whole host of the virtues from the chamber of the human heart and introduces every barbarous vice as if the bolts of the doors were pulled out." (Book of Gomorrah).
Saint Thomas himself teaches that, "If all the sins of the flesh are worthy of condemnation because by them man allows himself to be dominated by that which he has of the animal nature, much more deserving of condemnation are the sins against nature by which man degrades his own animal nature...
But President Obama sees things differently. This master of the spiritual life and expert in theological matters believes that moral opposition toward homosexuality is based upon "worn-out arguments" and that homosexual persons should take pride in their illicit unions. But the words of Saint Paul continue to echo throughout the centuries and to our present time, "For many, as I have often told you and now tell you even in tears, conduct themselves as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction. Their God is their stomach; their glory is in their shame. Their minds are occupied with earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we also await a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ." (Philippians 3: 18-20).
Pray for President Obama. For he is not serving the citizens of this country well.
Related reading here.
Saint Thomas himself teaches that, "If all the sins of the flesh are worthy of condemnation because by them man allows himself to be dominated by that which he has of the animal nature, much more deserving of condemnation are the sins against nature by which man degrades his own animal nature...
But President Obama sees things differently. This master of the spiritual life and expert in theological matters believes that moral opposition toward homosexuality is based upon "worn-out arguments" and that homosexual persons should take pride in their illicit unions. But the words of Saint Paul continue to echo throughout the centuries and to our present time, "For many, as I have often told you and now tell you even in tears, conduct themselves as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction. Their God is their stomach; their glory is in their shame. Their minds are occupied with earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we also await a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ." (Philippians 3: 18-20).
Pray for President Obama. For he is not serving the citizens of this country well.
Related reading here.
Friday, May 28, 2010
A Three Hour Tour...

Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale,
A tale of a fateful trip
That started from this tropic port
Aboard this tiny ship
The mate was a mighty sailing man,
The President lame and unsure
Five passengers set sail that day
For a three hour tour, a three hour tour
The weather started getting rough,
The tiny ship was tossed,
If not for the weight of the toxic sludge
The President would be lost, the President would be lost
The ship set ground on the shore of this unchartered lethal ruin
With Obama
The Skipper too
The BP Billionaire and his wife,
The professor and Janet N
Here on Obama's Isle
So this is the tale of the throwaways,
They're here for a long, long time
They'll have to fill that gaping hole,
It's an uphill climb
The first mate and the President too,
Will do their very best,
To make the others all forget
Who's responsible for this mess
So join us here each week my friend
You're sure to see a mile
Of poisonous slime and scorched wildlife
Here on Obama's Isle.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Small wonder that Catholics United has been critical of Father James Rafferty's decision...
Shortly after Father James Rafferty, pastor of St. Paul's parish in Hingham, Massachusetts, denied admission to a student whose parents are lesbian, the dissent group Catholic United, which is highly partisan and supports President Obama, launched a petition accusing St. Paul's of engaging in discrimination. See here. Catholics United, at its website, describes itself as, "a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting the message of justice and the common good found at the heart of the Catholic social tradition."
But the fact that Catholics United is anything but non-partisan is obvious to anyone who takes the time to visit the organization's website. For Catholics United promotes the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), an organization which was inspired by radical agitator Saul Alinsky, a Marxist who dedicated his Rules for Radicals to Lucifer, whom he called "the first radical."
According to American Life League's Michael Hichborn, "..no less than fifty organizations (one-fifth of all CCHD grantees from 2009) are, in some capacity, engaged in pro-abortion or pro-homosexual causes." See here. And James Salt, Director of Organizing for Catholics United, has worked for Pax Christi USA, another prominent dissent group which is rooted in New Age spirtuality.
Related reading on CCHD here.
Homosexual adoption subjects children to violence. See here.
But the fact that Catholics United is anything but non-partisan is obvious to anyone who takes the time to visit the organization's website. For Catholics United promotes the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), an organization which was inspired by radical agitator Saul Alinsky, a Marxist who dedicated his Rules for Radicals to Lucifer, whom he called "the first radical."
According to American Life League's Michael Hichborn, "..no less than fifty organizations (one-fifth of all CCHD grantees from 2009) are, in some capacity, engaged in pro-abortion or pro-homosexual causes." See here. And James Salt, Director of Organizing for Catholics United, has worked for Pax Christi USA, another prominent dissent group which is rooted in New Age spirtuality.
Related reading on CCHD here.
Homosexual adoption subjects children to violence. See here.
Labels:
Admission,
Campaign,
Catholic,
Catholics United,
CCHD,
Denied,
Discrimination,
Dissent,
Father James Rafferty,
Human Development,
Lesbian Parents,
Non-Partisan,
President Obama,
Saul Alinsky
Saturday, May 08, 2010
Solicitor General Elena Kagan has called for Socialists to unite in order to defeat the "entrenched foe."
"We are living in the days of the Apocalypse - the last days of our era...The two great forces of the Mystical Body of Christ and the Mystical Body of Antichrist are beginning to draw up the battle lines for the catastrophic contest." - Archbishop Fulton John Sheen.
White House aides expect President Obama to select Solicitor General Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court. See here. Ms. Kagan, while attending Princeton University as an undergraduate, entitled her senior thesis "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933." In her thesis, Ms. Kagan wrote, "In our times [this was 30 years ago], a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of Capitalism's glories than of socialism's greatness. Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation. Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation's established parties?" (p. 127).
And then Ms. Kagan issues her call to action, her call for Socialists to unite in order to defeat "the entrenched foe." She writes, "Through its own internal feuding..the SP [Socialist Party] exhausted itself forever and further reduced labor radicalism in New York to the position of marginality and insignificance from which it has never recovered. The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America. Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one's fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope." (pp. 129-130).
And who is this "entrenched foe"? Primarily the Church. What Ms. Kagan refers to as the "final conflict," Pope John Paul II called the "final confrontation." Just two years before he was elected to the papacy, Karol Cardinal Wojtyla visited the United States. This was 1976. In his farewell speech, Cardinal Wojtyla said:
"We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think the wide circle of the American society or the wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel. This confrontation lies within the plans of divine providence; it is a trial which the whole Church, and the Polish Church in particular, must take up. It is a trial not only of our nation and the Church, but in a sense, it is a test of 2,000 years of culture and Christian civilization with all its consequences for human dignity, individual rights, human rights and the rights of nations."
In short, two camps are aligning for a final conflict, a final confrontation: the Mystical Body of Christ and the Mystical Body of Antichrist. The Democratic Party has been radicalized and is now advancing Socialism. It is merely a tool of a Satanic worldwide movement to neutralize the Catholic Church and to prepare the way for the Man of Sin.
White House aides expect President Obama to select Solicitor General Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court. See here. Ms. Kagan, while attending Princeton University as an undergraduate, entitled her senior thesis "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933." In her thesis, Ms. Kagan wrote, "In our times [this was 30 years ago], a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of Capitalism's glories than of socialism's greatness. Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation. Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation's established parties?" (p. 127).And then Ms. Kagan issues her call to action, her call for Socialists to unite in order to defeat "the entrenched foe." She writes, "Through its own internal feuding..the SP [Socialist Party] exhausted itself forever and further reduced labor radicalism in New York to the position of marginality and insignificance from which it has never recovered. The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America. Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one's fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope." (pp. 129-130).
And who is this "entrenched foe"? Primarily the Church. What Ms. Kagan refers to as the "final conflict," Pope John Paul II called the "final confrontation." Just two years before he was elected to the papacy, Karol Cardinal Wojtyla visited the United States. This was 1976. In his farewell speech, Cardinal Wojtyla said:
"We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think the wide circle of the American society or the wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel. This confrontation lies within the plans of divine providence; it is a trial which the whole Church, and the Polish Church in particular, must take up. It is a trial not only of our nation and the Church, but in a sense, it is a test of 2,000 years of culture and Christian civilization with all its consequences for human dignity, individual rights, human rights and the rights of nations."
In short, two camps are aligning for a final conflict, a final confrontation: the Mystical Body of Christ and the Mystical Body of Antichrist. The Democratic Party has been radicalized and is now advancing Socialism. It is merely a tool of a Satanic worldwide movement to neutralize the Catholic Church and to prepare the way for the Man of Sin.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman: "Death Panels" will save "a lot of money" for the government

"The advisory panel which has the ability to make more or less binding judgments on saying this particular expensive treatment actually doesn't do any good medically and so we are not going to pay for it. That is actually going to save quite a lot of money." - Paul Krugman.
The New York Times portrayed Sarah Palin as a liar for warning the people about such an "advisory panel." See here. President Obama dismissed the notion of "death panels" becoming a reality, saying: "The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for 'death panels' that will basically pull the plug on grandma … this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, et cetera. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready, on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything. This is I guess where the rumor came from." (See here).
As I warned last year, "Having abandoned the God of love, the Supreme Creator, 21st-century man is now ready to worship himself and to usurp the divine powers of creation and destruction. In the words of Dr. Edmund Leach of King's College at Cambridge: 'The scientist can now play God in his role as wonder-worker, but can he - and should he - also play God as moral arbiter?...There can be no source for these moral judgments except the scientist himself. In traditional religion, morality was held to derive from God, but God was only credited with the authority to establish and enforce moral laws because He was also credited with supernatural powers of creation and destruction. Those powers have now been usurped by man, and he must take on the moral responsibility that goes with them' (Edmund Leach, "We Scientists Have the Right to Play God," The Saturday Evening Post, November 16, 1968, p. 16).
But make no mistake about it, when man becomes God society becomes, in the words of the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel, 'a termite colony.' We are still in the twilight. But unless we take a stand now, we will have the Moloch state. As at Auschwitz, men will determine who has quality of life and who should be "mercifully terminated."
As I warned last year, "Having abandoned the God of love, the Supreme Creator, 21st-century man is now ready to worship himself and to usurp the divine powers of creation and destruction. In the words of Dr. Edmund Leach of King's College at Cambridge: 'The scientist can now play God in his role as wonder-worker, but can he - and should he - also play God as moral arbiter?...There can be no source for these moral judgments except the scientist himself. In traditional religion, morality was held to derive from God, but God was only credited with the authority to establish and enforce moral laws because He was also credited with supernatural powers of creation and destruction. Those powers have now been usurped by man, and he must take on the moral responsibility that goes with them' (Edmund Leach, "We Scientists Have the Right to Play God," The Saturday Evening Post, November 16, 1968, p. 16).
But make no mistake about it, when man becomes God society becomes, in the words of the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel, 'a termite colony.' We are still in the twilight. But unless we take a stand now, we will have the Moloch state. As at Auschwitz, men will determine who has quality of life and who should be "mercifully terminated."
Related reading here.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The Sewer of Hell...

Most of you are aware of what Vice-President Joseph Biden, a Catholic, said to President Obama after the Senate Health-Care bill was passed. This sad situation is addressed here.
Most priests today will no doubt remain silent on this issue. But the Patron Saint of Parish Priests did not. This is what he had to say about such language.
St. Jean Vianney:
THE SEWER OF HELL
"There is yet another form of wrongdoing which is all the more deplorable in that it is more common, and that is licentious talk. There is nothing more abominable, my dear brethren, nothing more horrible than such talk. Indeed, my children, what could be more out of keeping with the holiness of our religion than impure language? It outrages God, it scandalises our neighbour. To put it even more clearly, loose talk releases all the passions. Very often it requires only one immodest or unseemly word to start a thousand evil thoughts, a thousand shameful desires, perhaps even to cause a fall into an infinite number of other sins and to bring to innocent souls evil of which they had been happily ignorant.
Can the Christian really afford to occupy his mind with such horrible images, a Christian who is the temple of the Holy Ghost, a Christian who has been sanctified by contact with the most adorable Body and precious Blood of Jesus Christ? Oh, Lord, if we had but some small idea of what we do when we commit sin! If our Lord has taught us that we may judge the tree by its fruit, you may judge after listening to the talk of certain people what must be the corruption of their hearts; and yet such corruption is very commonly encountered.
What sort of conversation do you hear among young people?
Is there anything in their mouths but this kind of loose talk?
Go -- I dare to say it with St. John Chrysostom -- go into these cabarets, into these haunts of impurity! What does the conversation turn upon, even among elderly people? Are they not trying to make a name for themselves by seeing who can be the most outrageous? Their mouths are like some sewer that Hell makes use of to spew its filth and its impurities over the earth and drag souls down to its depths. What are these bad Christians -- or rather these envoys from the nether regions -- doing?
Instead of singing the praises of God, their songs are shameful and hideous; they are songs which ought to make a Christian die of horror. Oh, great God, who would not tremble at the thought of what God's judgment of all this will be! If, as Jesus Christ Himself tells us, not a single idle word will be unpunished, alas! What will be the punishment for these licentious conversations, these indecent topics, these shameful and horrible images, which make the hair stand on end? If you would imagine how blind these poor unhappy people are, just listen to them talking after this fashion: "I had no bad intention," they will tell you, "it was just for a laugh; these things are only trifles, little stupid things, that mean nothing at all."
Is that so, my dear brethren? A sin so horrible in God's eyes that sacrilege alone surpasses it in evil! This is a trifle to you?
No, it is your hearts which are destroyed and corrupted! No! No! No one can afford to laugh or joke about something from which we should fly in horror, as we would from some pursuing beast which wanted to devour us. Besides, my dear brethren, what a crime it is to like something which God wants us to detest with all our hearts! You may tell me that you had no bad intentions, but tell me this, too, miserable and wretched tool of Hell, what about those who are listening to you -- do they have less bad thoughts and criminal desires after they have heard you? Will your harmless intention stay the workings of their imaginations and their hearts? Be honest and tell me that you are, in fact, the cause of the loss and eternal damnation of their souls! How many souls are hurled into Hell because of this sin?
The Holy Ghost tells us that this ugly sin of impurity has covered the whole surface of the earth.
I will say no more now on this subject, my children. I will return to it in an instruction when I shall do my best to depict it for you again with even more horror."
Meditation: Matthew 12: 34.
"There is yet another form of wrongdoing which is all the more deplorable in that it is more common, and that is licentious talk. There is nothing more abominable, my dear brethren, nothing more horrible than such talk. Indeed, my children, what could be more out of keeping with the holiness of our religion than impure language? It outrages God, it scandalises our neighbour. To put it even more clearly, loose talk releases all the passions. Very often it requires only one immodest or unseemly word to start a thousand evil thoughts, a thousand shameful desires, perhaps even to cause a fall into an infinite number of other sins and to bring to innocent souls evil of which they had been happily ignorant.
Can the Christian really afford to occupy his mind with such horrible images, a Christian who is the temple of the Holy Ghost, a Christian who has been sanctified by contact with the most adorable Body and precious Blood of Jesus Christ? Oh, Lord, if we had but some small idea of what we do when we commit sin! If our Lord has taught us that we may judge the tree by its fruit, you may judge after listening to the talk of certain people what must be the corruption of their hearts; and yet such corruption is very commonly encountered.
What sort of conversation do you hear among young people?
Is there anything in their mouths but this kind of loose talk?
Go -- I dare to say it with St. John Chrysostom -- go into these cabarets, into these haunts of impurity! What does the conversation turn upon, even among elderly people? Are they not trying to make a name for themselves by seeing who can be the most outrageous? Their mouths are like some sewer that Hell makes use of to spew its filth and its impurities over the earth and drag souls down to its depths. What are these bad Christians -- or rather these envoys from the nether regions -- doing?
Instead of singing the praises of God, their songs are shameful and hideous; they are songs which ought to make a Christian die of horror. Oh, great God, who would not tremble at the thought of what God's judgment of all this will be! If, as Jesus Christ Himself tells us, not a single idle word will be unpunished, alas! What will be the punishment for these licentious conversations, these indecent topics, these shameful and horrible images, which make the hair stand on end? If you would imagine how blind these poor unhappy people are, just listen to them talking after this fashion: "I had no bad intention," they will tell you, "it was just for a laugh; these things are only trifles, little stupid things, that mean nothing at all."
Is that so, my dear brethren? A sin so horrible in God's eyes that sacrilege alone surpasses it in evil! This is a trifle to you?
No, it is your hearts which are destroyed and corrupted! No! No! No one can afford to laugh or joke about something from which we should fly in horror, as we would from some pursuing beast which wanted to devour us. Besides, my dear brethren, what a crime it is to like something which God wants us to detest with all our hearts! You may tell me that you had no bad intentions, but tell me this, too, miserable and wretched tool of Hell, what about those who are listening to you -- do they have less bad thoughts and criminal desires after they have heard you? Will your harmless intention stay the workings of their imaginations and their hearts? Be honest and tell me that you are, in fact, the cause of the loss and eternal damnation of their souls! How many souls are hurled into Hell because of this sin?
The Holy Ghost tells us that this ugly sin of impurity has covered the whole surface of the earth.
I will say no more now on this subject, my children. I will return to it in an instruction when I shall do my best to depict it for you again with even more horror."
Meditation: Matthew 12: 34.
Labels:
Bill,
Health Care,
Hell,
Holy Ghost,
Impure Language,
Joseph Biden,
Parish Priests,
Patron,
President Obama,
Profane Language,
Punishment,
Saint Jean Vianney,
Sewer of Hell,
Vice President
Saturday, March 20, 2010
"The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men."
Samuel Adams
Related reading here.
Samuel Adams
Related reading here.
Friday, February 26, 2010
"It is not the mentally ill but ordinary people who are the most susceptible..."

"So this is what we’ve come to in America: religious objections to homosexuality, rooted in the Bible, natural law and the teachings of most religions, is nothing more than a pernicious phobia. Not too long ago, such objections simply constituted common sense. Looks like we need a college course, “Common Sense 101." - The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.
The English psychiatrist William Sargant observes that: "It is not the mentally ill but ordinary people who are most susceptible to 'brainwashing,' 'conversion,' 'possession,' 'the crisis'....and who...fall readily under the spell of the demagogue or the revivalist, the witch-doctor or the pop group..." Dr. Sargant explains that once the proselyte has been broken down and sensitized, his thinking and feelings can be manipulated and delusions implanted. Propaganda may be used to break people down by telling them that their old values and sentiments "are childish."
Such propaganda is already being employed, and quite effectively, by the mainstream media and even by those within the Catholic Church who want to convince the populace that the homosexual "lifestyle" is acceptable and even a positive good. This is preparation for the new humanitarian religion and the Man of Sin. Last year, President Obama asserted that those who oppose homosexuality are clinging to worn out arguments. As I noted in a previous post, The Catholic Free Press, the official newspaper for the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts, has bought into this homosexual agitprop.
But Pope John Paul II has warned us that, "...'the dominion granted to man by the Creator is not an absolute power, nor can one speak of a freedom to use and misuse, or to dispose of things as one pleases. The limitation imposed from the beginning by the Creator himself and expressed symbolically by the prohibition not to eat of the fruit of the tree (cf. Gen 2: 16-17) shows clearly enough that, when it comes to the natural world, we are subject not only to biological laws but also to moral ones, which cannot be violated with impunity.'" (Evangelium Vitae, No. 42, citing Sollicitudo Rei Socialis).
Related reading:
Obama's homosexual agenda here and here.
The Diocese of Worcester and New Age Relativism here.
The English psychiatrist William Sargant observes that: "It is not the mentally ill but ordinary people who are most susceptible to 'brainwashing,' 'conversion,' 'possession,' 'the crisis'....and who...fall readily under the spell of the demagogue or the revivalist, the witch-doctor or the pop group..." Dr. Sargant explains that once the proselyte has been broken down and sensitized, his thinking and feelings can be manipulated and delusions implanted. Propaganda may be used to break people down by telling them that their old values and sentiments "are childish."
Such propaganda is already being employed, and quite effectively, by the mainstream media and even by those within the Catholic Church who want to convince the populace that the homosexual "lifestyle" is acceptable and even a positive good. This is preparation for the new humanitarian religion and the Man of Sin. Last year, President Obama asserted that those who oppose homosexuality are clinging to worn out arguments. As I noted in a previous post, The Catholic Free Press, the official newspaper for the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts, has bought into this homosexual agitprop.
But Pope John Paul II has warned us that, "...'the dominion granted to man by the Creator is not an absolute power, nor can one speak of a freedom to use and misuse, or to dispose of things as one pleases. The limitation imposed from the beginning by the Creator himself and expressed symbolically by the prohibition not to eat of the fruit of the tree (cf. Gen 2: 16-17) shows clearly enough that, when it comes to the natural world, we are subject not only to biological laws but also to moral ones, which cannot be violated with impunity.'" (Evangelium Vitae, No. 42, citing Sollicitudo Rei Socialis).
Related reading:
Obama's homosexual agenda here and here.
The Diocese of Worcester and New Age Relativism here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)






