Showing posts with label Presidential. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Presidential. Show all posts

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Hillary Clinton supported Al Gore when he contested the 2000 election, what's really behind the mainstream media's fear of a contested election in 2016?

Michael Brown, over at Spirit Daily, ran this item from The New York Times (a bastion of journalistic integrity):


"Donald J. Trump refused to say on Wednesday night whether he would accept the results of the presidential election, rebuffing a reminder from Chris Wallace, the debate moderator, that the peaceful transfer of power is 'one of the prides of this country.'"

I guess Chris Wallace forgot about Al Gore and his contestation of the 2000 election.  In an interview with CNN’s John King on Nov 29, 2000, Gore said, "You know, the only way to avoid having a cloud over the next president is to count all the votes. Because our country is based on the consent of the governed, and the consent of the governed can only come through a vote by the people. And all the people who vote legally have to have their votes counted; that’s the basic principle. If all of the votes are counted, that’s the best way to confer legitimacy on the outcome of the election."

And there is reason to be concerned this election year.  Gateway Pundit notes:

"Dead people are voting and it’s something this administration does not want to do anything about. They must like it. They must like who they are voting for… Now we have four million, four million ineligible and dead voters on American voter rolls according to the Pew Charitable Trust."

When Gore contested the 2000 election results, Hillary Clinton supported him saying:

"I believe that it certainly is important that every American have the confidence that his or her vote is counted and certainly in Florida there are questions about votes that haven’t been counted. I think those should be resolved...America’s government institutions, including the presidency, are 'strong and resilient' enough to weather the current dispute.." (Source: CNN.com Nov 29, 2000).

If that was true in 2000, when Democrats contested the election results, why is it that the mere possibility of Donald Trump and his supporters contesting the election results concerns the liberal media so much?  Do they know something the rest of us don't?

Friday, May 06, 2016

Hillary Clinton: High Priestess for a Moloch State

LifeSite News has reported that: "Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton promised this weekend to 'defend Planned Parenthood' from Indiana’s new law banning abortion on the basis of a baby’s race, sex, or disability diagnosis.

'I will defend a woman's right to make her own health-care decisions,' said Clinton at a campaign stop Sunday.  'I’ll tell ya, I’ll defend Planned Parenthood against these attacks.  And I commend the women of this state, young and old, for standing up against this governor and this legislature.'

The law, which is scheduled to take effect on July 1, makes it illegal for doctors to knowingly abort babies because they have a disability, such as Down syndrome, or because of their race, sex, national origin, or ancestry.

Around 90% of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome in the United States are killed in the womb."

But Hillary has no problem with murdering disabled children in the womb or killing them because of their sex or race or for any reason whatsoever. 

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

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

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

In a feeble attempt to justify the killing of unborn children in the womb, dishonest politicians like Hillary Clinton continue to use the concept of viability as a measure of when the unborn baby is human and therefore in possession of a right to life. However, as Pope John Paul II noted in his Encyclical Letter, modern genetic science has confirmed that "from the first instant" of fertilization, "there is established the aspects the program of what this living being will be: a person.."

In fact, it is completely illogical to use viability as a measure of when the unborn baby is human because 50 years ago viability was at 30 weeks; 25 years ago it dropped to 25 weeks; and today, it is under 20 weeks. Babies are surviving earlier because of tremendous increases in the sophistication of external life support systems as well as neonatal ICU.

As a people of life, we must hold pro-death politicians like Hillary Clinton accountable for their cooperation in the genocide of abortion which has angered Our Lord Jesus and which cries out to Heaven for vengeance. We must offer reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. If we do not, then a culture of death will continue to prevail in this nation and we will face the consequences of the Hell which we have silently condoned.

We must recall the words of Gabriel Marcel: "When man becomes God, then society becomes a termite colony and collapses from within."

As a High Priestess for the Moloch State, Hillary Clinton believes that women have the right to sacrifice their children to Moloch, killing them because they are the wrong sex, or race or disabled.  Imagine if this little girl had been murdered because of her disability.  There is no point in sugar-coating this: Ms. Clinton serves the Devil and her worldview is rooted in the fires of Hell.

The Psalmist tells us that, "Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it" (Psalm 126). This scriptural truth holds for the building of families, societies, nations, international communities and, most of all, Churches. Ignoring this immutable truth, the culture-of-death advocates are determined to create a Moloch state where the God of love is replaced by "the god of technocracy who experiments and flouts the law of love in the laboratory" (Fr. Miceli).


Having abandoned the God of love, the Supreme Creator, 21st-century man (led by servants of the Devil like Ms. Clinton) 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).

Thursday, December 22, 2011

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

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

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

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


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

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

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