The Biden DHS: Country's greatest terrorism threat comes from Trump supporters

 CV News reports:

"Internal documents from the Biden administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) claimed that the country’s 'Domestic Terrorism threat' mostly comes from Trump supporters. 

The files also singled out people in the military and religious people as possible 'terrorism' threats.

The documents were released Friday by America First Legal, a conservative legal group founded by former Trump administration official Stephen Miller.

The group noted it obtained the 'internal files from the ‘Homeland Intelligence Experts Group’ via litigation with former Trump administration Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Richard Grenell 'against the Biden DHS.'

America First Legal wrote on X (formerly Twitter) Friday: 'The Brennan-Clapper intel group discussed how ‘most of the domestic terrorism threat now comes from supporters of the former president.’

'There is a political backdrop to all of this,' the document alleged. 'It is not like you want a political advantage, but people have attacked the government and its institutions for the last six years.'

John Brennan served as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the Obama administration while James Clapper served as the DNI for most of Obama’s presidency. 

Both were reported to be members of the DHS advisory committee that produced the documents."

The Biden Department of Homeland Security  id engaging in what the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel labelled the "techniques of degradation."

In his work of critical importance entitled "Man Against Mass Society," Marcel explains, "I understand by 'techniques of degradation' a whole body of methods deliberately put into operation in order to attack and destroy in human persons belonging to some definite class or other their self-respect, and in order to transform them little by little into mere human waste products, conscious of themselves as such, and in the end forced to despair of themselves, not merely at an intellectual level, but in the very depths of their souls.." (p. 42).

Through the fanatical employment of such techniques, radical leftists hope to smash down their opponents, to categorize them as mentally ill or as hate-filled "bigots" who cling to "worn out arguments" based upon an "archaic morality" which is rooted in Divine Revelation and Natural Law, as superstitious and backward people who need to be re-educated in order to fit into the new Culture of Lies. Such people are "domestic terrorists" who pose a direct threat to the corrupt New Order.

Marcel writes, "Having abandoned the behaviour of a thinking being, he [the fanatic of any stripe who seeks to impose rather than propose] has lost even the feeblest notion of what a thinking being, outside himself, could be. It is understandable therefore that he should make every effort to deny in advance the rights and qualifications of those whom he wishes to eliminate; and that he should regard all means to this end as fair. We are back here again at the techniques of degradation.." (p. 149).

For the Biden DHS, folks such as those pictured above are "domestic terrorists" and a threat to America.

California usurps parental rights with regard to education of their children: Will the Vatican address this act of violence and homosexualist terrorism?

California Catholic reports:

"California has become the first state in the union to mandate the use of LGBT-inclusive textbooks in elementary schools and have given parents no way to opt out. The choice has been made for them. It’s the law.

That law requires a “fair, accurate, inclusive, and respectful” treatment of homosexual, bisexual, transgender, and lesbian Americans despite the historical insignificance...."


The Pontifical Council for the Family, in its document entitled The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, had this to say:

"Today parents should be attentive to ways in which an immoral education can be passed on to their children through various methods promoted by groups with positions and interests contrary to Christian morality. It would be impossible to indicate all unacceptable methods. Here are presented only some of the more widely diffused methods that threaten the rights of parents and the moral life of their children.

In the first place, parents must reject secularized and anti-natalist sex education, which puts God at the margin of life and regards the birth of a child as a threat. This sex education is spread by large organizations and international associations that promote abortion, sterilization and contraception. These organizations want to impose a false lifestyle against the truth of human sexuality. Working at national or state levels, these organizations try to arouse the fear of the "threat of over-population" among children and young people to promote the contraceptive mentality, that is, the "anti- life" mentality. They spread false ideas about the "reproductive health" and "sexual and reproductive rights" of young people. Furthermore, some antinatalist organizations maintain those clinics which, violating the rights of parents, provide abortion and contraception for young people, thus promoting promiscuity and consequently an increase in teenage pregnancies...

As we look towards the year 2000, how can we fail to think of the young? What is being held up to them? A society of ?things' and not of ?persons'. The right to do as they will from their earliest years, without any constraint, provided it is ?safe'. The unreserved gift of self, mastery of one's instincts, the sense of responsibility — these are notions considered as belonging to another age." (Nos. 135, 136).

California's decision represents an act of violence against the child's right to live his or her own sexuality in conformity with Christian principles: "Since each child or young person must be able to live his or her own sexuality in conformity with Christian principles, and hence be able to exercise the virtue of chastity, no educator — not even parents — can interfere with this right to chastity (cf. Matthew 18: 4-7)." (The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, No. 118).

The decision of California also represents an attack on parental rights. Vatican II teaches us that, in raising children, the responsibility of parents is primary: "Since parents have given life to their children, they have a very grave duty to educate them, and so are to be recognized as their primary and principal educators" (GE, No. 3). 

And Pope John Paul II, explaining the conciliar teaching more fully in Familiaris consortio No. 36, says that: "The right and duty of parents to give education is essential, since it is connected with the transmission of human life; it is original and primary with regard to the educational role of others, on account of the uniqueness of the loving relationship between parents and children; and it is irreplaceable and inalienable, and therefore incapable of being entirely delegated to others or usurped by others."

Canon Law is also very clear on this matter. Canon 793, 1., states that: "Parents as well as those who take their place are obliged and enjoy the right to educate their offspring; Catholic parents also have the duty and the right to select those means and institutions through which they can provide more suitably for the Catholic education of the children according to local circumstances" and Canon 1136 says that: "Parents have the most serious duty and the primary right to do all in their power to see to the physical, social, cultural, moral and religious upbringing of their children."

This inalienable right of parents has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court. In 1922, the State of Oregon attempted to enact legislation that would have forced all children to attend the public schools within that state. But the Supreme Court overturned that decision and established that "The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

Increasingly, the rights of Christian children and their parents are coming under attack. Why? No one has ever put it more eloquently than Randy Engel:

"Is it any wonder that the state must wage war against the family? For the state requires not individuals who dream, and think, and pray, but rather what has come to be called 'the mass man' - rootless, unaffirmed, a reactor - a mere reed blowing in the wind - a thing to be manipulated, to be used, to be disposed of, but never, never, to be loved, for the giant has no heart. And since the modern state has no heart, that which men previously have done out of love, must now be done out of fear, and hatred, and brute force." (The Family Under Siege, The Wanderer, March 6, 1980).

This is a satanic war against the family. The state wants to impose immoral sex education and to usurp parental rights. The state wants to educate children for the Reign of Antichrist, the Moloch State where vices will be turned into gods and perversion will be celebrated as a sort of ersatz sacrament in the unholy church of the Man of Sin.

Will the Vatican, under Francis, speak out?

Francis?

Francis: First among the False Brethren

AKA Catholic notes:

"A message from Francis that was delivered to a regional World Meeting of Popular Movements that took place in the United States from February 16-19 is causing a stir among conservatives; both Catholic and political.

The reasons are twofold.

First, Francis insisted that “Muslim terrorism does not exist.”

“There are fundamentalist and violent individuals in all peoples and religions,” he continued; as if suicide bombers are just as likely to shout Laudetur Iesus Christus or Avinu Malkeinu (Hebrew for “Our Father, Our King) as Allahu Akbar.

On the other hand, Francis said, “the ecological crisis is real,” with the latter being described more specifically as “a disturbing warming of the climatic system.”

At a time when godless social engineers are using the Trump Administration’s stance on global warming and immigration as fuel for igniting civil unrest among America’s unchurched, uneducated and unhinged, Francis cast his lot with the activists:

I know that you have committed yourselves to fight for social justice, to defend our Sister Mother Earth and to stand alongside migrants. I want to reaffirm your choice…

This, of course, is just more of the same from the author of Evangelii Gaudium and Laudato Si’ – so-called “official papal texts” that contain similarly ludicrous statements on the topics of Islam and ecology.

While it is right for Catholics to be outraged by this latest bit of leftist screed emanating from Rome, few it seems have taken notice of the most offensive part of Francis’ message; much less the unavoidable conclusion to which it leads.

In his message to the World Meeting of Popular Movements (WMPM), which is described on its website as “an initiative of Pope Francis working to address the economy of exclusion and inequality,” said “Pope” encouraged attendees not to be “paralyzed by fear nor shackled within the conflict.”

Precisely what “conflict” does Francis have in mind?

It’s the almighty “class struggle” – the same that forms the centerpiece of Marxist ideology."

Of course.

Writing for National Review, Ion Mihai Pacepa explains that, "Liberation theology, of which not much has been heard for two decades, is back in the news. But what is not being mentioned is its origins. It was not invented by Latin American Catholics. It was developed by the KGB. The man who is now the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, secretly worked for the KGB under the code name “Mikhailov” and spent four decades promoting liberation theology, which we at the top of the Eastern European intelligence community nicknamed Christianized Marxism."  See here.

Rita Biesemans, in a comment left at one post at this Blog dealing with masonic infiltration of the Catholic Church, had this to say: "When I was in 2nd year High School Latin-Greek Humanities in a nun-run boarding school in the 1950's, we had the 'Spekpater' (the "Bacon Priest") preaching during one of our yearly retreat weeks. One day he told us : 'For know that there are priests being trained and formed at the KRIM (Russia) to infiltrate the Church, to spread false teachings in order to corrupt and ruin the Church.' This made such an impact and impression on my soul that I will never forget it."

Anatoliy Golitsyn, the former KGB officer and counterintelligence agent, in his book entitled "The Perestroika Deception," warned that: "They [the Soviets] intend...to induce the Americans to adopt their own 'restructuring' and convergence of the Soviet and American systems using to this end the fear of nuclear conflict...Convergence will be accompanied by blood baths and political re-education camps in Western Europe and the United States. The Soviet Strategists are counting on an economic depression in the United States and intend to introduce their reformed model of socialism with a human face as an alternative to the American system during the depression." (Anatoliy Golitsyn, The Perestroika Deception, 1990).


Golitsyn defected to the West and spent many years attempting to warn the West of long-range Soviet plans.  In 1954, H. Rowan Gaither, who served as President of the Ford Foundation, told Norman Dodd of the Congressional Reese Commission that, "...all of us here at the policy-making level have had experience with directives...from the White House....The substance of them is that we shall use our grant-making power so as to alter our life in the United States that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union."

Now, some of you might be thinking: What is the connection?  There is a fundamental opposition of Communist principles to those of Freemasonry.  The Freemason believes in man but the Communist believes only in the Party, in the State.

Not so according to the Vatican.  Pope Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Letter Humanum Genus, teaches that:

"In the sphere of politics, the Naturalists lay down that all men have the same rights and that all are equal and alike in every respect; that everyone is by nature free and independent; that no one has the right to exercise authority over another; that it is an act of violence to demand of men obedience to any authority not emanating from themselves.  All power is, therefore, in the free people.  Those who exercise authority do so either by the mandate or permission of the people, so that, when the popular will changes, rulers of State may lawfully be deposed even against their will.  The source of all rights and civic duties is held to reside either in the multitude or in the ruling power of the State, provided that it has been constituted according to the new principles.  They hold also that the State should not acknowledge God and that, out of the various forms of religion, there is no reason why one should be preferred to another.  According to them, all should be on the same level. [This is why the Creed will eventually have to go, see my last post]."

Pope Leo XIII continues:

"Now, that these views are held by the Freemasons also, and that they want to set up States constituted according to this ideal, is too well known to be in need of proof.   For a long time they have been openly striving with all their strength and with all the resources at their command to bring this about.  They thus prepare the way for those numerous and more reckless spirits who, in their mad desire to arrive at equality and common ownership of goods, are ready to hurl society into an even worse condition, by the destruction of all distinctions of rank and property....In thi mad and wicked design, the implacable hatred and thirst for vengeance with which Satan is animated against Our Lord Jesus Christ becomes almost visible to our bodily eyes."

Later on, in the same Encyclical Letter, Pope Leo XIII adds:

"From the anti-social character of the errors we have mentioned, it is clear that the greatest dangers are to be feared for States.  For once the fear of God and the reverence due to His laws have been taken away, the authority of rulers treated with contempt, free reign and approval given to sedition, popular passions recklessly fanned, and all restraining influences eliminated except the fear of punishment, then there will necessarily follow a revolutionary upheaval and a period of wholesale destruction of existing institutions...A complete change and upheaval of this kind is being carefully prepared by numerous associations of Communists and Socialists, in fact, it is their openly avowed aim; and Freemasonry is not only not opposed to their plans, but looks upon them with the greatest favour, as its leading principles are identical with theirs.  If the Freemasons do not immediately and everywhere proceed to realise the ultimate conclusions contained in these principles, this is not because they are restrained by the discipline of the organization or by lack of determination, but partly on account of the power and virtue of that divine religion which cannot be crushed out of existence, and partly because the more balanced part of mankind are unwilling to sink into slavery under the domination of secret societies, and offer vigorous resistance to their insane endeavours."

This is why ecclesiastical masonry has infiltrated the Church.  The Church cannot be destroyed from without.  External persecution only serves to make her stronger.  The blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church as Tertullian reminded us.  Ecclesiastical masonry is Freemasonry which has infiltrated the Church with the goal of subverting her from within by questioning all traditional doctrines and remaking the Church into the image and likeness of man.

It was Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski who warned, back in June of 1963, that "It is not the Communists whom we fear.  What fills us with anguish is the spectacle of false brethren."  Here the great Cardinal was warning of those modern-day Judases who, instead of openly attacking the Church, seek to infiltrate and penetrate her in order to introduce and impose humanitarian, naturalistic and anti-traditional ideas.

Enter the Masonic "Pope."

Boston Mayor Marty Walsh et al: Hypocrites

Following the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis, during which the US embassy in Tehran was stormed and 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days, President Jimmy Carter (a Democrat) severed diplomatic relations with and imposed sanctions on Iran. He also banned Iranians from entering the country.

Liberal hypocrites like Boston Mayor Marty Walsh conveniently ignore this fact as they attack Donald Trump for doing the same thing.

Walsh, who can hardly be accused of having a sound mind, asserted that President Donald Trump’s executive orders banning immigration from seven majority Muslims countries will “wreak havoc on urban economies and communities.”  he added, “I will do everything lawful within my power to protect our immigrant neighbors, documented or not. If necessary, I will use City Hall itself to shelter and protect them from persecution."

Persecution?

The first duty of government is to protect the citizenry.

Was Jimmy Carter persecuting Iranians?

U.S. Code:

Obama lied, the 400 million to Iran was a ransom

The New York Post observes:


"The State Department admitted Thursday that the US would not hand over $400 million in cash to Iran until it released four American hostages — two weeks after President Obama insisted the payment was not a “ransom.”

State Department spokesman John Kirby was asked at Thursday’s press briefing: “In basic English, you’re saying you wouldn’t give them $400 million in cash until the prisoners were released, correct?”

“That’s correct,” Kirby replied.

In an Aug. 4 press conference, President Obama said the opposite.

“We do not pay ransom. We didn’t here, and we won’t in the future,” the president told reporters, speaking of the Jan. 17 payment and hostage release."

Obama is not only a liar but a poor student of history.  As noted here:

"A train carrying Jews from communist Russia en route to Israel via Vienna was hijacked by two Arab terrorists at a railway crossing on the Austrian frontier. Seven Jews were taken hostage, among them a 73 year-old man, an ailing woman, and a three-year old child. The terrorists issued an ultimatum that unless the Austrian government instantly closed down Schoenau, the Jewish Agency's layover near Vienna where the émigrés were processed before being flown on to Israel, not only would the hostages be killed, but Austria itself would become the target of violent retaliation.
The Austrian cabinet hastily met and, led by Chancellor Bruno Kreisky, capitulated. Kreisky announced that Schoenau would be closed forthwith, and the terrorists were hustled to the airport for safe passage to Libya.
The entire Arab world could hardly contain its glee...


Holds Meir said to Chancellor Kreisky:

"There can be no deals with terrorism whatever the circumstances. What you have done is certain to encourage more hostage taking. You have betrayed the Jewish émigrés."

Likewise, Obama has betrayed the West.  Terrorists, and those States which sponsor terrorism (like Iran) will now be encouraged to take even more hostages.

We can expect Hillary to continue Obama's failed policies.

The New Paganism is becoming Satanism...

In his work entitled Essays of a Catholic, Hilaire Belloc predicted that, "when the gods of the New Paganism come they will not be merely insufficient, as were the gods of Greece, nor merely false; they will be evil.  One might put it in a sentence, and say that the New Paganism, foolishly expecting satisfaction, will fall, before it knows where it is, into Satanism."

Having succumbed to this New Paganism, many within the Church (priests, religious and laity) have come to resemble the demons they now serve.

Our Lady of Fatima speaks of repentance and conversion, two ideas not at all popular in the "modern Church" today.  Today the psychotherapeutic revolution has replaced the concept of sin with guilt which is to be "cured" through therapy.  Archbishop Fulton Sheen noted that, "Under traditional Christianity [which is fast-disappearing], a man was a theological creature, an adopted son of God and a member of the Mystical Body of Christ; in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries man became a philosophical thing bound to God by some vague ties of creaturehood.  But man today is only a biological phenomenon with no other destiny than that of the worm he crushes under his heel.  Once man loses hold on the primary dogma that man has a moral end, and that his actions, thoughts and words in this life are all registered in the Book of Life, and therefore will one day determine his eternal destiny, sin becomes meaningless.  The modern mind has forgotten the dogma of man, and hence cannot avoid forgetting the morals of man, for one is the corollary of the other.  Deny that God is interested in the behavior of men and you immediately create a society in which man is uninterested in the behavior of his fellow man." (Essay entitled The Sense of Sin).

Today, in centers of learning, Holy Scripture is openly mocked.  Many of our priests and religious have lost their faith and, with a false show of scholarship, openly repudiate God's Holy Word and the Church's Tradition.  Others simply remain silent having succumbed to sins which they can no longer denounce since they practice them in secret.  Having reduced the Gospel message to mere superstition, these children of the Devil are robbing countless youth who need to be nourished "not by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."  As a result, these poor youth are spiritually starved to death by the lies which proceed from the mouths of Satan's children.  Small wonder so many youth have abandoned the Faith altogether.  

Our Lord denounced the religious leaders of the Jews for doing the same thing - refusing to accept the truth and falsifying His message:

"You are of your father the devil and your will is to do your father's desires.  He was a murderer from the beginning and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him.  When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies...He who is of God hears the words of God.  The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God." (John 8: 34-37).

Do not wait for the call to repentance to come from the clergy (generally speaking).  For many, not all but many, of these no longer hear the Word of God.  Place yourselves in the hands of the Immaculate Mother of God - your Mother.  For the Days of Noah have returned - Matthew 24: 37-41.

Many will scoff at this notion.  But look around you.  What do you see?  Sodomy is being rationalized and even sodomite "marriage."  Abortion continues to take countless millions of innocent children, sacrificed to Moloch.  Contraception is justified and is given to the youth. Crime, terrorism, wars breaking out everywhere.  Not a Civilization of Love but a hellish Civilization of Sin and hatred of God.

God's wrath is approaching.  Those who have ears to hear will heed the Spirit and the emerging Signs of the Times.  Those destined to an eternity in Hell will continue to justify sin and a culture which embraces it.

Related reading here.

Message for World Youth Day: Violence is never the answer, we can do nothing else but love, love, love...

As noted here, "Msgr. Olivier Ribadeau Dumas, secretary general of the French Bishops Conference, told reporters in Krakow..that the atrocity (a priest having been martyred by having his head cut off) was 'an unbelievable, unspeakable and heinous act.'


But he added that it means World Youth Day 'needs to proceed with even greater intensity and power so young people who are the present and the future can show a path for the Church, and for being within the Church.'

'We need to see a horizon of peace, joy, brotherhood and prayer,' he continued. 'We are rooted in Christ and, I repeat, we believe evil and violence will not have the upper hand.'

Noting that many young people from Rouen are in Krakow for WYD, he said they have come 'to build a new civilization of love that Pope St. John Paul II had called for — we want to build it and that’s why we’re gathered here in such big numbers.'

He stressed that 'anger and revenge would be the easiest ways out but all of this can crush us' and called for mercy on the perpetrators, saying that we all 'live thanks to Jesus and we’re all gathered here because of the mercy he has lavished on us all.' Neither violence nor hate 'are a way out', he said, and one 'cannot surrender to these sentiments,' nor to 'suspicion of neighbors.'

He also recalled that in every part of the world today people are 'killed because they’re Christians or Muslims, more Muslims than Christians.' Asked by the Register if what is really needed is for Muslims to hear the Gospel and convert, he said 'sure', but added that what is important now is dialogue, collaboration and fraternity.

'The answer is only love,' he said. 'We cannot do anything else: love, love, love, dialogue, dialogue and also mercy for all those who are totally destroyed by the violence.'"

Msgr. Ribadeau has forgotten that it is possible to "be angry and sin not" (Ephesians 4: 26), and he is not alone.

Writing for Touchstone Magazine, Dr. Leon J. Podles explains that, "..many Christians have a false understanding of the nature and role of anger. It is seen as something negative, something that a Christian should not feel.

In the sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church, those who dealt with the bishops have consistently remarked that the bishops never expressed outrage or righteous anger, even at the most horrendous cases of abuse and sacrilege. Bishops seem to think that anger at sin is un-Christian. Gilbert Kilman, a child psychiatrist, commented, 'What amazes me is the lack of outrage the church feels when its good work is being harmed. So, if there is anything the church needs to know, it needs to know how to be outraged.'

Mark Serrano confronted Bishop Frank Rodimer, asking why he had let his priest-friend Peter Osinski sleep with boys at Rodimer’s beach house while Rodimer was in the next bedroom: 'Where is your moral indignation?' Rodimer’s answer was, 'Then I don’t get it. What do you want?' What Serrano wanted Rodimer to do was to behave like a man with a heart, a heart that is outraged by evil. But Rodimer couldn’t; his inability to feel outrage was a quality that had helped make him a bishop. He would never get into fights, never rock the boat, never 'divide' but only 'unify.' Rodimer could not understand why he should feel deep anger at evil, at the violation of the innocent, at the oppression of the weak.

Emotional Deformation

The emotions that are now suppressed are hatred and anger. Christians think that they ought not to feel these emotions, that it is un-Christian to feel them. They secretly suspect that Jesus was being un-Christian in his attitude to the scribes and Pharisees when he was angry at them, that he was un-Christian when he drove the moneychangers out of the temple or declared that millstones (not vacations in treatment centers) were the way to treat child abusers.

Conrad Baars noticed this emotional deformation in the clergy in the mid-twentieth century. He recognized that there had been distortions in 'traditional' Catholic spirituality. It had become too focused upon individual acts rather than on growth in virtue; it had emphasized sheer naked strength of will. In forgetting that growth in virtue was the goal of the Christian’s moral life, it forgot that the emotions, all emotions, including anger and hate, are part of human nature and must be integrated into a virtuous life.

Baars had been imprisoned by the Nazis. He knew iniquity firsthand and that there was something wrong with those who did not hate it:

A little reflection will make it clear that there is a big difference between the person who knows solely that something is evil and ought to be opposed, and the one who in addition also feels hate for that evil, is angry that it is corrupting or harming his fellow-men, and feels aroused to combat it courageously and vigorously.

Just Wrath

Wrath is a necessary and positive part of human nature: 'Wrath is the strength to attack the repugnant; the power of anger is actually the power of resistance in the soul,' wrote Josef Pieper. The lack of wrath against injustice, he continued, is a deficiency: 'One who does good with passion is more praiseworthy than one who is ‘not entirely’ afire for the good, even to the forces of the sensual realm.'

Aquinas, too, says that 'lack of the passion of anger is also a vice' because a man who truly and forcefully rejects evil will be angry at it. The lack of anger makes the movement of the will against evil 'lacking or weak.' He quotes John Chrysostom: 'He who is not angry, whereas he has cause to be, sins. For unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices, it fosters negligence, and incites not only the wicked but the good to do wrong'..." 

The spiritually mature Christian understands that not all anger is unjust. That there is such a thing as just or righteous anger. Such a Christian strives to control anger through prayer and by considering the example of Christ. Let's all pray for those in leadership positions in the Church. That they may come to a mature faith which is able to discern between just and unjust anger.

The time has come for a Crusade against the satanic forces of radical Islam.  Now is not the time for cowardice or a deformed spirituality. Now is the time for real men to stand up and fight for Christian civilization (what's left of it).

We don't need the "moral" advice of sissy clerics who lack testosterone.  We need to listen to authentic men who understand that there is a time for peace and a time for war and that war has been declared on us by the antiChrist forces of militant Islam.

In the words of Cicero: "Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war."

• 

Catholic priest beheaded but it's okay, Obama says the world has never been less violent

President Barack Obama just said, at the White House Summit on Global Development last Wednesday, that “we are living in the most peaceful” era in human history and that “the world has never been less violent.”

Since this asinine statement, there have been several more Islamic terror attacks.  Two Islamic knife-wielding terrorists have just beheaded an 86 year old Catholic priest in France.  See here.

None of this will produce the slightest crack in Mr. Obama's wall of conviction. This because he is a fanatic.  And the fanatic is incapable of seeing the truth.

It was the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel, a man whose thought so greatly influenced my own, who said that, "Fanaticism is essentially opinion; opinion pushed to paroxysm; with everything that the notion of opinion may imply of blinded ignorance as to its own nature...whatever ends the fanatic is aiming at or thinks he is aiming at, even if he wishes to gather men together, he can only in fact separate them; but as his own interests cannot lie in effecting this separation, his is led...to wish to wipe his opponents out. And when he is thinking of these opponents, he takes care to form the most degrading images of them possible - they are 'lubricious vipers' or 'hyenas and jackals with typewriters' - and the ones that reduce them to most grossly material terms. In fact, he no longer thinks of these opponents except as material obstacles to be overturned or smashed down. Having abandoned the behaviour of a thinking being, he has lost even the feeblest notion of what a thinking being, outside himself, could be. It is understandable therefore that he should make very effort to deny in advance the rights and qualifications of those whom he wishes to eliminate; and that he should regard all means to this end as fair. We are back here again at the techniques of degradation...fanaticism is, of its very nature, incompatible with any regard for truth; and as truth itself is not really seperable from our regard for it, we need not hesitate to say that the fanatic is the enemy of truth..." (Man Against Mass Society, pp. 149-150).

Hillary Clinton shares Obama's fanaticism and his delusion that the world has never been safer.  We see this delusion in certain corners within the Church.  For example, Bishop Robert McManus has asserted that, "the Catholic Church has engaged herself in inter-religious dialogue with Muslims. This dialogue has produced a harvest of mutual respect, understanding and cooperation throughout the world..."

A harvest of mutual respect?

Pray for those who are so blinded by ideology that they can no longer see reality.

Obama defends the terrorists...

World Net Daily is reporting:

Barack Obama is being blasted for comments on why he avoids using terms such as “radical Islamic terrorism,” with one prominent voice saying the president sounds like a defense lawyer for the attackers.

“There’s no magic to the phrase ‘radical Islam,'” the president said Tuesday during remarks at the Treasury Department. “It’s a political talking point, not a strategy.”

He continued: “What exactly would using this language accomplish? What exactly would it change?”

“Would it make ISIL (ISIS) less committed to try and kill Americans?”

“Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above,” he said. “Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.”

In response, top-rated radio host Rush Limbaugh said, “It sounds to me like it’s the way defense lawyers talk. You know, when there’s a suspect, you got a defense lawyer saying, ‘Well, there’s no conclusive evidence here. We’re still looking for a motive. We haven’t found the right motive.’ Obama comes out after every one of these things, every one of these events, and Obama ends up sounding like defense lawyers speak on behalf of their clients. He doesn’t reflect the national mood about these things. It’s not even close.”

“As far as he’s concerned, they’re just a bunch of ‘militants’ that got hold of some guns, as in Fast and Furious,” Limbaugh added.

“In his world, there’s nothing that sets these people apart from any other band of bad guys or criminals. And that’s how he talks about them, and that’s what makes me suspicious. There’s clearly a difference. These people announce their intentions, they announce their objectives, and then they go fulfill them.”

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton share this in common: both live in a fantasy world where Islam is a religion of peace and good will and acts of terrorism are the result of internet propaganda and a gun culture rather than the hate-filled venom found in the Qu'ran or Islamic fundamentalism.

 

 

 

As I noted in a previous post, in his book entitled Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions, Pope Benedict XVI makes a few observations which some Catholics would apparently find problematic. The Holy Father writes, "To what extent the new surge forward of the Islamic world is fuelled by truly religious forces is..open to question. In many places, as we can see, there is the danger of a pathological development of the autonomy of feeling.." (p. 104).



On page 204 of the same book, Pope Benedict XVI writes, "...even with Islam, with all the greatness it represents, is always in danger of losing balance, letting violence have a place and letting religion slide away into mere outward observance and ritualism."

Lee Harris, in his important book entitled The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam's Threat to the West, notes how Islam's fanatical intolerance isn't limited to the Taliban or groups which openly call for Jihad. He writes, "Another example of the persistence of the fanatical intolerance of Muslims came to the world's attention in the same year as the cartoon riots. A Muslim in Afghanistan had converted to Christianity - the same Afghanistan that the United States had liberated from the fanaticism of the Taliban. But fanatical intolerance in Afghanistan clearly did not require an organization like the Taliban to keep it alive. Here again, it sprang up quite spontaneously from the religious and learned mullahs and from the bulk of the people. Islamic law demands that an apostate from Islam should be executed, and there were cries for blood that again took the form of riots and outrageous pronouncements from Muslim clerics, one of whom urged that the apostate be torn limb from limb by the people themselves. Fortunately, due to pressure from the West, the man was flown out of Afghanistan to sanctuary in Italy." (p. 210).

Hilaire Belloc wrote in The Great Heresies, "Mohammedanism...began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine. It vitality and endurance soon gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary with its rise saw it for what it was not a denial, but an adaptation and a misuse, of the Christian thing. It differed from most (not from all) heresies in this, that it did not arise within the bounds of the Christian Church. The chief heresiarch, Mohammed himself, was not, like most heresiarchs, a man of Catholic birth and doctrine to begin with. He sprang from pagans. But that which he taught was in the main Catholic doctrine, oversimplified. It was the great Catholic world on the frontiers of which he lived, whose influence was all around him and whose territories he had known by travel_which inspired his convictions. He came of, and mixed with, the degraded idolaters of the Arabian wilderness, the conquest of which had never seemed worth the Romans' while.

He took over very few of those old pagan ideas which might have been native to him from his descent. On the contrary, he preached and insisted upon a whole group of ideas which were peculiar to the Catholic Church and distinguished it from the paganism which it had conquered in the Greek and Roman civilization. Thus the very foundation of his teaching was that prime Catholic doctrine, the unity and omnipotence of God. The attributes of God he also took over in the main from Catholic doctrine: the personal nature, the all-goodness, the timelessness, the providence of God, His creative power as the origin of all things, and His sustenance of
all things by His power alone. The world of good spirits and angels and of evil spirits in rebellion against God was a part of the teaching, with a chief evil spirit, such as Christendom had recognized. Mohammed preached with insistence that prime Catholic doctrine, on the human side the immortality of the soul and its responsibility for actions in this life, coupled with the consequent doctrine of punishment and reward after death.

If anyone sets down those points that orthodox Catholicism has in common with Mohammedanism, and those points only, one might imagine if one went no further that there should have been no cause of quarrel. Mohammed would almost seem in this aspect to be a sort of missionary, preaching and spreading by the energy of his character the chief and fundamental doctrines of the Catholic Church among those who had hitherto been degraded pagans of the Desert. He gave to Our Lord the highest reverence, and to Our Lady also, for that matter. On the day of judgment (another Catholic idea which he taught) it was Our Lord, according to Mohammed, who would be the judge of mankind, not he, Mohammed. The Mother of Christ, Our Lady, "the Lady Miriam" was ever for him the first of womankind. His followers even got from the early fathers some vague hint of her Immaculate Conception.

But the central point where this new heresy struck home with a mortal blow against Catholic tradition was a full denial of the Incarnation. Mohammed did not merely take the first steps toward that denial, as the Arians and their followers had done; he advanced a clear affirmation, full and complete, against the whole doctrine of an incarnate God. He taught that Our Lord was the greatest of all the prophets, but still only a prophet: a man like other men. He eliminated the Trinity altogether.

With that denial of the Incarnation went the whole sacramental structure. He refused to know anything of the Eucharist, with its Real Presence; he stopped the sacrifice of the Mass, and therefore the institution of a special priesthood. In other words, he, like so many
other lesser heresiarchs, founded his heresy on simplification.

Catholic doctrine was true (he seemed to say), but it had become encumbered with false accretions; it had become complicated by needless man-made additions, including the idea that its founder was Divine, and the growth of a parasitical caste of priests who battened on a late, imagined, system of Sacraments which they alone could administer. All those corrupt accretions must be swept away.

There is thus a very great deal in common between the enthusiasm with which Mohammed's teaching attacked the priesthood, the Mass and the sacraments, and the enthusiasm with which Calvinism, the central motive force of the Reformation, did the same. As we all know, the new teaching relaxed the marriage laws but in practice this did not affect the mass of his followers who still remained monogamous. It made divorce as easy as possible, for the sacramental idea of marriage disappeared. It insisted upon the equality of men, and it necessarily had that further factor in which it resembled Calvinism the sense of predestination, the sense of fate; of what the followers of John Knox were always calling 'the immutable decrees of God.' Mohammed's teaching never developed among the mass of his followers, or in his own mind, a detailed theology. He was content to accept all that appealed to him in the Catholic scheme and to reject all that seemed to him, and to so many others of his time, too complicated or mysterious to be true."

Islam is useful to those who wish to promote a humanitarian religion in which Christ is regarded merely as a man. The Incarnation must be rejected, the God-Man must be replaced by the man-God. As Archbishop Fulton Sheen warned:
"A common spirit will eventually bind all atheists together to produce the man-god, as there is a common spirit which unites those who live by Christ....The mere denial of God is not emptiness and a negation but the affirmation of man as God. It does not take a gift of prophecy to see that humanity is presently polarizing and that all men are beginning to fall into the ranks of accepting either the man-god or the God-Man." Much of the liberal mainstream media has a real hatred for the Catholic Church and Christianity in general. They view Christianity as no longer fit for "modern man," as a religion which must be purged of its dogmas and made to fit with a new order.

The Holy Spirit teaches us through the Apostle John that, "This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the Antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world." (1 John 4: 2-3).

And that dark spirit is growing daily.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton exemplify this dark spirit.

Archbishop Jozef De Kesel warns against hatred of Islam

Catholic World News is reporting that Archbishop Jozef De Kesel of Mechelen-Brussels, in an interview, "warned of the 'current risk' of 'hatred' of Islam—something, he said, that the terrorists wish to provoke. He called for prayer and for commitment to 'a more fraternal society, with more solidarity, built on respect for the other: these are Gospel values.'"

Solidarity with evil?

We shouldn't hate error?

Archbishop, with all due respect for your office, have you lost your mind?

Our Lord wept over Jerusalem and said, "If only you knew what makes for peace" (Lk 19:42). And now we do know (those of us who Christian in more than name). Only a life lived in conformity with the mind of Christ as shown to us by His Catholic Church can bring true peace. By contrast, "Pride inflates man; envy consumes him; avarice makes him restless; anger rekindles his passions; gluttony makes him ill; comfort destroys him; lies imprison him; murder defiles him...the very pleasures of sin become the instruments of punishment in the hands of God." (Pope Innocent III, On the Misery of the Human Condition).

It is our duty as Catholics to remind others of these truths and to expose those who are promoting sin or error. But often we will find ourselves being criticized (even by other Catholics, whose commitment toward Catholic teaching is, at best, questionable) for doing so. This should never deter us. When such people accuse us of "negativity," we should recall the words of Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand: "..the rejection of evil and of sin is a response which is purely positive and morally called for, and it possesses a high moral value. One cannot truly love God, without hating the devil. One cannot really love the truth, without hating error. One cannot find the truth and grasp it clearly as such, without seeing through errors. Knowledge of truth is inseparably linked with knowledge of error, with the unmasking of error.* All talk about the superiority of 'yes' over 'no,' about the 'negativity' of rejecting that which should be rejected, is so much idle chatter." (The Cult of the 'Positive').

* "I would maintain that fear of error is simply necessary to the genuine love of truth." (John Cardinal Newman, Grammar of Assent).

Fr. Felix Sarda Y Salvany explains in his work "Liberalism is a Sin," that, "..the wolf has always been called the wolf; and in so calling it, no one has ever believed that wrong was done to the flock and the shepherd...In his Introduction to the Devout Life, that precious and popular work, he [St. Francis de Sales, a Doctor of the Church] expresses himself: 'If the declared enemies of God and of the Church ought to be blamed and censured with all possible vigor, charity obliges us to cry wolf when the wolf slips into the midst of the flock and in every way and place we may meet him.'" (pp. 97, 100-101).

Pope John XXIII said essentially the same thing: "...as long as we are journeying in exile over this earth, our peace and happiness will be imperfect. For such peace is not completely untroubled and serene; it is active, not calm and motionless. In short, this is a peace that is ever at war. It wars with every sort of error, including that which falsely wears the face of truth; it struggles against the enticements of vice, against those enemies of the soul, of whatever description, who can weaken, blemish, or destroy our innocence or Catholic faith."

I have often been criticized for speaking the hard truths. For exposing error and for calling it what it is. So be it. I'm not interested in popularity contests or being a friend of the world. Simply put, I choose not to be a coward. I agree with Pope Leo XIII who said, "To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind." ( Sapientiae Christianae, AAS 22 (1889-90) 390, PE, 111.14).

How about you dear reader? Aren't there enough chicken-Catholics in the world?

Meditation: Galatians 1:10

Fruit of Islam: Jews terrified in Paris

Arutz Sheva reports:

"One month after the terrorist attack on the Hyper Cacher supermarket in Paris, journalist Zvika Klein of the NRG Hebrew language news website took a walk across the French capital while wearing tzitzit (fringes) and a kippah.
The walk, during which Klein was and accompanied by a bodyguard and a cameraman, proved to be an intimidating one.

“For 10 hours I quietly walked down the streets and suburbs of Paris, with photographer Dov Belhassen documenting the day using a GoPro camera hidden in his backpack. Given the tensions in Paris, which is still reeling from a wave of terrorist attacks (including the murder of Charlie Hebdo magazine journalists), I was assigned a bodyguard,” recalled Klein.

“At times it was like walking in downtown Ramallah. Most women were wearing a veil or a hijab, most men appeared to be Muslim, and Arabic was prevalent everywhere. We decided ahead of time that I was to walk through these areas quietly, without stopping anywhere, without speaking to anyone, without so much as looking sideways. My heart was pounding and negative thoughts were running through my head. I would be lying if I said I was not afraid,” he continued.

“Walking into a public housing neighborhood, we came across a little boy and his hijab-clad mother, who were clearly shocked to see us. ‘What is he doing here Mommy? Doesn’t he know he will be killed?’ the boy asked.”

Klein recalls walking into a marketplace in one of the mostly Muslim neighborhoods, and one merchant yelled, “Look at him! He should be ashamed of himself. What is he doing walking in here wearing a kippa?!"

“Is this what life is like for Paris' Jews? Is this what a Jew goes through, day in and day out, while walking to work or using public transportation?” wonders Klein. “The majority of French Jews do not flaunt their religion, as the Jewish community leaders have urged them to wear hats as they walk to and from work, or go bareheaded. But what about nighttime? Well, Jews prefers to stay inside in the evening. It is safer at home.”
_________________

Islam, as Hilaire Belloc reminds us, "began as a heresy, not as a new religion.  It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine.  Its vitality and endurance soon gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary with its rise saw it for what it was - not a denial, but an adaptation and a misuse, of the Christian thing." (The Great Heresies, p. 42).

This perversion of Christian doctrine, which denies that Jesus is the Christ and that He died on the cross to atone for our sins, makes the claim that it alone is destined to become the religion of all mankind.  Islam divides the world into two camps: those who are lost and those who are the elect, the Dar al-Harb and the Dar al-Islam respectively.

As one website puts it: "The world is divided into the House of Islam and the House of War, the Dar al-Islam and the Dar al-harb. The Dar al-Islam is all those lands in which a Muslim government rules and the Holy Law of Islam prevails. Non-Muslims may live there on Muslim sufferance. The outside world, which has not yet been subjugated, is called the "House of War," and strictly speaking a perpetual state of jihad, of holy war, is imposed by the law. The law also provided that the jihad might be interrupted by truces as and when appropriate. In fact, the periods of peace and war were not vastly different from those which existed between the Christian states of Europe for most of European history.
The law thus divides unbelievers theologically into those who have a book and profess what Islam recognizes as a divine religion and those who do not; politically into dhimmis, those who have accepted the supremacy of the Muslim state and the primacy of the Muslims, and harbis, the denizens of the Dar al-harb, the House of War, who remain outside the Islamic frontier, and with whom therefore there is in principle, a canonically obligatory perpetual state of war until the whole world is either converted or subjugated."

Bishop Thomas John Paprocki on Islamic violence

While Bishop Robert McManus doesn't understand the inherent dangers posed by Islam, which often leaves room for violence, Bishop Thomas John Paprocki does.  Below is an excellent article from His Excellency:

What we need for real conversation about religion



It was a more innocent day when I ran the Boston Marathon on April 20, 1998. The biggest security issue back then was dealing with the "bandits" who would run the race without qualifying, without registering, and without paying the entrance fee. They would not get a medal at the finish line and their time was not officially counted, but every year a few thousand bandits would sneak in to run the 26.2 mile course from Hopkinton, Mass., into downtown Boston.

Running and training for marathons has also been a diversion for me from the stresses and worries of everyday life. Whether training with friends or running alone with my thoughts or while praying Hail Marys on my finger rosary, the experience of long-distance running would always transport me far away not only physically, but also mentally and spiritually.

All of that was shaken profoundly last month on April 15 with the jihadist bombings at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. Although I officially qualified and ran the Boston Marathon just once, over the years I have run stretches of the course with my friends who live in Boston. I have also watched the Boston Marathon as a spectator several times, most recently two years ago. Thankfully I did not go to Boston this year and my friends who live in Boston were not hurt, but a friend of mine from the Chicago area who was in Boston to watch her daughter run the marathon was not so fortunate. Beth was at the finish line cheering her daughter Becky who had just crossed the finish line when the explosion occurred. Her left knee was fractured by a projectile and she underwent surgery and hospitalization. Two people that were standing in front of her were killed.

The running community is a close-knit group of people, so I feel a personal connection with those who were affected by this tragedy. They are very much in my prayers. Being familiar with the course and the area around the finish line also brought this all too close to home. But that will not deter my commitment to running. If anything, I am strengthened in my resolve not to let terrorists change my lifestyle or my outlook on life. But that does not mean that we should be oblivious to threats or to their causes.

Identifying the threats and their causes, however, has been obfuscated by the curious way that some of the media have been reporting the motives of the alleged bombers. For example, the front page headline in the April 22 issue of The Wall Street Journal, which stated, "Turn to Religion Split Bomb Suspects' Home," mistakenly identified "religion" as the problem that led to the senseless violence at the Boston Marathon. The reporters who wrote the story under the headline got it right when they wrote, "Law-enforcement officials trying to understand what happened in Boston are looking into whether Tamerlan Tsarnaev had taken a turn toward radical Islam." But then the reporters fudged too by writing, "The upheaval in the household was driven, at least in part, by a growing interest in religion by both Tamerlan and his mother." The former attorney general of the United States, Michael Mukasey, got it right in his opinion piece in that same issue of The Wall Street Journal, which was entitled, "Make No Mistake, It Was Jihad."

Generically blaming "religion" for terrorist bombings misunderstands the true nature of religion. Authentic religion binds people together in peace and harmony with each other and their Creator. The problem is not religion, but radical Islamist jihadism. It is highly unlikely that a "growing interest" in Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity or any other major world religion would have resulted in the Boston Marathon bombings. Blaming "religion" appears to offer a non-offensive euphemism for those who do not want to insult Muslims, but doing so has the effect of defaming all religions and provides an easy but mistaken scapegoat for those seeking to justify their secularist views.

Identifying radical Islamist jihadism as the motivation for so much brutal terrorism will undoubtedly bring outcries from those who will complain that this unfairly labels all Muslims, but those energies would be better spent if peaceful Muslims would very vocally disavow the radical Islamist jihadists and publicly denounce their violent version of Islam. Perhaps then we could have a real conversation about how people of all religious faiths could live together peacefully in a pluralistic world.

May God give us this grace. Amen.

Of course, the problem isn't just with "radical Islamist jihadism."  I noted that here.

Dianne Williamson: An expert on lunacy?

Worcester Telegram & Gazette columnist Dianne Williamson, referring to the murder of late-term abortionist Dr. George Tiller, writes, "..it's nothing short of far right-wing terrorism. While anti-abortion [read pro-life] groups were quick to denounce the killing, a quick check of the online comment sections of this newspaper shows that there's no shortage of lunatics in our own backyard." One of the comments she cites: "You live by the sword you die by the sword...How did those babies feel when he did his procedures on them?" But it was Jesus who said to Peter [after Peter cut off the ear of the servant Malchus in the Garden of Gethsemane], "Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword." (Matthew 26: 52). Unborn babies might be killed with a scalpel or a suctioning device and not a sword. But the principle remains the same. This isn't to justify Dr. Tiller's murder. It's only to re-state a spiritual principle which Jesus Himself taught. And as for describing a late-term or partial-birth abortion as a "procedure," such a word is actually inadequate to describe these truly heinous acts. Hardly the stuff of lunacy.

And what are we to make of Ms. Williamson's assertion that Dr. George Tiller's murder is "nothing short of far right-wing terrorism"? The American Heritage dictionary defines terrorism as "The systematic use of terror, violence, and intimidation to achieve an end." Systematic means characterized by purposeful regularity. How long has it been since an abortionist was killed by someone who opposes the murder of the unborn? Ten years. And Wichita Deputy Police Chief Tom Stolz has described the shooting as "an isolated incident" (see here).

Here in Central Massachusetts, we may or may not have "lunatics in our own backyard." But one thing is certain, Dianne Williamson appears to be somewhat of an authority on lunacy. When she's not practicing psychiatry without a license, she's hard at work ignoring reality when it doesn't suit her agenda. Click here for photographs of murdered unborn babies who suffered through late-term abortions at the hands of "health-care providers" such as Dr. George Tiller.