As I write this, we are an hour and a half away from the closing of the first polls of the 2010 election cycle. By all accounts, this election is set to become a major referendum against the Obama administration's aggressive attempts to push America in a socialist direction. While it is largely a rebellion against the administration's fiscal policies, it should not be overlooked that this election should go a long way towards reigning in the administration's equally aggressive attempts to push America further into the clutches of the Culture of Death.
I cannot stress enough just how much socialism and the culture of death dovetail with one another. At its core, socialism (and its logical offshoot, Marxism) is a rejection of Western civilization and its Judeo-Christian underpinnings. That is why organized religion (and its moral precepts) inevitably comes under severe persecution every place where socialists gain power (see the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc.). It is also why Marxism, under the guise of liberation theology, aggressively targets Christians (particularly Catholics) who are ignorant of their faith and undermines the supernatural aspects of revealed truth while focusing only on earthly, sociopolitical concerns (see Cuba, Venezuela, and most of Central America). In order for socialism to succeed, the reality of Jesus Christ as God the Son and bearer of eternal salvation must give way to the illusion of Jesus the hippie political rebel who commands only moral authority, and not tangible power such as that wielded by the state.
Christ tells us: "You will know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:16). St. Paul tells us: "Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God" (2 John 1:9). Socialists who attempt to pass themselves off as faithful Christians will speak loudly about social justice and service to the poor and downtrodden. This is a good and admirable goal, and should be shared by all Christians (understanding that "social justice" goes well beyond the liberal notion of the "common good" - which is an offshoot of Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian notion of "the greatest good for the greatest number" - and must necessarily take into account the sanctity and inviolability of human life, a truth rooted in the reality that we are each precious, unique, and irreplaceable beings lovingly and purposefully created in the image and likeness of God).
However, you will soon see that such individuals never address the supernatural truths of our faith: namely, Jesus Christ's fully human, fully divine nature, and our moral obligation to love Him not as our Redeemer, but in His eternal being as God the Son; our similar obligation to love God the Father and the Holy Spirit above all things and for Their own sake; the reality that we are created for eternal reconciliation with the Father, and must view salvation first and foremost as applying to our immortal souls; the reality of Satan and his demons, and their constant attempts to ruin our souls and deprive us of the greatest gift of all, purchased for us at the cost of the Precious Blood of Christ; and various other truths that are of infinitely greater importance than whether or not a politician supports minimum wage increases and universal healthcare. More to the point, you will never see such individuals seriously attempt to distinguish between their faith and their politics, for they see the two as one and inseparable and refuse to address any conflict - be it political or religious in nature - outside of a strictly political context (hence their chronic inability to label anyone who objects to their agenda - be it on political or religious grounds - as anything other than "right wing extremists" or "extreme right wing operatives").
I have spoken at length about groups like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, and how they attempt to pervert authentic Catholicism in the minds of the faithful in order to promote their Marxist political agenda. I have spoken at length about how politicians who regularly support measures that in the end prove punitive to those who dare express authentically Christian views in public will pay lip service to their own Christian belief during election years (and then often proceed to display their profound ignorance of their professed belief by misquoting and misappropriating Sacred Scripture). And I have addressed how asinine it is to assert that a genuinely Catholic or Christian politician should check his or her beliefs at the door before discharging the duties of their elected office (whereas liberal self-professed "Catholics" and "Christians" are strangely never asked to do this and are even lauded for their "strong religious convictions").
Today, many voters will go to the polls and call BS on this long-running subterfuge. As the results are not yet in, there is no way of knowing at this moment exactly how big the left's losses will be. What I can say is that, regardless of the result, the work is not done for men and women of true faith. We must continue to push back against those who would silence us in the public sphere. We must continue to call out those who attempt to hijack our faith and portray it as some ugly caricature of what it truly is (or, in the case of liberation theologians and their ilk, as some morally minimalist advocacy of Marxist beliefs). Most importantly, we must continue to roll back all of the unchecked attempts to obscure America's Judeo-Christian heritage, apart from which our nation's Constitution simply cannot survive in any recognizable form.
Christ never promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against America. He only made that promise about his Church. But that does not absolve us of our moral obligation to fight back against the gates of hell wherever it seeks to prevail, for wherever it prevails, it will claim unsuspecting souls as the spoils of victory.
The devil knows he's lost the war. He now wages incessant battles to take as many people down with him as he can. We must engage him in each and everyone of those battles, so as to curtail his influence in this world. That includes the political as well as the religious sphere, for wherever the devil gains a lasting foothold politically, the Church militant will suffer. Go out and vote today. Do not vote merely by party affiliation. Vote according to what will be most pleasing to God and most spiteful to the devil. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Thursday, December 24, 2009
The Twelve Days of Obama
It's been a while, I know. There's more to come, but I thought I'd leave this for now for your reading pleasure. I know, I had WAY too much time on my hands when I wrote this :-). Enjoy, and Merry Christmas!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
On the first day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
A fast track to bankruptcy.
On the second day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Two losing war plans
and a fast track to bankruptcy.
On the third day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.
On the fourth day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Four years of lies,
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.
On the fifth day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Five Sheiks in court,
Four years of lies,
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.
On the sixth day of Chrismas Obama gave to me:
Six polls a tanking,
Five Sheiks in court,
Four years of lies,
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.
On the seventh day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Seven tax hikes looming,
Six polls a tanking,
Five Sheiks in court,
Four years of lies,
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.
On the eighth day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Eight trips a billing,
Seven tax hikes looming,
Six polls a tanking,
Five Sheiks in court,
Four years of lies,
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.
On the ninth day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Nine Marxists aiding,
Eight trips a billing,
Seven tax hikes looming,
Six polls a tanking,
Five Sheiks in court,
Four years of lies,
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.
On the tenth day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Ten Commandments scorning,
Nine Marxists aiding,
Eight trips a billing,
Seven tax hikes looming,
Six polls a tanking,
Five Sheiks in court,
Four years of lies,
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.
On the eleventh day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Eleventh Chapter filing,
Ten Commandment scorning,
Nine Marxists aiding,
Eight trips a billing,
Seven tax hikes looming,
Six polls a tanking,
Five Sheiks in court,
Four years of lies,
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.
On the twelfth day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Twelve scandals brewing,
Eleventh Chapter filing,
Ten Commandments scorning,
Nine Marxists aiding,
Eight trips a billing,
Seven tax hikes looming,
Six polls a tanking,
Five Sheiks in court,
Four years of lies,
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
On the first day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
A fast track to bankruptcy.
On the second day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Two losing war plans
and a fast track to bankruptcy.
On the third day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.
On the fourth day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Four years of lies,
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.
On the fifth day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Five Sheiks in court,
Four years of lies,
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.
On the sixth day of Chrismas Obama gave to me:
Six polls a tanking,
Five Sheiks in court,
Four years of lies,
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.
On the seventh day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Seven tax hikes looming,
Six polls a tanking,
Five Sheiks in court,
Four years of lies,
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.
On the eighth day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Eight trips a billing,
Seven tax hikes looming,
Six polls a tanking,
Five Sheiks in court,
Four years of lies,
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.
On the ninth day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Nine Marxists aiding,
Eight trips a billing,
Seven tax hikes looming,
Six polls a tanking,
Five Sheiks in court,
Four years of lies,
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.
On the tenth day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Ten Commandments scorning,
Nine Marxists aiding,
Eight trips a billing,
Seven tax hikes looming,
Six polls a tanking,
Five Sheiks in court,
Four years of lies,
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.
On the eleventh day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Eleventh Chapter filing,
Ten Commandment scorning,
Nine Marxists aiding,
Eight trips a billing,
Seven tax hikes looming,
Six polls a tanking,
Five Sheiks in court,
Four years of lies,
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.
On the twelfth day of Christmas Obama gave to me:
Twelve scandals brewing,
Eleventh Chapter filing,
Ten Commandments scorning,
Nine Marxists aiding,
Eight trips a billing,
Seven tax hikes looming,
Six polls a tanking,
Five Sheiks in court,
Four years of lies,
Three networks fawning,
Two losing war plans,
and a fast track to bankruptcy.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Thoughts On The Passing Of Ted Kennedy
As you are no doubt aware, 77 year-old Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy succumbed to brain cancer today; and as expected, news programs have consisted largely of wall-to-wall coverage paying tribute to his career.
I am going to refrain from speaking ill of the dead - especially on the day of the deceased's passing - and will therefore not delve into the many reasons why I do not agree with all the praise that has been heaped upon the late Senator. The fact is, a human life was lost today, one that, like all other human lives, is unique and irreplaceable. I sincerely lament the many personal tragedies that he endured throughout his life - from seeing all three of his older brothers cut down in the prime of life (the oldest during World War II, the others by way of assassins' bullets) to the tragic deaths of numerous younger members of the family to the many scandals that plagued the Kennedy family - and also offer prayers for the repose of his soul and for the consolation of his family.
Those who have read my blog or spoken with me personally can well imagine my opinion of Ted Kennedy as a person and as a politician. Suffice it to say, I do not think that his political career is one worth celebrating. Throughout his life, Kennedy engaged in personal and political behavior that was a source of tragedy in the lives of others. To those who have been affected in such a way, I can only ask that you also offer prayers for the repose of his soul and the consolation of his family, and recall the value of forgiveness, which is not only a source of spiritual healing, but also (and more importantly) the course of action that is most pleasing to God.
I can only pray that the Senator died in a state of grace, and that by the grace and mercy of God we may one day have the opportunity to meet Senator Kennedy in the eternal Beatific Vision. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
I am going to refrain from speaking ill of the dead - especially on the day of the deceased's passing - and will therefore not delve into the many reasons why I do not agree with all the praise that has been heaped upon the late Senator. The fact is, a human life was lost today, one that, like all other human lives, is unique and irreplaceable. I sincerely lament the many personal tragedies that he endured throughout his life - from seeing all three of his older brothers cut down in the prime of life (the oldest during World War II, the others by way of assassins' bullets) to the tragic deaths of numerous younger members of the family to the many scandals that plagued the Kennedy family - and also offer prayers for the repose of his soul and for the consolation of his family.
Those who have read my blog or spoken with me personally can well imagine my opinion of Ted Kennedy as a person and as a politician. Suffice it to say, I do not think that his political career is one worth celebrating. Throughout his life, Kennedy engaged in personal and political behavior that was a source of tragedy in the lives of others. To those who have been affected in such a way, I can only ask that you also offer prayers for the repose of his soul and the consolation of his family, and recall the value of forgiveness, which is not only a source of spiritual healing, but also (and more importantly) the course of action that is most pleasing to God.
I can only pray that the Senator died in a state of grace, and that by the grace and mercy of God we may one day have the opportunity to meet Senator Kennedy in the eternal Beatific Vision. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Sunday, August 2, 2009
The Battle For Life In Health Care Reform: Catholics United Vs. Family Research Council
Link, courtesy of Catholic.org (Catholic Online).
A snippet of the above-linked article:
Chris Korzen, the Executive Director of “Catholics United” lambasted an Ad currently being aired by the "Family Research Council’s" Action arm. He accused the predominantly evangelical Pro-Life and Pro-Family group of “using abortion scare tactics to turn pro-life voters against health reform.” He added that “If the Family Research Council was truly committed to human life it would focus its efforts on ensuring that the tens of millions of Americans who currently lack heath insurance can get the care they need. This attack ad is unhelpful, untruthful, and not at all pro-life.”
Tom McClusky, a Catholic and the Senior Vice President for “FRC Action” would have none of it. He told the Catholic News Agency that “Catholics United” was either deceived or participating in deception on this critical issue, “On the issue of where in the health care legislation is abortion, Family Research Council Action agrees with Cardinal Justin Rigali, Chairman of the Pro-life Office of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops,” He cited the letter dated July 29th, 2009, from Justin Cardinal Rigali which insisted that “much needed reform must not become a vehicle for promoting an ‘abortion rights’ agenda or reversing longstanding current policies against federal abortion mandates and funding.”
There is no doubt in my mind, at least, that Catholics United is participating in the deception willingly. Their entire existence has been dedicated to deceiving faithful Catholics into supporting a decidedly un-Catholic political agenda, and to silencing those who dare to call attention to their willful deception. Ladies and gentlemen, I cannot stress this enough: Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good/Catholics United is little more than an outgrowth of the same tired movement of extreme left-wing apostasy that has plagued the Catholic Church for the last four decades, attempting to turn people away from the truth while acting under the guise of faithful Catholicism (the very definition of which they and their relativistic ideological comrades have long worked to obscure). In that sense, there is nothing truly special about them. However, they have warranted more attention of late because of their close ties to the Obama administration - four of their members now work either in Congress or within the administration itself - and the fact that their Marxist message reaches wider audiences courtesy of funding from left-wing zealots like George Soros.
Make no mistake: Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, the so-called "Catholics for Choice," and other agents of the culture of death have endorsed this health care bill. Bear in mind that these groups exist solely to keep abortion legal and to expand the scope of its practice. You can bet that neither they nor any other avowed enemy of the pro-life movement - such as the aforementioned Catholics United - will ever support a political initiative that fails to do exactly that. Continue to contact your Senators and Representative, and make sure they know of the moral opposition to this legislative atrocity. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
A snippet of the above-linked article:
Chris Korzen, the Executive Director of “Catholics United” lambasted an Ad currently being aired by the "Family Research Council’s" Action arm. He accused the predominantly evangelical Pro-Life and Pro-Family group of “using abortion scare tactics to turn pro-life voters against health reform.” He added that “If the Family Research Council was truly committed to human life it would focus its efforts on ensuring that the tens of millions of Americans who currently lack heath insurance can get the care they need. This attack ad is unhelpful, untruthful, and not at all pro-life.”
Tom McClusky, a Catholic and the Senior Vice President for “FRC Action” would have none of it. He told the Catholic News Agency that “Catholics United” was either deceived or participating in deception on this critical issue, “On the issue of where in the health care legislation is abortion, Family Research Council Action agrees with Cardinal Justin Rigali, Chairman of the Pro-life Office of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops,” He cited the letter dated July 29th, 2009, from Justin Cardinal Rigali which insisted that “much needed reform must not become a vehicle for promoting an ‘abortion rights’ agenda or reversing longstanding current policies against federal abortion mandates and funding.”
There is no doubt in my mind, at least, that Catholics United is participating in the deception willingly. Their entire existence has been dedicated to deceiving faithful Catholics into supporting a decidedly un-Catholic political agenda, and to silencing those who dare to call attention to their willful deception. Ladies and gentlemen, I cannot stress this enough: Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good/Catholics United is little more than an outgrowth of the same tired movement of extreme left-wing apostasy that has plagued the Catholic Church for the last four decades, attempting to turn people away from the truth while acting under the guise of faithful Catholicism (the very definition of which they and their relativistic ideological comrades have long worked to obscure). In that sense, there is nothing truly special about them. However, they have warranted more attention of late because of their close ties to the Obama administration - four of their members now work either in Congress or within the administration itself - and the fact that their Marxist message reaches wider audiences courtesy of funding from left-wing zealots like George Soros.
Make no mistake: Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, the so-called "Catholics for Choice," and other agents of the culture of death have endorsed this health care bill. Bear in mind that these groups exist solely to keep abortion legal and to expand the scope of its practice. You can bet that neither they nor any other avowed enemy of the pro-life movement - such as the aforementioned Catholics United - will ever support a political initiative that fails to do exactly that. Continue to contact your Senators and Representative, and make sure they know of the moral opposition to this legislative atrocity. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Once Again: This, Ladies And Gentlemen, Is Who Represents My Home District - Now With Subtitles!
I posted this once before, but I believe the subtitles make the point more vividly. A few reminders are in order:
- This is not a guest speaker. This is the duly-elected United States Representative of what is arguably the most heavily gerrymandered district in the country. Her votes actually make a difference when it comes to determining the extent of government intervention in health care and private industry. Not surprisingly, she is squarely in the Obama camp on virtually every issue.
- She has both a bachelor's and master's degree from Florida A&M University, a specialty certificate from the University of Florida (which does not technically make her a UF alum, but that does not stop her from making that claim), and was on the faculty at Edward Waters College in Jacksonville. Keep that in mind when you watch the video and see the extent of her grasp of the English language.
- The woman loves to claim the moral high ground when she takes a public stance on any issue, especially with regards to matters of race and alleged Republican voter fraud (though she is certainly not above being racially insensitive towards others, and has remained conspicuously silent regarding the many lawsuits filed against former Obama employer ACORN for voter fraud in at least 13 states). Despite her frequent and embarrassing displays of righteous indignation, she has been investigated by the House Ethics Committee enough times to make John Gotti blush. More information is available here and here.
That's enough to establish a consistent pattern of embarrassing behavior for the time being. Now on to the main event, an encore performance of her speech "gradulating" the "Florida Gatas" for their "gusty" play and their "BS-BCS" title in football. Now enhanced with subtitles. If you are in a silly mood, enjoy! If you are not, have some Ibuprofen ready. This is going to be painful to watch!
- This is not a guest speaker. This is the duly-elected United States Representative of what is arguably the most heavily gerrymandered district in the country. Her votes actually make a difference when it comes to determining the extent of government intervention in health care and private industry. Not surprisingly, she is squarely in the Obama camp on virtually every issue.
- She has both a bachelor's and master's degree from Florida A&M University, a specialty certificate from the University of Florida (which does not technically make her a UF alum, but that does not stop her from making that claim), and was on the faculty at Edward Waters College in Jacksonville. Keep that in mind when you watch the video and see the extent of her grasp of the English language.
- The woman loves to claim the moral high ground when she takes a public stance on any issue, especially with regards to matters of race and alleged Republican voter fraud (though she is certainly not above being racially insensitive towards others, and has remained conspicuously silent regarding the many lawsuits filed against former Obama employer ACORN for voter fraud in at least 13 states). Despite her frequent and embarrassing displays of righteous indignation, she has been investigated by the House Ethics Committee enough times to make John Gotti blush. More information is available here and here.
That's enough to establish a consistent pattern of embarrassing behavior for the time being. Now on to the main event, an encore performance of her speech "gradulating" the "Florida Gatas" for their "gusty" play and their "BS-BCS" title in football. Now enhanced with subtitles. If you are in a silly mood, enjoy! If you are not, have some Ibuprofen ready. This is going to be painful to watch!
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Danville, VA TEA Party Leader Asks Attorney General To Investigate Use Of State Police And County Sheriff's Deputies To Harass Perriello Critics
Link
The Perriello described above is Tom Perriello, the recently-elected Democrat U.S. Congressman from Virginia's 5th Congressional District and a very ardent supporter of Obama and his health care plan (which now includes key provisions of the pro-abortion Freedom of Choice Act). The above link details the extent of the intimidation tactics Danville TEA Party leaders suspect Perriello of having engaged in, prompting the query to the state Attorney General's office.
Support for the Democrats' socialized health care plan is beginning to drop like a lead weight, and Obama and the Democrat Congressional leadership are desperate to ram the bill through Congress - with minimal scrutiny - before that support evaporates altogether. Whether or not this desperation entails using local law enforcement to intimidate vocal opponents of Obamacare is, in my humble opinion, a matter worth investigating. It is certainly more worthy of investigation than the accusations of ethics violations leveled at soon-to-be former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (who has been cleared of 19 such accusations so far with no shred of evidence of wrongdoing uncovered to date; and she now stands to be acquitted of a 20th impending charge, which like the nineteen before it is being investigated well, well beyond reasonable doubt at taxpayer expense).
This case drew my attention for another reason. Tom Perriello is a long-time "Catholic" dissident agitator, and yet another of the driving forces behind the twin-headed apostate entity/leftist front group that is Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good/Catholics United (which campaigned quite vigorously on Perriello's behalf during the 2008 election cycle). It should be noted that in his brief time in office, Perriello has amassed a 0% rating by the National Right to Life Committee. He voted in favor of public funding for abortions in the District of Columbia (H.R. 3170). He also voted for the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (H.R. 2410), which includes a provision authorizing an "Office for Global Women's Issues," which would use U.S. taxpayer funding for abortions abroad. Though these votes have almost surely put Perriello in the good graces of NARAL, that pro-abortion entity has yet to compile pro-abortion ratings for this Congress.
This shows, yet again, that those who try to argue that Obama's agenda is in line with Catholic doctrine are far more willing to compromise the doctrinal integrity of latter in order to preserve the ideological purity of the former. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
The Perriello described above is Tom Perriello, the recently-elected Democrat U.S. Congressman from Virginia's 5th Congressional District and a very ardent supporter of Obama and his health care plan (which now includes key provisions of the pro-abortion Freedom of Choice Act). The above link details the extent of the intimidation tactics Danville TEA Party leaders suspect Perriello of having engaged in, prompting the query to the state Attorney General's office.
Support for the Democrats' socialized health care plan is beginning to drop like a lead weight, and Obama and the Democrat Congressional leadership are desperate to ram the bill through Congress - with minimal scrutiny - before that support evaporates altogether. Whether or not this desperation entails using local law enforcement to intimidate vocal opponents of Obamacare is, in my humble opinion, a matter worth investigating. It is certainly more worthy of investigation than the accusations of ethics violations leveled at soon-to-be former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (who has been cleared of 19 such accusations so far with no shred of evidence of wrongdoing uncovered to date; and she now stands to be acquitted of a 20th impending charge, which like the nineteen before it is being investigated well, well beyond reasonable doubt at taxpayer expense).
This case drew my attention for another reason. Tom Perriello is a long-time "Catholic" dissident agitator, and yet another of the driving forces behind the twin-headed apostate entity/leftist front group that is Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good/Catholics United (which campaigned quite vigorously on Perriello's behalf during the 2008 election cycle). It should be noted that in his brief time in office, Perriello has amassed a 0% rating by the National Right to Life Committee. He voted in favor of public funding for abortions in the District of Columbia (H.R. 3170). He also voted for the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (H.R. 2410), which includes a provision authorizing an "Office for Global Women's Issues," which would use U.S. taxpayer funding for abortions abroad. Though these votes have almost surely put Perriello in the good graces of NARAL, that pro-abortion entity has yet to compile pro-abortion ratings for this Congress.
This shows, yet again, that those who try to argue that Obama's agenda is in line with Catholic doctrine are far more willing to compromise the doctrinal integrity of latter in order to preserve the ideological purity of the former. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
FOCA Never Went Away, Obama Is Just Trying To Pass It Under The Table With The Rest Of His Agenda
Link
There is no nice way to put it: the abortion agenda is a demonic one. Those who advocate it serve the forces of darkness, whether they realize it or not. And as with any other action instigated by or (unwittingly) on behalf of the forces of darkness, those who initiate the action scurry like cockroaches the moment light is shed on their actions.
I would hope that by now people have become painfully aware of just how brazenly dishonest Obama was in claiming that he would run "the most transparent administration in our nation's history." Shed a spotlight on any aspect of the Obama agenda, and there are bound to be more than a few cockroaches ready to scatter. Only this time, those cockroaches seek to do grave and irreparable harm to the cause of preserving innocent, unborn life.
Shed EVERY spotlight you can on the massive financial and moral disaster that is the proposed "Obamacare" bill. Popular support for this is fast beginning to wane, but the sad reality is that no amount of popular opposition can change the fact that Obama has a majority in both Houses of Congress. Generalized opposition is not enough. Call, write, or fax your Senators and Congressman to vote against this abomination. They have to be made vividly aware of the political consequences of supporting this legislation. Calling attention to the above link is a good first step. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
There is no nice way to put it: the abortion agenda is a demonic one. Those who advocate it serve the forces of darkness, whether they realize it or not. And as with any other action instigated by or (unwittingly) on behalf of the forces of darkness, those who initiate the action scurry like cockroaches the moment light is shed on their actions.
I would hope that by now people have become painfully aware of just how brazenly dishonest Obama was in claiming that he would run "the most transparent administration in our nation's history." Shed a spotlight on any aspect of the Obama agenda, and there are bound to be more than a few cockroaches ready to scatter. Only this time, those cockroaches seek to do grave and irreparable harm to the cause of preserving innocent, unborn life.
Shed EVERY spotlight you can on the massive financial and moral disaster that is the proposed "Obamacare" bill. Popular support for this is fast beginning to wane, but the sad reality is that no amount of popular opposition can change the fact that Obama has a majority in both Houses of Congress. Generalized opposition is not enough. Call, write, or fax your Senators and Congressman to vote against this abomination. They have to be made vividly aware of the political consequences of supporting this legislation. Calling attention to the above link is a good first step. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Friday, July 17, 2009
My Take On The Obama Birth Certificate Controversy
When stories first began to break in October 2008 about a lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania by a former Hillary Clinton supporter questioning Obama's citizenship and asking him to provide an original copy of his birth certificate, I paid it little mind.
When similar lawsuits popped up in a dozen other states in the days leading up to and following the 2008 election, I started to take a casual interest in the affair. Still, I did not expect much to come of it.
When I made a passing reference to the controversy while blogging on the night of the election and promptly received the first negative comment in the then five month history of my blog, I was amused.
When I saw how the Obama campaign - and later the Obama administration - responded to the brewing controversy, and saw how fanatically devoted Obama supporters were to discouraging inquiries into the circumstances of Obama's birth (and shouting down the inquiries that did arise), I started to seriously wonder if something was amiss.
When I repeatedly commented about the difference between a long-form birth certificate - such as this 1963 Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth which lists the hospital where the birth took place and the name of the attending physician - and the short form Certification of Live Birth provided by the Obama campaign (which does not list the hospital of birth or the name of the attending physician), only to be answered by Obama supporters who invariably ignored the distinction and sent me links to either Obama's FightTheSmears.com website (since taken down) or the FactCheck.org article that supposedly dispels the rumor (without adequately addressing the distinction made above), I began to realize that the Obama camp really, really wanted this issue to go away.
Any parent with a shred of common sense knows the telltale signs that their child is hiding something, even if the parent does not necessarily know what is being hidden. Any parent with a shred of common sense also knows when their child is making a partial concession to a demand for the truth - by revealing non-incriminating or partially incriminating information - in the hopes that the parent will not inquire into the matter any further.
The fact is, I did not take the birth certificate controversy seriously until I saw the lengths the Obama administration had gone to to avoid releasing the long form birth certificate which lists the hospital where he was born and the name of the attending physician. The Obama camp contested the original Pennsylvania lawsuit, and continues to actively fight the myriad of lawsuits that have arisen in other states asking for the same information. And recently, an Army Reserve Major by the name of Stefan Frederick Cook filed a lawsuit contesting his deployment orders to Afghanistan on the grounds that Obama lacks the standing to issue such an order because he has never provided incontrovertible proof of his U.S. citizenship. The day before the date set for the case to go court (July 16th), Major Cook's deployment orders were mysteriously canceled without any explanation being offered for such a highly irregular action. When it became clear that Major Cook and his attorney were going to press on with the lawsuit, the Department of Defense pressured Major Cook's private employer to fire him (the employer confirmed that the pressure came from the Department of Defense). The lawsuit has since been dismissed on the grounds that the original reason for the lawsuit - Major Cook's imminent deployment - was no longer at issue.
I want to be clear about something, for the sake of anyone who decides to draw attention away from the main point of this blog post by starting a comment thread with a tit-for-tat breakdown of whether or not Barack Obama was born in Kenya or Hawaii and what is or is not Hawaii law. My contention with this controversy boils down to one point, and one point only: Obama can make this entire controversy go away by producing an original copy of the long form birth certificate, showing the name of the hospital and the name of the attending physician who delivered baby Barack. Not the Certification of Live Birth document that has been circulating for nearly two years and which lacks the name of the hospital where he was born and the name of the attending physician who delivered him, but the actual long form Certificate of Live Birth. If he produces this document, and it proves he was born in Hawaii, then I will be satisfied and let the matter rest. Until he produces this document, and stops wasting massive amounts of taxpayer dollars resisting all efforts to publicly disclose this document, I will question what Barack Hussein Obama II and those serving in his administration have to hide. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
When similar lawsuits popped up in a dozen other states in the days leading up to and following the 2008 election, I started to take a casual interest in the affair. Still, I did not expect much to come of it.
When I made a passing reference to the controversy while blogging on the night of the election and promptly received the first negative comment in the then five month history of my blog, I was amused.
When I saw how the Obama campaign - and later the Obama administration - responded to the brewing controversy, and saw how fanatically devoted Obama supporters were to discouraging inquiries into the circumstances of Obama's birth (and shouting down the inquiries that did arise), I started to seriously wonder if something was amiss.
When I repeatedly commented about the difference between a long-form birth certificate - such as this 1963 Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth which lists the hospital where the birth took place and the name of the attending physician - and the short form Certification of Live Birth provided by the Obama campaign (which does not list the hospital of birth or the name of the attending physician), only to be answered by Obama supporters who invariably ignored the distinction and sent me links to either Obama's FightTheSmears.com website (since taken down) or the FactCheck.org article that supposedly dispels the rumor (without adequately addressing the distinction made above), I began to realize that the Obama camp really, really wanted this issue to go away.
Any parent with a shred of common sense knows the telltale signs that their child is hiding something, even if the parent does not necessarily know what is being hidden. Any parent with a shred of common sense also knows when their child is making a partial concession to a demand for the truth - by revealing non-incriminating or partially incriminating information - in the hopes that the parent will not inquire into the matter any further.
The fact is, I did not take the birth certificate controversy seriously until I saw the lengths the Obama administration had gone to to avoid releasing the long form birth certificate which lists the hospital where he was born and the name of the attending physician. The Obama camp contested the original Pennsylvania lawsuit, and continues to actively fight the myriad of lawsuits that have arisen in other states asking for the same information. And recently, an Army Reserve Major by the name of Stefan Frederick Cook filed a lawsuit contesting his deployment orders to Afghanistan on the grounds that Obama lacks the standing to issue such an order because he has never provided incontrovertible proof of his U.S. citizenship. The day before the date set for the case to go court (July 16th), Major Cook's deployment orders were mysteriously canceled without any explanation being offered for such a highly irregular action. When it became clear that Major Cook and his attorney were going to press on with the lawsuit, the Department of Defense pressured Major Cook's private employer to fire him (the employer confirmed that the pressure came from the Department of Defense). The lawsuit has since been dismissed on the grounds that the original reason for the lawsuit - Major Cook's imminent deployment - was no longer at issue.
I want to be clear about something, for the sake of anyone who decides to draw attention away from the main point of this blog post by starting a comment thread with a tit-for-tat breakdown of whether or not Barack Obama was born in Kenya or Hawaii and what is or is not Hawaii law. My contention with this controversy boils down to one point, and one point only: Obama can make this entire controversy go away by producing an original copy of the long form birth certificate, showing the name of the hospital and the name of the attending physician who delivered baby Barack. Not the Certification of Live Birth document that has been circulating for nearly two years and which lacks the name of the hospital where he was born and the name of the attending physician who delivered him, but the actual long form Certificate of Live Birth. If he produces this document, and it proves he was born in Hawaii, then I will be satisfied and let the matter rest. Until he produces this document, and stops wasting massive amounts of taxpayer dollars resisting all efforts to publicly disclose this document, I will question what Barack Hussein Obama II and those serving in his administration have to hide. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Obama's Science Czar: Further Proof Of The Relationship Between The Environmentalist Lobby And The Population Control Movement
Link, courtesy of LifeSiteNews.com. Hat tip to my brother.
I cringe every time legislation related to "environmental concerns" is proposed under a pro-abortion regime. Always check the fine print of such legislation, because it's bound to include provisions that threaten the sanctity of human life. To those who think there is no connection: consider yourself warned. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
I cringe every time legislation related to "environmental concerns" is proposed under a pro-abortion regime. Always check the fine print of such legislation, because it's bound to include provisions that threaten the sanctity of human life. To those who think there is no connection: consider yourself warned. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Monday, July 13, 2009
My Verdict
It is my judgment that Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court would be an assault on American jurisprudence. I expect that my background as a wise Latino conservative will help me make a better determination on this matter than a bunch of white liberals who lack the richness of my experience.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Al Franken Declared Winner Of Minnesota Senate Race, Democrats Now Have Filibuster-Proof Majority In The Senate: How Will Americans Respond?
The worst-case scenario of the 2008 election has now come to pass. God help us all. I say that as a prayer, and not as a lamentation.
There is every reason to cry foul about the election results in Minnesota, where incumbent Republican Norm Coleman led after the initial counting of ballots by more than 700 votes, only to see that lead evaporate as new votes were "discovered" all over the state, with a highly disproportionate (some would say statistically impossible) number of those votes favoring Franken. The suspicious recount and horribly bungled subsequent canvassing process were chronicled in a great National Review article by Powerline's Scott Johnson.
The election results aside, we now have to face the dire consequences. In a blog post dated October 6, 2008, I warned of the following potential consequences of an Obama White House, a Nancy Pelosi-led House of Representatives, and a Harry Reid-led, filibuster-proof Senate:
"- All abortion restrictions will be overturned courtesy of the demonically misnamed "Freedom of Choice Act"
- Ruth Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, and possibly even David Souter could retire within those two years, leaving Obama to name their replacements, who are sure to get sped through the Senate with little to no vetting, costing the pro-life movement what is likely to be the only opportunity to achieve a pro-life Supreme Court majority for the next generation.
- It is very likely that an effort to codify gay marriage into federal law will be attempted, and the next two years would be the best chance for such a codification to succeed.
- Embryonic stem cell research will receive massive federal funding, ensuring that this practice will continue well beyond our lifetimes.
- There is a good chance that Obama and Congress will attempt to pass numerous pieces of subversive legislation of the sort that will make it easier for groups like ACORN (which Obama worked for during his community organizing days, and whose members he helped train in the very tactics that have gotten many of them indicted for voter fraud in 7 states) to act in secrecy and with relative impunity, paving the way for massive voter fraud in future elections which will lead to a built-in handicap working against Republicans and conservative initiatives at the ballot box.
- Taxes. Taxes. Taxes. Did I forget to mention the possibility of taxes? Any financial crisis we think we might be facing today will pale in comparison to what is sure to follow if jobs are lost courtesy of over-taxation of businesses, if gas prices shoot up due to newly-imposed drilling bans, and if the disastrous subsidies for ethanol-based fuel continue to drive food prices through the roof.
- Government oversight over private enterprise will grow, as will government oversight of first amendment rights. Can you imagine Democrats having no obstacle to passing laws that would make it possible for Catholic priests to get arrested as accessories if they preach against homosexuality during Mass and one of that priest's parishioners subsequently commits any act perceived as criminal or discriminatory against someone they may or may not have known to be homosexual? When government imposes itself in any area of private life, history has shown that it is not so easily pushed out again.
- The abominable "Fairness Doctrine" - designed specifically to drive conservative talk radio (the one media outlet liberals don't have a monopoly on apart from the Internet) out of business - is sure to be revisited and snuck through Congress with as little fanfare as possible."
Some of the things described above - including Souter's retirement, massive tax increases, increasing government oversight of private industry, and the beginnings of federal attempts to suppress ideological dissent - have already come to pass (and as expected, Democrats are trying to speed Obama's Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor through the confirmation process with minimal scrutiny), and these things have happened without the assurance of a filibuster-proof Democrat majority as everyone waited for the Minnesota shenanigans to play out. Now, with the filibuster-proof majority assured, the Democrats still have 16 months before the next mid-term congressional election - to say nothing of the additional two month period between the elections themselves and the swearing in of the newly-elected - in which time they can push through the rest of the above-mentioned agenda (and much else besides) with minimal Republican resistance.
Only one obstacle remains to the imminent attempt to run roughshod over our civil liberties, and that is the voice of the would-be downtrodden: namely, we the American people. As a general rule, politicians are set in their political agenda, and rarely listen to their constituents once the votes have been tallied and they have been assured of election (or re-election, as the case may be). However, public outcry very nearly derailed HR 2454 (the disastrous cap and trade legislation) in the House (the margin of passage being only 7 votes), and stands a good chance of derailing the legislation in the Senate - even with a filibuster-proof Democrat majority. Public pressure is also the only hope we now have of derailing the passage of the financially catastrophic "Obamacare" health care proposal, as well as forestalling the inevitable attempts at gun control. Politicians tend ignore isolated outcries from constituents whose opinions differ from their own. However, they find it a great deal more difficult to ignore massive public outcries, especially these days if said politicians face re-election in 2010.
Congressmen often have the luxury of relative anonymity when casting their votes. We know that the self-proclaimed "most transparent administration in U.S. history" is not going to go out of its way to explain the consequences of the legislation it favors, so it falls to us to exhort our Senators and Representatives to familiarize themselves with the legislation for which they are casting a vote - and to hold them accountable for running afoul of the American people when they fail to act in our best interests. Public exposure of those who vote in favor of disastrous legislation or against beneficial legislation is warranted. That, however, is not possible unless we the people bother to familiarize ourselves with the mechanisms of government and the wording and practical applications of the legislation that passes through the halls of Congress.
Which means, folks, that we cannot continue to remain in ignorant bliss of what our government is doing. Ignorant voters tend to elect the most capable con artists to high office, and then tend to turn a blind eye to the mischief such con artists perpetrate. If we truly care about this American experiment, that has to stop. The right to vote carries with it a grave moral responsibility. Not only do we have an obligation to familiarize ourselves with the candidates and amendments that appear on our ballots, we also have an obligation to ensure that our elected officials remain on good behavior and that the amendments we vote into law are properly enacted. To do otherwise, and to remain ignorant of what we enable at the ballot box, is to ensure the advent of tyranny.
We are now at a crossroads. We must decide if the American experiment is worth saving. If we can't be bothered to inform ourselves about the agenda of the people now tasked with perpetuating that experiment, and to hold them accountable to us, we may soon wake up to the realization that the vision of our Founding Fathers has passed us by. And we will have no one to blame but ourselves. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
There is every reason to cry foul about the election results in Minnesota, where incumbent Republican Norm Coleman led after the initial counting of ballots by more than 700 votes, only to see that lead evaporate as new votes were "discovered" all over the state, with a highly disproportionate (some would say statistically impossible) number of those votes favoring Franken. The suspicious recount and horribly bungled subsequent canvassing process were chronicled in a great National Review article by Powerline's Scott Johnson.
The election results aside, we now have to face the dire consequences. In a blog post dated October 6, 2008, I warned of the following potential consequences of an Obama White House, a Nancy Pelosi-led House of Representatives, and a Harry Reid-led, filibuster-proof Senate:
"- All abortion restrictions will be overturned courtesy of the demonically misnamed "Freedom of Choice Act"
- Ruth Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, and possibly even David Souter could retire within those two years, leaving Obama to name their replacements, who are sure to get sped through the Senate with little to no vetting, costing the pro-life movement what is likely to be the only opportunity to achieve a pro-life Supreme Court majority for the next generation.
- It is very likely that an effort to codify gay marriage into federal law will be attempted, and the next two years would be the best chance for such a codification to succeed.
- Embryonic stem cell research will receive massive federal funding, ensuring that this practice will continue well beyond our lifetimes.
- There is a good chance that Obama and Congress will attempt to pass numerous pieces of subversive legislation of the sort that will make it easier for groups like ACORN (which Obama worked for during his community organizing days, and whose members he helped train in the very tactics that have gotten many of them indicted for voter fraud in 7 states) to act in secrecy and with relative impunity, paving the way for massive voter fraud in future elections which will lead to a built-in handicap working against Republicans and conservative initiatives at the ballot box.
- Taxes. Taxes. Taxes. Did I forget to mention the possibility of taxes? Any financial crisis we think we might be facing today will pale in comparison to what is sure to follow if jobs are lost courtesy of over-taxation of businesses, if gas prices shoot up due to newly-imposed drilling bans, and if the disastrous subsidies for ethanol-based fuel continue to drive food prices through the roof.
- Government oversight over private enterprise will grow, as will government oversight of first amendment rights. Can you imagine Democrats having no obstacle to passing laws that would make it possible for Catholic priests to get arrested as accessories if they preach against homosexuality during Mass and one of that priest's parishioners subsequently commits any act perceived as criminal or discriminatory against someone they may or may not have known to be homosexual? When government imposes itself in any area of private life, history has shown that it is not so easily pushed out again.
- The abominable "Fairness Doctrine" - designed specifically to drive conservative talk radio (the one media outlet liberals don't have a monopoly on apart from the Internet) out of business - is sure to be revisited and snuck through Congress with as little fanfare as possible."
Some of the things described above - including Souter's retirement, massive tax increases, increasing government oversight of private industry, and the beginnings of federal attempts to suppress ideological dissent - have already come to pass (and as expected, Democrats are trying to speed Obama's Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor through the confirmation process with minimal scrutiny), and these things have happened without the assurance of a filibuster-proof Democrat majority as everyone waited for the Minnesota shenanigans to play out. Now, with the filibuster-proof majority assured, the Democrats still have 16 months before the next mid-term congressional election - to say nothing of the additional two month period between the elections themselves and the swearing in of the newly-elected - in which time they can push through the rest of the above-mentioned agenda (and much else besides) with minimal Republican resistance.
Only one obstacle remains to the imminent attempt to run roughshod over our civil liberties, and that is the voice of the would-be downtrodden: namely, we the American people. As a general rule, politicians are set in their political agenda, and rarely listen to their constituents once the votes have been tallied and they have been assured of election (or re-election, as the case may be). However, public outcry very nearly derailed HR 2454 (the disastrous cap and trade legislation) in the House (the margin of passage being only 7 votes), and stands a good chance of derailing the legislation in the Senate - even with a filibuster-proof Democrat majority. Public pressure is also the only hope we now have of derailing the passage of the financially catastrophic "Obamacare" health care proposal, as well as forestalling the inevitable attempts at gun control. Politicians tend ignore isolated outcries from constituents whose opinions differ from their own. However, they find it a great deal more difficult to ignore massive public outcries, especially these days if said politicians face re-election in 2010.
Congressmen often have the luxury of relative anonymity when casting their votes. We know that the self-proclaimed "most transparent administration in U.S. history" is not going to go out of its way to explain the consequences of the legislation it favors, so it falls to us to exhort our Senators and Representatives to familiarize themselves with the legislation for which they are casting a vote - and to hold them accountable for running afoul of the American people when they fail to act in our best interests. Public exposure of those who vote in favor of disastrous legislation or against beneficial legislation is warranted. That, however, is not possible unless we the people bother to familiarize ourselves with the mechanisms of government and the wording and practical applications of the legislation that passes through the halls of Congress.
Which means, folks, that we cannot continue to remain in ignorant bliss of what our government is doing. Ignorant voters tend to elect the most capable con artists to high office, and then tend to turn a blind eye to the mischief such con artists perpetrate. If we truly care about this American experiment, that has to stop. The right to vote carries with it a grave moral responsibility. Not only do we have an obligation to familiarize ourselves with the candidates and amendments that appear on our ballots, we also have an obligation to ensure that our elected officials remain on good behavior and that the amendments we vote into law are properly enacted. To do otherwise, and to remain ignorant of what we enable at the ballot box, is to ensure the advent of tyranny.
We are now at a crossroads. We must decide if the American experiment is worth saving. If we can't be bothered to inform ourselves about the agenda of the people now tasked with perpetuating that experiment, and to hold them accountable to us, we may soon wake up to the realization that the vision of our Founding Fathers has passed us by. And we will have no one to blame but ourselves. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Monday, June 29, 2009
This Is Just Getting Pathetic
On Friday, the House of Representatives voted to pass House Resolution 2454 (the so-called "clean energy" or "climate change" bill, better known as "cap and trade") by a 219-212 vote, with 44 Democrats voting against it and 8 Republicans voting in favor of it (thus providing the highly unfortunate margin of passage). The Senate is likely to address the bill in September after the summer recess (the most eagerly awaited congressional recess in American history), and there is considerable doubt as to whether or not the bill will pass the Senate.
Folks, I can't tell you how disastrous this legislation would be, both from an economic and a moral standpoint. This bill would essentially empower the government to regulate our energy expenditures. It would cause energy costs to skyrocket, as Obama himself admitted in the following clip:
House Minority Leader John Boehner spent nearly an hour addressing this legislative travesty before the Friday vote, countering Nancy Pelosi's blatantly dishonest claim that this legislation would create more jobs. Among the things Boehner addressed was an amendment to the bill that would require home owners to subject their homes to a government-mandated environmental inspection which they are required to pass before the government will allow them to sell their homes. Amendments like these are scattered throughout the bill, and are a bald-faced attempt to restrict private property rights.
As to the issue of jobs, the bill would uphold the ban on domestic drilling, and would pave the way for further dependence on foreign oil. The list goes on and on. And as if we needed any further proof of how disastrous this legislation would be, there is one further fairly dependable gauge to go by: the leftist political front group and fraudulently-named Catholics United supports it. That alone should be enough to set off warning bells in the heads of any God-fearing, freedom-loving human being.
The financial consequences of a move towards a totalitarian socialism aside, we cannot overlook the frightening possibilities of what a newly-empowered, Obama-led government might do in the area of population control in the name of "saving the earth." China's forced abortion policy is largely the result of that barbaric regime trying to regulate the consumption of resources. What's to stop Obama - a demonically devoted opponent of the pro-life cause - from deciding that America's population needs to be capped at a certain level in order to preserve this nation's resources (many of which are ironically closed to us thanks to the provisions of this cap-and-trade legislation?). This is a dirty little secret of the environmental movement. All of the major environmental lobbyists in Washington - including the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund, and Greenpeace - all hold official stances in favor of regulating population growth, ostensibly because the earth can only sustain so many people at one time (which might be true, though we are nowhere near that threshold and are not likely to reach it any time in the foreseeable future). This is not, as some have claimed, the views of only a small segment of the environmental movement. It is part of the lobby's agenda. And this cap and trade bill would be a step towards the fulfillment of that agenda.
It is highly imperative that our Senators be made aware of our displeasure with this legislative abomination. Let your Senators know that if and when they address this come September, their stance on this bill will go a long way towards determining their future electoral prospects. As my brother pointed out in a recent blog post, if the cap and trade legislation becomes law, Friday, June 26th, 2009 may well be the day that history regards as the day the American experiment failed. Brothers and sisters in Christ, America is not the great salvation of mankind, but among the world powers it is the closest thing to an ally that the forces of good have. Let us then preserve this experiment for as long as we can. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Folks, I can't tell you how disastrous this legislation would be, both from an economic and a moral standpoint. This bill would essentially empower the government to regulate our energy expenditures. It would cause energy costs to skyrocket, as Obama himself admitted in the following clip:
House Minority Leader John Boehner spent nearly an hour addressing this legislative travesty before the Friday vote, countering Nancy Pelosi's blatantly dishonest claim that this legislation would create more jobs. Among the things Boehner addressed was an amendment to the bill that would require home owners to subject their homes to a government-mandated environmental inspection which they are required to pass before the government will allow them to sell their homes. Amendments like these are scattered throughout the bill, and are a bald-faced attempt to restrict private property rights.
As to the issue of jobs, the bill would uphold the ban on domestic drilling, and would pave the way for further dependence on foreign oil. The list goes on and on. And as if we needed any further proof of how disastrous this legislation would be, there is one further fairly dependable gauge to go by: the leftist political front group and fraudulently-named Catholics United supports it. That alone should be enough to set off warning bells in the heads of any God-fearing, freedom-loving human being.
The financial consequences of a move towards a totalitarian socialism aside, we cannot overlook the frightening possibilities of what a newly-empowered, Obama-led government might do in the area of population control in the name of "saving the earth." China's forced abortion policy is largely the result of that barbaric regime trying to regulate the consumption of resources. What's to stop Obama - a demonically devoted opponent of the pro-life cause - from deciding that America's population needs to be capped at a certain level in order to preserve this nation's resources (many of which are ironically closed to us thanks to the provisions of this cap-and-trade legislation?). This is a dirty little secret of the environmental movement. All of the major environmental lobbyists in Washington - including the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund, and Greenpeace - all hold official stances in favor of regulating population growth, ostensibly because the earth can only sustain so many people at one time (which might be true, though we are nowhere near that threshold and are not likely to reach it any time in the foreseeable future). This is not, as some have claimed, the views of only a small segment of the environmental movement. It is part of the lobby's agenda. And this cap and trade bill would be a step towards the fulfillment of that agenda.
It is highly imperative that our Senators be made aware of our displeasure with this legislative abomination. Let your Senators know that if and when they address this come September, their stance on this bill will go a long way towards determining their future electoral prospects. As my brother pointed out in a recent blog post, if the cap and trade legislation becomes law, Friday, June 26th, 2009 may well be the day that history regards as the day the American experiment failed. Brothers and sisters in Christ, America is not the great salvation of mankind, but among the world powers it is the closest thing to an ally that the forces of good have. Let us then preserve this experiment for as long as we can. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Obama Betrays Pro-Abortion Hypocrisy In Father's Day Reflections
I don't know where to begin with this one. Practically everything Obama says in his Father's Day message is contradicted by his policy stances.
You can click here for Obama's full statement in Parade.com. However, two excerpts immediately stand out as bearing explanation in light of how they square (or rather, fail to square) with Obama's policy decisions.
Obama writes: "That is why we need fathers to step up, to realize that their job does not end at conception; that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one.
As fathers, we need to be involved in our children’s lives not just when it’s convenient or easy, and not just when they’re doing well—but when it’s difficult and thankless, and they’re struggling. That is when they need us most."
Interesting. Is President Obama admitting that life begins at conception? When did that determination suddenly fall within his pay grade? Is it within a President's pay grade? Is a President qualified to determine when life begins? Because it seems to me that this President didn't exactly trust the judgment of his predecessor on the issue, having made it a priority to reverse said predecessor's abortion-related policies.
Obama speaks about the importance of being there for a child and being man enough to raise the child. Yet his every policy position regarding the unborn essentially regards a "good father" as one that pays to have the child destroyed by an abortionist. Obama says it takes courage to raise a child, but it is hard to muster such courage when there is no child to raise, which is an unfortunate side effect of choosing to kill a child rather than raise it - with Obama's full blessing, of course.
And if the child was targeted for abortion but manages to be born alive anyway, there's no need for paternal courage in that case either. The President absolves you of any parental responsibility towards such a child. As far as Obama is concerned, you can let the doctor lock the child in a storage closet to die alone and unattended. Unlike Obama, you don't even need to be "present."
Obama speaks of men doing the difficult and thankless tasks with regards to their children, and to being there when the children struggle and need them most. Yet there is no more difficult and thankless aspect to fatherhood than to see the mother of your child through her pregnancy, and the baby's greatest struggle is to survive the period of time when uncaring judicial activists unilaterally declared - wisely, in Obama's view - that it was legal to kill it. It is during this uncertain time that a child needs the love of a mother and a father most. Yet despite Obama's statements in Parade.com, he has dedicated himself during his entire political career to ensuring that you don't have to worry about being a father during this time. No, in Obama's professional judgment, the child needs you most when neither judicial activists nor cold-hearted legislators (among whom can be counted a certain former state senator in Illinois) can legally justify its murder any longer. When a baby not previously targeted for abortion is fully delivered and has had its umbilical chord cut, then and only then does Obama say that you better be a dad. You see, at that point the "stop telling me what to do with my body!" fallacy so often used as a justification for abortion can no longer be logically sustained by even the most illogical minds, and Obama no longer risks incurring Planned Parenthood's or NOW's wrath. Until that point, however...baby, schmaby. You can jab a pair of scissors into the back of its neck, for all he cares.
Obama writes: "We need to realize that we are our children’s first and best teachers. When we are selfish or inconsiderate, when we mistreat our wives or girlfriends, when we cut corners or fail to control our tempers, our children learn from that—and it’s no surprise when we see those behaviors in our schools or on our streets."
Careful, Mr. President, you risk alienating one of your most devoted voting blocs.
Some questions, Mr. President:
- If we are our children's first and best teachers, why not speak out in support of homeschooling? After all, if the first and best teachers can be legally certified to educate a child, why should the child still be forced to go to a public school? Why go with an inferior educator when the best teacher is already available and home?
- Why turn a blind eye to legislation that prevents parents from pulling children out of the classroom when sex education is being taught? Why not trust parents, as the first and best teachers, to teach their children more effectively about the birds and the bees than some government-funded, condom-bearing drone?
- And if you are truly serious about the importance of a father in a child's life, why give a man like Kevin Jennings a post in the Department of Education? The man pushes a radical homosexual agenda, part of which is forcing society to accept homosexual unions as being on par with heterosexual marriage. He also pushes for compulsory extension of adoption services to homosexual couples (probably to offset the fact that homosexual unions cannot produce children naturally, despite this being one of the chief functions of those heterosexual marriages that homosexual unions are supposedly on par with). This would necessarily include allowing lesbian couples to adopt, and that scenario would preclude the presence of a father in the adopted child's life. Did you think through the consequences of this incredibly poor appointment? Or are you simply telling those leery of your moral agenda what you think they want to hear?
You see, Obama talks a good talk. He even gave an infamous "Just Words?" speech to deflect criticism of the fact that much of what he says is just words. I guess you can add this recent exercise in hypocrisy to that list.
Actions speak louder than words, Mr. President. You can only drown out your actions for so long before people start to recognize the vapid nature of your empty rhetoric. So either stop insulting our intelligence or make sure your actions don't completely contradict that stream of eloquent diction that scrolls through your teleprompter. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
You can click here for Obama's full statement in Parade.com. However, two excerpts immediately stand out as bearing explanation in light of how they square (or rather, fail to square) with Obama's policy decisions.
Obama writes: "That is why we need fathers to step up, to realize that their job does not end at conception; that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one.
As fathers, we need to be involved in our children’s lives not just when it’s convenient or easy, and not just when they’re doing well—but when it’s difficult and thankless, and they’re struggling. That is when they need us most."
Interesting. Is President Obama admitting that life begins at conception? When did that determination suddenly fall within his pay grade? Is it within a President's pay grade? Is a President qualified to determine when life begins? Because it seems to me that this President didn't exactly trust the judgment of his predecessor on the issue, having made it a priority to reverse said predecessor's abortion-related policies.
Obama speaks about the importance of being there for a child and being man enough to raise the child. Yet his every policy position regarding the unborn essentially regards a "good father" as one that pays to have the child destroyed by an abortionist. Obama says it takes courage to raise a child, but it is hard to muster such courage when there is no child to raise, which is an unfortunate side effect of choosing to kill a child rather than raise it - with Obama's full blessing, of course.
And if the child was targeted for abortion but manages to be born alive anyway, there's no need for paternal courage in that case either. The President absolves you of any parental responsibility towards such a child. As far as Obama is concerned, you can let the doctor lock the child in a storage closet to die alone and unattended. Unlike Obama, you don't even need to be "present."
Obama speaks of men doing the difficult and thankless tasks with regards to their children, and to being there when the children struggle and need them most. Yet there is no more difficult and thankless aspect to fatherhood than to see the mother of your child through her pregnancy, and the baby's greatest struggle is to survive the period of time when uncaring judicial activists unilaterally declared - wisely, in Obama's view - that it was legal to kill it. It is during this uncertain time that a child needs the love of a mother and a father most. Yet despite Obama's statements in Parade.com, he has dedicated himself during his entire political career to ensuring that you don't have to worry about being a father during this time. No, in Obama's professional judgment, the child needs you most when neither judicial activists nor cold-hearted legislators (among whom can be counted a certain former state senator in Illinois) can legally justify its murder any longer. When a baby not previously targeted for abortion is fully delivered and has had its umbilical chord cut, then and only then does Obama say that you better be a dad. You see, at that point the "stop telling me what to do with my body!" fallacy so often used as a justification for abortion can no longer be logically sustained by even the most illogical minds, and Obama no longer risks incurring Planned Parenthood's or NOW's wrath. Until that point, however...baby, schmaby. You can jab a pair of scissors into the back of its neck, for all he cares.
Obama writes: "We need to realize that we are our children’s first and best teachers. When we are selfish or inconsiderate, when we mistreat our wives or girlfriends, when we cut corners or fail to control our tempers, our children learn from that—and it’s no surprise when we see those behaviors in our schools or on our streets."
Careful, Mr. President, you risk alienating one of your most devoted voting blocs.
Some questions, Mr. President:
- If we are our children's first and best teachers, why not speak out in support of homeschooling? After all, if the first and best teachers can be legally certified to educate a child, why should the child still be forced to go to a public school? Why go with an inferior educator when the best teacher is already available and home?
- Why turn a blind eye to legislation that prevents parents from pulling children out of the classroom when sex education is being taught? Why not trust parents, as the first and best teachers, to teach their children more effectively about the birds and the bees than some government-funded, condom-bearing drone?
- And if you are truly serious about the importance of a father in a child's life, why give a man like Kevin Jennings a post in the Department of Education? The man pushes a radical homosexual agenda, part of which is forcing society to accept homosexual unions as being on par with heterosexual marriage. He also pushes for compulsory extension of adoption services to homosexual couples (probably to offset the fact that homosexual unions cannot produce children naturally, despite this being one of the chief functions of those heterosexual marriages that homosexual unions are supposedly on par with). This would necessarily include allowing lesbian couples to adopt, and that scenario would preclude the presence of a father in the adopted child's life. Did you think through the consequences of this incredibly poor appointment? Or are you simply telling those leery of your moral agenda what you think they want to hear?
You see, Obama talks a good talk. He even gave an infamous "Just Words?" speech to deflect criticism of the fact that much of what he says is just words. I guess you can add this recent exercise in hypocrisy to that list.
Actions speak louder than words, Mr. President. You can only drown out your actions for so long before people start to recognize the vapid nature of your empty rhetoric. So either stop insulting our intelligence or make sure your actions don't completely contradict that stream of eloquent diction that scrolls through your teleprompter. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Saturday, June 20, 2009
While I Was Sleeping...
My apologies for the delays in posting. Truth is, I just got caught up in other things. Not especially important things, I'm afraid. But I guess we all go through phases where we are easily diverted.
Nevertheless, it has been an eventful few weeks in the world. The events in Iran have especially dominated the news of late. While I express my deepest sympathies and solidarity with the brave Iranians protesting the results of an obviously rigged election, I marvel that people can express shock at the fact that the election was, in fact, rigged. Expressing shock at a fraudulent display of democracy by a murderous dictatorial regime is akin to expressing shock at Keith Olbermann for making a fool of himself. You expect the snake to bite: it's inherent to its nature. As the old adage goes: "Never trust a snake." And while this world has more than its fair share of snakes - and more than its fair share of them in positions of power - few are more adept at crawling on their bellies than Mahmoud Ahmadenijad and the Ayatollah Khameini.
On the domestic front, Barack Obama continues to name left fringe crazies to high ranking positions within his administration. Two recent examples especially stand out in this regard. On the education front, he has very quietly nominated militant gay activist Kevin Jennings as Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. Jennings has a long track record of trying to push a sexually deviant agenda through the public school system, and is a vocal advocate of homosexual indoctrination starting in kindergarten. More on the nomination - and Obama's general use of the press to divert attention away from his prolific nomination of radical leftists to key government posts - can be found in this great Townhall piece by Kevin McCullough.
The second nomination that caught my eye has been the subject of a rather humorous subplot in the past few weeks. Alexia Kelley, who is one of the core members of the apostate left wing front group Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, was appointed by Obama as Director of Faith-based and Community Partnerships at the Department of Health and Human Services (Kelley, by the way, is the fourth person associated with Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United to be appointed by Obama to a government post, and all 4 appointments are widely recognized as political payback for help during Obama's presidential campaign. Yet Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United laughably continue to hold themselves out as nonpartisan entities). The humor arises from the fact that shortly after the appointment was made, John O'Brien, successor to the semi-retired and hardly lamented Frances Kissling as head of the militantly pro-abortion and bitterly anti-Catholic group Catholics for Choice (formerly Catholics for a Free Choice. Why these groups think that name changes will rehabilitate their images is really quite beyond me) issued a statement calling the appointment a "defeat for reason and logic" on the grounds that Alexia Kelley was allegedly pro-life. This prompted a response from James Salt of Catholics United accusing Catholics for Choice of "joining the far right" in launching vicious unfounded smears against Kelley (the statement was posted on the Catholics United website, but has since been removed), after which Kissling herself joined the fray. Jack Smith wrote an excellent piece covering Kissling's confused response on The Catholic Key blog.
Two things strike me as humorous in this entire exchange. First is the mistaken notion that Alexia Kelley - or anyone else involved with Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United - holds pro-life views. The two entities hold themselves out as pro-life, but consistently support pro-abortion politicians. Not only that, they quite viciously attack pro-life politicians who dare oppose their candidates and office-holders of choice. They pay a great deal of lip service to supporting politicians who "work to reduce the number of abortions," yet studiously avoid supporting a single politician who advocates the one action guaranteed to reduce the number of abortions: namely, making abortion illegal.
The second thing is this: there is no unity in heresy or apostasy. Unity comes only through adherence to the truth. Dissenting groups tend to fall under large umbrella organizations, and the best-known dissenters tend to be involved in multiple groups. There is so much overlap that, generally speaking, one dissident organization is indistinguishable from another. But having so many different group names creates the impression that the movement of dissent is far bigger than it really is. The virtually identical natures of Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United are but one example. In that sense, such groups are rightly considered unified, and they certainly do organize together in most of their endeavors to create the illusion of larger numbers for their projects.
However, each dissident group - while generally supportive of the overall agenda of dismantling the hierarchical nature of the Church and replacing it with a faux democracy steeped in the values of moral relativism - tends to embrace one or two pet causes, whether it be promoting abortion, contraception, the acceptance of homosexual behavior, liberation theology, etc. It happens in rare occasions that one or more of those causes come into direct conflict, and that is what happened here. Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United promotes itself as pro-life in order to gain support among poorly informed but well-meaning Catholics for its aggressive pursuit of a socialist form of government. In doing this, they ran afoul of Catholics for (a Free) Choice, which has in the past compared the Vatican to the Taliban for its supposed oppression of women because of its pro-life positions (and yes, they made this comparison with a straight face, which should give you some insight as to just how disturbingly demonic the ideology of this group truly is). When Catholics for (a Free) Choice hears anyone identify themselves as pro-life, they don't check to verify the authenticity of the claim. They instead fly into full-blown panic mode at the prospect that such individuals will save the life of even one unborn child with their policy decisions. And so a dishonest pretension by Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United led to an amusing side show that left egg on the faces of two different dissident factions.
One other thing I've noticed is just how selective Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United is in its criticisms. Catholics for (a Free) Choice is at least consistent in that it will bash anyone who expresses the slightest concern for the plight of the unborn, however sick and disturbing such an approach may be. Catholics United, on the other hand, claims to champion the cause of peace and justice, but only ever seems to criticize the pro-life movement, those who criticize Barack Obama, and those who dare criticize any of Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United's core members. They also made it a point to "lament" the murder of Dr. George Tiller, but it seems they only did this as an excuse to take a pot shot at the pro-life movement. Yet when it comes to things like speaking out in support of the oppressed people in Iran, denouncing the slave trade in the Sudan, or addressing human rights abuses in China, all you hear are crickets chirping. I guess Obama needs to address those issues first, so Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United can receive their talking points from him - or rather, his teleprompter.
Regarding the murder of Dr. George Tiller, which also happened since my last blog post, I will share two statements I issued on my Facebook page concerning the incident. Besides expressing my utter disgust with how the Obama administration has chosen to use this tragedy as a means of marginalizing the pro-life movement, I will let these two statements reflect my thoughts on the matter until new developments arise:
"George Tiller's murder was certainly beyond the pale, but so is using that murder as an excuse to score cheap political points at the pro-life movement's expense."
"The murder of George Tiller was an atrocity. It was morally unjustifiable, and I will have words with anyone who says otherwise. But let no one dare insult my intelligence by pretending he is a martyr for humanitarian causes. There are approximately 60,000 reasons why I vehemently beg to differ."
Lastly, to those of you who have sent me e-mails regarding my blog, I'd like to say thank you. Even though I have not had the chance to reply to each of you individually, just know that your comments are appreciated, and I do plan to address some of the issues raised in your e-mails. And no, I am not on Twitter, and don't plan to be at this time, though that might change at a later date. Please keep the feedback coming. I pray this post finds each of you well. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Nevertheless, it has been an eventful few weeks in the world. The events in Iran have especially dominated the news of late. While I express my deepest sympathies and solidarity with the brave Iranians protesting the results of an obviously rigged election, I marvel that people can express shock at the fact that the election was, in fact, rigged. Expressing shock at a fraudulent display of democracy by a murderous dictatorial regime is akin to expressing shock at Keith Olbermann for making a fool of himself. You expect the snake to bite: it's inherent to its nature. As the old adage goes: "Never trust a snake." And while this world has more than its fair share of snakes - and more than its fair share of them in positions of power - few are more adept at crawling on their bellies than Mahmoud Ahmadenijad and the Ayatollah Khameini.
On the domestic front, Barack Obama continues to name left fringe crazies to high ranking positions within his administration. Two recent examples especially stand out in this regard. On the education front, he has very quietly nominated militant gay activist Kevin Jennings as Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. Jennings has a long track record of trying to push a sexually deviant agenda through the public school system, and is a vocal advocate of homosexual indoctrination starting in kindergarten. More on the nomination - and Obama's general use of the press to divert attention away from his prolific nomination of radical leftists to key government posts - can be found in this great Townhall piece by Kevin McCullough.
The second nomination that caught my eye has been the subject of a rather humorous subplot in the past few weeks. Alexia Kelley, who is one of the core members of the apostate left wing front group Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, was appointed by Obama as Director of Faith-based and Community Partnerships at the Department of Health and Human Services (Kelley, by the way, is the fourth person associated with Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United to be appointed by Obama to a government post, and all 4 appointments are widely recognized as political payback for help during Obama's presidential campaign. Yet Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United laughably continue to hold themselves out as nonpartisan entities). The humor arises from the fact that shortly after the appointment was made, John O'Brien, successor to the semi-retired and hardly lamented Frances Kissling as head of the militantly pro-abortion and bitterly anti-Catholic group Catholics for Choice (formerly Catholics for a Free Choice. Why these groups think that name changes will rehabilitate their images is really quite beyond me) issued a statement calling the appointment a "defeat for reason and logic" on the grounds that Alexia Kelley was allegedly pro-life. This prompted a response from James Salt of Catholics United accusing Catholics for Choice of "joining the far right" in launching vicious unfounded smears against Kelley (the statement was posted on the Catholics United website, but has since been removed), after which Kissling herself joined the fray. Jack Smith wrote an excellent piece covering Kissling's confused response on The Catholic Key blog.
Two things strike me as humorous in this entire exchange. First is the mistaken notion that Alexia Kelley - or anyone else involved with Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United - holds pro-life views. The two entities hold themselves out as pro-life, but consistently support pro-abortion politicians. Not only that, they quite viciously attack pro-life politicians who dare oppose their candidates and office-holders of choice. They pay a great deal of lip service to supporting politicians who "work to reduce the number of abortions," yet studiously avoid supporting a single politician who advocates the one action guaranteed to reduce the number of abortions: namely, making abortion illegal.
The second thing is this: there is no unity in heresy or apostasy. Unity comes only through adherence to the truth. Dissenting groups tend to fall under large umbrella organizations, and the best-known dissenters tend to be involved in multiple groups. There is so much overlap that, generally speaking, one dissident organization is indistinguishable from another. But having so many different group names creates the impression that the movement of dissent is far bigger than it really is. The virtually identical natures of Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United are but one example. In that sense, such groups are rightly considered unified, and they certainly do organize together in most of their endeavors to create the illusion of larger numbers for their projects.
However, each dissident group - while generally supportive of the overall agenda of dismantling the hierarchical nature of the Church and replacing it with a faux democracy steeped in the values of moral relativism - tends to embrace one or two pet causes, whether it be promoting abortion, contraception, the acceptance of homosexual behavior, liberation theology, etc. It happens in rare occasions that one or more of those causes come into direct conflict, and that is what happened here. Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United promotes itself as pro-life in order to gain support among poorly informed but well-meaning Catholics for its aggressive pursuit of a socialist form of government. In doing this, they ran afoul of Catholics for (a Free) Choice, which has in the past compared the Vatican to the Taliban for its supposed oppression of women because of its pro-life positions (and yes, they made this comparison with a straight face, which should give you some insight as to just how disturbingly demonic the ideology of this group truly is). When Catholics for (a Free) Choice hears anyone identify themselves as pro-life, they don't check to verify the authenticity of the claim. They instead fly into full-blown panic mode at the prospect that such individuals will save the life of even one unborn child with their policy decisions. And so a dishonest pretension by Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United led to an amusing side show that left egg on the faces of two different dissident factions.
One other thing I've noticed is just how selective Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United is in its criticisms. Catholics for (a Free) Choice is at least consistent in that it will bash anyone who expresses the slightest concern for the plight of the unborn, however sick and disturbing such an approach may be. Catholics United, on the other hand, claims to champion the cause of peace and justice, but only ever seems to criticize the pro-life movement, those who criticize Barack Obama, and those who dare criticize any of Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United's core members. They also made it a point to "lament" the murder of Dr. George Tiller, but it seems they only did this as an excuse to take a pot shot at the pro-life movement. Yet when it comes to things like speaking out in support of the oppressed people in Iran, denouncing the slave trade in the Sudan, or addressing human rights abuses in China, all you hear are crickets chirping. I guess Obama needs to address those issues first, so Catholics in Alliance/Catholics United can receive their talking points from him - or rather, his teleprompter.
Regarding the murder of Dr. George Tiller, which also happened since my last blog post, I will share two statements I issued on my Facebook page concerning the incident. Besides expressing my utter disgust with how the Obama administration has chosen to use this tragedy as a means of marginalizing the pro-life movement, I will let these two statements reflect my thoughts on the matter until new developments arise:
"George Tiller's murder was certainly beyond the pale, but so is using that murder as an excuse to score cheap political points at the pro-life movement's expense."
"The murder of George Tiller was an atrocity. It was morally unjustifiable, and I will have words with anyone who says otherwise. But let no one dare insult my intelligence by pretending he is a martyr for humanitarian causes. There are approximately 60,000 reasons why I vehemently beg to differ."
Lastly, to those of you who have sent me e-mails regarding my blog, I'd like to say thank you. Even though I have not had the chance to reply to each of you individually, just know that your comments are appreciated, and I do plan to address some of the issues raised in your e-mails. And no, I am not on Twitter, and don't plan to be at this time, though that might change at a later date. Please keep the feedback coming. I pray this post finds each of you well. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
State of Connecticut Resumes Efforts To Deny First Amendment Rights To Catholics
Great article by Drew Zahn posted on World Net Daily regarding the state of Connecticut's attempts to portray the Catholic Church's right to peacefully assemble as a violation of state lobbying laws. It appears that the state government will not soon abandon its war on the First Amendment rights of Catholics.
For some further background on this subject, please read my previous post on the subject.
In trying to destroy the moral fiber of a country by promoting a culture of death and attacking the institution of marriage, a necessary first step is to drown out the voices of those who would call attention to such attempts. Connecticut would make Saul Alinsky proud. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
For some further background on this subject, please read my previous post on the subject.
In trying to destroy the moral fiber of a country by promoting a culture of death and attacking the institution of marriage, a necessary first step is to drown out the voices of those who would call attention to such attempts. Connecticut would make Saul Alinsky proud. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Obama Appoints Hispanic Catholic Theologian Miguel Diaz as Ambassador to the Vatican, Questions of Orthodoxy Remain
Link
Speculation abounds concerning the views of Miguel Diaz on right to life issues. What we do know is that Diaz was a passionate Obama supporter during the campaign, supported partial-birth abortion enthusiast Kathleen Sebelius' nomination as HHS Secretary, and sits on the executive board of the Catholic Theological Association of America. That's three strikes against his pro-life convictions and Catholic orthodoxy right there. Diaz is fortunate that we are not talking baseball here.
It is a poorly-kept secret that the Vatican has been adamant that whatever U.S. ambassador it deals with must be in agreement with the Church on fundamental moral teachings, and there are unconfirmed reports that previous Obama nominees have been rejected by the Vatican for failing to meet that criteria. Obama strikes me as the type who would sooner force the issue than respect the Vatican's wishes on this matter.
I hope to be proven wrong about this. But given the circumstances, I will be approaching this one with more than a touch of skepticism. I pray the Vatican will stick with its guns and properly vet this nominee. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
UPDATE: It turns out that Diaz is an advocate of liberation theology and, not coincidentally, part of the speakers' bureau for the apostate leftist front group "Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good." This, of course, is the sister group to the equally apostate "Catholics United" and is a group that has been directly funded by George Soros; and sure enough, Catholics United just posted an endorsement of Diaz on its blog, and expressed hope that Diaz would work with the Vatican on "many of the pressing moral concerns of our day," followed by a list of said moral concerns that of course fails to include abortion. You can officially count me as an opponent of this nomination. Cue the Obama operatives saying I'm not Hispanic enough...
Speculation abounds concerning the views of Miguel Diaz on right to life issues. What we do know is that Diaz was a passionate Obama supporter during the campaign, supported partial-birth abortion enthusiast Kathleen Sebelius' nomination as HHS Secretary, and sits on the executive board of the Catholic Theological Association of America. That's three strikes against his pro-life convictions and Catholic orthodoxy right there. Diaz is fortunate that we are not talking baseball here.
It is a poorly-kept secret that the Vatican has been adamant that whatever U.S. ambassador it deals with must be in agreement with the Church on fundamental moral teachings, and there are unconfirmed reports that previous Obama nominees have been rejected by the Vatican for failing to meet that criteria. Obama strikes me as the type who would sooner force the issue than respect the Vatican's wishes on this matter.
I hope to be proven wrong about this. But given the circumstances, I will be approaching this one with more than a touch of skepticism. I pray the Vatican will stick with its guns and properly vet this nominee. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
UPDATE: It turns out that Diaz is an advocate of liberation theology and, not coincidentally, part of the speakers' bureau for the apostate leftist front group "Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good." This, of course, is the sister group to the equally apostate "Catholics United" and is a group that has been directly funded by George Soros; and sure enough, Catholics United just posted an endorsement of Diaz on its blog, and expressed hope that Diaz would work with the Vatican on "many of the pressing moral concerns of our day," followed by a list of said moral concerns that of course fails to include abortion. You can officially count me as an opponent of this nomination. Cue the Obama operatives saying I'm not Hispanic enough...
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Tiananmen Square 20 Years Later
A great article put out today in commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the state-sanctioned massacre of an estimated 2600 students, workers, and other young adults who were part of a much larger throng of protesters demanding political reform in Communist China. To this day, the morally bankrupt Chinese government - which, in my opinion, is the greatest human rights abuser that currently plagues our planet - still claims a far smaller number of dead, and does everything in its power to erase memories of the event. The tragedy should serve as a sober reminder of what happens when socialist ideas are imposed on a free state, and why efforts to impose such ideas should be resisted at every turn.
Here is a link to an English translation of the article, originally published by Asia News.
In addition to its abhorrent "One-Child" Forced Abortion Policy, the Chinese government is also the most prolific persecutor of Christians in the world today. Its animus against the Catholic Church is such that Catholicism is illegal in China, and the government has formed its own "official" Catholic Church, which requires its members to formally renounce obedience to Magisterium and allegiance to the Vatican. Catholics who refuse membership in the "official" Church are forced underground, and Chinese Bishops elevated to the rank of Cardinal often have to be named in pectore (Latin for "in the heart"), which means that their elevation is known to the Pope alone (even the appointee is unaware of the honor) until such a time as it can be made public without being cause for political persecution of the appointee. If an in pectore elevation to the College of Cardinals is ever made public, then the appointment is retroactive so as to preserve the Cardinal's seniority. If a Pope dies before an in pectore appointment is made public, then the appointment is necessarily rendered null and void, as no living person would know the identity of the appointee.
There are a number of organizations dedicated to making known the plight of and bringing aid to persecuted Christians not only in China, but also in other parts of the world. The best known of these organizations is the Voice of the Martyrs. I strongly encourage you to visit their website and blog and, if possible, to offer prayers and whatever other support can be given for those this very worthy organization seeks to help. In the meantime, please read the above article, especially if you are too young to remember the horrible events of June 4, 1989 and the courage of the young men and women who risked the Chinese Communist Party's wrath to serve the cause of freedom. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Here is a link to an English translation of the article, originally published by Asia News.
In addition to its abhorrent "One-Child" Forced Abortion Policy, the Chinese government is also the most prolific persecutor of Christians in the world today. Its animus against the Catholic Church is such that Catholicism is illegal in China, and the government has formed its own "official" Catholic Church, which requires its members to formally renounce obedience to Magisterium and allegiance to the Vatican. Catholics who refuse membership in the "official" Church are forced underground, and Chinese Bishops elevated to the rank of Cardinal often have to be named in pectore (Latin for "in the heart"), which means that their elevation is known to the Pope alone (even the appointee is unaware of the honor) until such a time as it can be made public without being cause for political persecution of the appointee. If an in pectore elevation to the College of Cardinals is ever made public, then the appointment is retroactive so as to preserve the Cardinal's seniority. If a Pope dies before an in pectore appointment is made public, then the appointment is necessarily rendered null and void, as no living person would know the identity of the appointee.
There are a number of organizations dedicated to making known the plight of and bringing aid to persecuted Christians not only in China, but also in other parts of the world. The best known of these organizations is the Voice of the Martyrs. I strongly encourage you to visit their website and blog and, if possible, to offer prayers and whatever other support can be given for those this very worthy organization seeks to help. In the meantime, please read the above article, especially if you are too young to remember the horrible events of June 4, 1989 and the courage of the young men and women who risked the Chinese Communist Party's wrath to serve the cause of freedom. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Remember When I Said That The Thought Of Obama Naming People To The Supreme Court Made Me Cringe?
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Sonia Sotomayor, in a now infamous 2005 video in which she lets slip that she believes the judiciary serves to make law rather than interpret it:
As someone who is a native born Puerto Rican, let me tell you that this is not the kind of person I want representing Puerto Rican interests.
And for all the leftists who will inevitably scream "racism!" to blunt the well deserved wave of criticism soon to be directed at Sotomayor, I wish to remind of the sorry episode that was the Democrat filibuster of Miguel Estrada, during which one Democrat made the blatantly racist comment that the Honduran-born legal emigrant was, due to his conservative ideology, not Hispanic enough to warrant Hispanic support.
As a Hispanic, I also resent Sotomayor's comment: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." This, too, is blatant racism. I have known many, many Latina women; and I have known many, many white males. And the truly wise ones in either category acknowledge that neither ethnicity nor personal experience have bearing on the truth or on the rule of law. Sotomayor could learn from their very meritorious example.
There is more - much more - to come out in the coming days, weeks, and months about this left-wing judicial activist. For now, I leave you with some thoughts from Michele Malkin about some of Sotomayor's more disturbing judicial decisions, and a warning to let neither the imminent media love-fest of Sonia Sotomayor nor the white washing of her judicial record blind you to the reality of this woman's extreme activism. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
As someone who is a native born Puerto Rican, let me tell you that this is not the kind of person I want representing Puerto Rican interests.
And for all the leftists who will inevitably scream "racism!" to blunt the well deserved wave of criticism soon to be directed at Sotomayor, I wish to remind of the sorry episode that was the Democrat filibuster of Miguel Estrada, during which one Democrat made the blatantly racist comment that the Honduran-born legal emigrant was, due to his conservative ideology, not Hispanic enough to warrant Hispanic support.
As a Hispanic, I also resent Sotomayor's comment: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." This, too, is blatant racism. I have known many, many Latina women; and I have known many, many white males. And the truly wise ones in either category acknowledge that neither ethnicity nor personal experience have bearing on the truth or on the rule of law. Sotomayor could learn from their very meritorious example.
There is more - much more - to come out in the coming days, weeks, and months about this left-wing judicial activist. For now, I leave you with some thoughts from Michele Malkin about some of Sotomayor's more disturbing judicial decisions, and a warning to let neither the imminent media love-fest of Sonia Sotomayor nor the white washing of her judicial record blind you to the reality of this woman's extreme activism. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Friday, May 8, 2009
Barack Obama Furthers The Cause Of Sexual Dysfunctionality, Cuts All Funding For Abstinence-Only Education
Link
He is an enthusiastic supporter of abortion (to the point of trying to deny the first amendment rights of religious conscientious objectors), embryonic stem cell research, legislation to reduce so-called "man-made global warming" (which would inevitably include forced abortions and other population control measures as part of reducing man's "carbon footprint"), the United Nations Population Fund (which already does support forced abortions and other population control measures), and now this. Our President's passion for obliterating the moral fiber of this country borders on the lustful.
If he is left unchecked, it will only be a matter of time before he and his minions try to eliminate privately-funded abstinence-only education as well.
Of course, that's a redundant statement, since if left unchecked, Obama will try to eliminate private funding altogether. It's what Marxists do.
I often catch a lot of heat for my criticisms of the Obama agenda. To which I reply that a demonic agenda by any other name is still a demonic agenda. Shiny packaging serves only to mask Pandora's box. It does not diminish the cancer contained therein.
The 2010 election cycle will be getting underway in the months to come. I will tell you now that the primary elections will matter every bit as much as the general elections, because we need viable pro-life, pro-family, pro-smaller government candidates to be on as many November ballots as possible. So start looking for and supporting such candidates as early as possible, so they can have momentum heading into the primary season. The more Obama's pro-culture of death agenda can be curtailed for the duration of his (hopefully one term) presidency, the better it will be for men and women of goodwill in the years to come. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
He is an enthusiastic supporter of abortion (to the point of trying to deny the first amendment rights of religious conscientious objectors), embryonic stem cell research, legislation to reduce so-called "man-made global warming" (which would inevitably include forced abortions and other population control measures as part of reducing man's "carbon footprint"), the United Nations Population Fund (which already does support forced abortions and other population control measures), and now this. Our President's passion for obliterating the moral fiber of this country borders on the lustful.
If he is left unchecked, it will only be a matter of time before he and his minions try to eliminate privately-funded abstinence-only education as well.
Of course, that's a redundant statement, since if left unchecked, Obama will try to eliminate private funding altogether. It's what Marxists do.
I often catch a lot of heat for my criticisms of the Obama agenda. To which I reply that a demonic agenda by any other name is still a demonic agenda. Shiny packaging serves only to mask Pandora's box. It does not diminish the cancer contained therein.
The 2010 election cycle will be getting underway in the months to come. I will tell you now that the primary elections will matter every bit as much as the general elections, because we need viable pro-life, pro-family, pro-smaller government candidates to be on as many November ballots as possible. So start looking for and supporting such candidates as early as possible, so they can have momentum heading into the primary season. The more Obama's pro-culture of death agenda can be curtailed for the duration of his (hopefully one term) presidency, the better it will be for men and women of goodwill in the years to come. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Paul Harvey On Gun Control
This is a follow-up to a post on gun control I wrote last summer. Below is a piece written by the late Paul Harvey in 2000 concerning a history of gun control worldwide in the 20th century. There is a disturbing correlation between socialism, despotism, gun control, and massive human rights violations. Given the Obama administration's overtly socialist agenda - coupled with Obama's aggressively pro-gun control stance - opponents of gun control legislation should be subject to involuntary shudders every time the words "gun control" and "Barack Obama" are mentioned in the same sentence. Such shudders become all the more justifiable given Obama's remarks about bitter small town Americans clinging to their guns and their religion and two recent Department of Homeland Security documents (stories here and here) identifying such individuals and other "right wing extremists" as potential terrorists. Even those not generally given over to paranoia are forced to look at these facts and wonder what, exactly, the Obama administration is planning.
Have I mentioned yet how comforted I feel that gun sales to law-abiding citizens have skyrocketed since November 4, 2008?
Paul Harvey's article follows below. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Link
Paul Harvey on Guns
Monday, November 06, 2000
Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don’t matter?
CONSIDER:
In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million “educated” people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide; Homicides are up 3.2%; Assaults are up 8%; Armed robberies are up 44%; In that country’s state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%.
Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in “safety” has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in “ridding society of guns.”
It’s time to state it plainly; Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens.
Take action before it’s too late, write or call your representatives.
Have I mentioned yet how comforted I feel that gun sales to law-abiding citizens have skyrocketed since November 4, 2008?
Paul Harvey's article follows below. God bless!
In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald
Link
Paul Harvey on Guns
Monday, November 06, 2000
Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don’t matter?
CONSIDER:
In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million “educated” people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide; Homicides are up 3.2%; Assaults are up 8%; Armed robberies are up 44%; In that country’s state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%.
Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in “safety” has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in “ridding society of guns.”
It’s time to state it plainly; Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens.
Take action before it’s too late, write or call your representatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
