News From The Other Side Of The Pond
From my favorite Brit writer, Damien Thompson
Anxieties over the Papal visit to Britain
By Damian Thompson
There are some good omens for the Pope’s visit to Britain in September. We now know that some (not all) of the music at the Papal Masses in Coventry and Glasgow will be worth hearing, thanks to the decision to perform James MacMillan’s lovely new Mass setting (but, my goodness, those old trendies fight hard: led by Mgr Gerry Fitzpatrick, Glasgow’s musical bureaucrats did everything in their power to get their stuff performed instead. Imagine if the poor Pope had been forced to listen to this). Also, it’s likely that, by the time the Holy Father visits, the Vatican will have announced long overdue worldwide guidelines for the handling of allegations of sexual misconduct. So that should do something to appease public opinion, though I’d lay good money on a certain newspaper dredging up an abuse story just as the papal plane touches down.
What I am picking up, however, is a lot of discontent in Catholic circles at the restrictions on numbers at the Papal Masses – 400,000 combined – which seem to have been imposed by Labour’s health and safety fascists and embraced readily by the papal visit’s politically correct organiser, Mgr Andrew Summersgill.
There is one good argument in favour of restricting the size of the Papal Masses, and that is the embarrassing possibility that not enough people will show up. The ridiculous (and risky) proposal to have Susan Boyle sing in Glasgow is motivated by worries about bums on seats, I’m told by a Scottish Church insider. But I have a feeling that Britain’s Catholics could surprise us, as Portugal’s Catholics did, by turning out in unexpectedly large numbers. They know that Pope Benedict XVI has been subjected to vicious smears in the media; this is their opportunity to stand up and be counted.
If the Church lets them. Mgr Summersgill’s talk of “participating” by watching the Pope on television or online has irritated ordinary Catholics who are also being asked to fork out for the cost of the visit, and some English parish priests are worried that their parishes will be allocated very few tickets to attend the Beatification Mass. Here’s an email I received this week from a non-partisan, loyal, not especially traditionalist priest:
Damian, how would one go about a freedom of information request to see whether it’s true that the Government (rather than Andrew Summersgill) have put a limit on numbers permitted to see the Pope?
I think ordinary Catholics are wondering why they are simultaneously being told to pay for the Papal visit and that they can’t go to see him! So far my parish has been allocated 1 ticket!
If we obey the bishops and all stay at home the only ones on the streets will be protesters.
One ticket? For a really thriving parish, too. That can’t be right. Unfortunately, the Magic Circle loves nothing better than health and safety regulations and “best practice” and all that public sector malarkey. Perhaps the new Government should take the lead, and relax the rules. Failing that, Catholics could always turn up without tickets. That would send a powerful message to Eccleston Square’s control freaks – and to the secular world.
posted by Vir Speluncae Catholicus
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
NOT FEARING TO TELL THE TRUTH!
Monday, May 24, 2010
Rev. Richard Perozich is not afraid to tell it like it is...
The following is the text from the May 23rd "From the Pastor" page of the Sunday Bulletin from St. Mary Church
On February 1, 2009 I wrote to you a longer article to rouse you to oppose the promotion of abortion and to show you where the new government was directing the country away from God toward evil. Here are some excerpts and updated commentaries:
“The first 100 days of a new presidency is the time when legislation desired by the new leader is rammed through the congress without much discussion and over the objections of the minority party. It often is not good legislation, has been brewing in the hearts of special interest groups for years, who now have a vehicle to impose their will on the American people.
“If the special interest groups have their way, the first 100 days will spell the end of days for the american nation as we have known it since 1776. Abominations will be forced on us by the new government, such as which our founders never had intended, and certainly opposed to the Christian life: abortion on demand, homogenital sex, lust in all its forms, euthanasia, stem cell killling, cloning, taxes, oppression of opportunity and entrepreneurs, silencing of faith and free speech among many.”
It took more than 100 days for this government to push most of its anti-God, anti-Catholic agenda, and it still is pushing hard.
Abortion is our god and Obama, Pelosi, Kennedy are his prophets. His sacrifice is the life of infants and the souls of mothers. His priests are doctors who perform abortions. His church is Planned Parenthood and FOCA, (freedom of choice act). His covenant promises rights and freedom for women. It delivers death of infants, permanent damage to the souls of women, of men, of politicians.
Within weeks of taking office President Obama issued an executive order to promote abortion overseas to countries which receive U.S. aid. Secretary of State Clinton visited countries and the U.N. to promote abortion. The Health Care Reform Bill does not contain explicit anti abortion language, only an executive order from the president not to fund abortion.
Homosexual lust is our god and Obama, Bishop Gene Robinson, and the Democratic Party are his prophets. the sacrifice is personal integrity and corruption of the body and spirit. Its priests and priestesses are men who have sex with men (MSM) and women who have sex with women (WSW). Its church is the Human Rights Campaign and other activist organizations, Pride clubs and “gay” and “lesbian” centers. Its covenant offers false promises of equality with those who have normal sexual feelings and inner peace. It delivers disease, prolonged adolescent immaturity, and oppression of the church and good people who live upright moral lives.
Congress passed “hate crime” laws to include sexual orientation which raises homosexual practice to a protected behavior and punishes those who oppose it. Congress, with the president’s encouragement is pushing to promote homosexual predators in the military by trying to end the ”Don’t Ask: Don’t Tell” policy, including the proposed new Justice to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan. Congress and the president are trying to promote ENDA, the Employment Non Discrimination Act to include transvestites and homosexuals so that they must be hired even by religious organizations in spite of religious values and over against the first ammendment of freedom of religion.
Money is our god, and the the wealthy and welfare are its prophets. Its sacrifice is hard earned savings and retirement. Its priests are those taking obscene profits by defrauding investors, and those who choose government money over honest work. Its church is a non-vigilant Securities and Exchange Commission and Congress. Its covenant promises self-reliance and security in wealth or sustenance. It delivers collapse of the economy, unfair distribution of wealth, and a drain on the tax system.
Under the guise of crisis intervention, monies were given to private industries that had to surrender control of their operations to the government. The government has grown so much in its appetite for money, there is talk of stripping churches of tax exempt status to feed the state’s control of our lives. Dawn Johnsen, proposed by the president to head the Office of Legal Counsel, sought to strip the Catholic Church of its tax exempt status because of our teaching on abortion.
Socialism is our god, and Obama is his prophet. Its sacrifice is personal freedom. Its priests are politicians and communist ideological organizations. Its church are legislatures and executive branches in government. Its covenant promises fairness and sameness for all. It delivers power and wealth to those who already possess it and takes away opportunity for those out of power and destroys of the economy and future for others.
“CCC 2425 (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2425)The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.”
Liberalism is our god and the Democratic Party is his prophet. Its sacrifice is freedom, integrity, opportunity, and wholeness. Its priests are the fascist elites in government, education, and bureaucracies, who wish to control others’ thoughts and actions. Its churches are political parties, universities, and corrupt professional organizations. Its covenant promises unbridled freedom for perversion of the natural law and oppression for all who disagree with it. It delivers the breakdown of society, constitutional government, and true freedom for morally minded people, especially faithful Christians.
Liberalism or progressivism rejects traditional values, rewrites history, and is centered on man’s desires, not on charity. It substitutes its propaganda for the truth of God, establishes itself as authority and demands obedience to its novelty.
For us Christians, these are abominations, and the people who promote them are truly overcome by evil.
This may not be the change you wanted when you voted for new government, but it is the change you voted for if you did not clearly listen to the evil promises of the new prophets and priests of the new “churches” and ignored the warnings about the new evils that this government clearly promised to impose on America.
The Father is OUR God, and Jesus Christ is His prophet. His sacrifice is the life of His Son Jesus celebrated at Mass. His priests are those ordained and faithful clergy who teach fully the Catholic faith from the Bible and Magisterium, and who celebrate the sacraments of the church faithfully according to its tradition and rites. Its Church is the Holy Catholic Church in which salvation is found in Jesus, the only name in Heaven or on earth by which man can be saved, through Jesus, the only mediator between God and man who saves us by grace through faith in Him and not in abortion, homosexual lust, money’s greed, socialism, or liberalism. He delivers forgiveness of sin and eternal life.
Renewed in Spirit, we begin the fight for the faith and the souls of all in our country and world. We march, telephone, fax, write, protest, inform all those in power of our beliefs and interests to show them we will resist their impositions, remove them from office and employment if they pervert our nation.
We must pray as if it all depends on God, and work as if it all depends on us.
Rev. Richard Perozich
Rev. Richard Perozich is not afraid to tell it like it is...
The following is the text from the May 23rd "From the Pastor" page of the Sunday Bulletin from St. Mary Church
On February 1, 2009 I wrote to you a longer article to rouse you to oppose the promotion of abortion and to show you where the new government was directing the country away from God toward evil. Here are some excerpts and updated commentaries:
“The first 100 days of a new presidency is the time when legislation desired by the new leader is rammed through the congress without much discussion and over the objections of the minority party. It often is not good legislation, has been brewing in the hearts of special interest groups for years, who now have a vehicle to impose their will on the American people.
“If the special interest groups have their way, the first 100 days will spell the end of days for the american nation as we have known it since 1776. Abominations will be forced on us by the new government, such as which our founders never had intended, and certainly opposed to the Christian life: abortion on demand, homogenital sex, lust in all its forms, euthanasia, stem cell killling, cloning, taxes, oppression of opportunity and entrepreneurs, silencing of faith and free speech among many.”
It took more than 100 days for this government to push most of its anti-God, anti-Catholic agenda, and it still is pushing hard.
Abortion is our god and Obama, Pelosi, Kennedy are his prophets. His sacrifice is the life of infants and the souls of mothers. His priests are doctors who perform abortions. His church is Planned Parenthood and FOCA, (freedom of choice act). His covenant promises rights and freedom for women. It delivers death of infants, permanent damage to the souls of women, of men, of politicians.
Within weeks of taking office President Obama issued an executive order to promote abortion overseas to countries which receive U.S. aid. Secretary of State Clinton visited countries and the U.N. to promote abortion. The Health Care Reform Bill does not contain explicit anti abortion language, only an executive order from the president not to fund abortion.
Homosexual lust is our god and Obama, Bishop Gene Robinson, and the Democratic Party are his prophets. the sacrifice is personal integrity and corruption of the body and spirit. Its priests and priestesses are men who have sex with men (MSM) and women who have sex with women (WSW). Its church is the Human Rights Campaign and other activist organizations, Pride clubs and “gay” and “lesbian” centers. Its covenant offers false promises of equality with those who have normal sexual feelings and inner peace. It delivers disease, prolonged adolescent immaturity, and oppression of the church and good people who live upright moral lives.
Congress passed “hate crime” laws to include sexual orientation which raises homosexual practice to a protected behavior and punishes those who oppose it. Congress, with the president’s encouragement is pushing to promote homosexual predators in the military by trying to end the ”Don’t Ask: Don’t Tell” policy, including the proposed new Justice to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan. Congress and the president are trying to promote ENDA, the Employment Non Discrimination Act to include transvestites and homosexuals so that they must be hired even by religious organizations in spite of religious values and over against the first ammendment of freedom of religion.
Money is our god, and the the wealthy and welfare are its prophets. Its sacrifice is hard earned savings and retirement. Its priests are those taking obscene profits by defrauding investors, and those who choose government money over honest work. Its church is a non-vigilant Securities and Exchange Commission and Congress. Its covenant promises self-reliance and security in wealth or sustenance. It delivers collapse of the economy, unfair distribution of wealth, and a drain on the tax system.
Under the guise of crisis intervention, monies were given to private industries that had to surrender control of their operations to the government. The government has grown so much in its appetite for money, there is talk of stripping churches of tax exempt status to feed the state’s control of our lives. Dawn Johnsen, proposed by the president to head the Office of Legal Counsel, sought to strip the Catholic Church of its tax exempt status because of our teaching on abortion.
Socialism is our god, and Obama is his prophet. Its sacrifice is personal freedom. Its priests are politicians and communist ideological organizations. Its church are legislatures and executive branches in government. Its covenant promises fairness and sameness for all. It delivers power and wealth to those who already possess it and takes away opportunity for those out of power and destroys of the economy and future for others.
“CCC 2425 (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2425)The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.”
Liberalism is our god and the Democratic Party is his prophet. Its sacrifice is freedom, integrity, opportunity, and wholeness. Its priests are the fascist elites in government, education, and bureaucracies, who wish to control others’ thoughts and actions. Its churches are political parties, universities, and corrupt professional organizations. Its covenant promises unbridled freedom for perversion of the natural law and oppression for all who disagree with it. It delivers the breakdown of society, constitutional government, and true freedom for morally minded people, especially faithful Christians.
Liberalism or progressivism rejects traditional values, rewrites history, and is centered on man’s desires, not on charity. It substitutes its propaganda for the truth of God, establishes itself as authority and demands obedience to its novelty.
For us Christians, these are abominations, and the people who promote them are truly overcome by evil.
This may not be the change you wanted when you voted for new government, but it is the change you voted for if you did not clearly listen to the evil promises of the new prophets and priests of the new “churches” and ignored the warnings about the new evils that this government clearly promised to impose on America.
The Father is OUR God, and Jesus Christ is His prophet. His sacrifice is the life of His Son Jesus celebrated at Mass. His priests are those ordained and faithful clergy who teach fully the Catholic faith from the Bible and Magisterium, and who celebrate the sacraments of the church faithfully according to its tradition and rites. Its Church is the Holy Catholic Church in which salvation is found in Jesus, the only name in Heaven or on earth by which man can be saved, through Jesus, the only mediator between God and man who saves us by grace through faith in Him and not in abortion, homosexual lust, money’s greed, socialism, or liberalism. He delivers forgiveness of sin and eternal life.
Renewed in Spirit, we begin the fight for the faith and the souls of all in our country and world. We march, telephone, fax, write, protest, inform all those in power of our beliefs and interests to show them we will resist their impositions, remove them from office and employment if they pervert our nation.
We must pray as if it all depends on God, and work as if it all depends on us.
Rev. Richard Perozich
Friday, May 21, 2010
What a shock, Mr Titone(with gun to head) is to retire!
As per an announcement in the weekly bulletin, by Msgr. Lisante, our parish is now down to ONE Music Director. Mr. Titone is
going to retire (no doubt, with a gun to his head).
Why would the parish keep Rapanaro, when we had a full voiced, professionally trained opera singer like Mr Titone. What is the difference in their salaries? I will guess
that Rapanaro's salary is much higher, and he probably has a contract with Msgr, which Mr Titone never needed with the former Pastor, Fr. Mason.
My take on this situation is that the Msgr. has burned through the surplus that was left by Fr. Mason. This “lack of funds” now paves the way for the Bishop to claim that there was not enough money in OLL to justify keeping it open.... particularly since there are several other parishes close by. The motives are blatantly obvious, like looking through a pane of clear glass... you can see right through it. What happened to Monsignor’s claim of receiving over $17,000 per week in collections? Could it be that the monies have been taken out of the surplus to inflate the weekly collections? When the true collection amounts are revealed, it will look like a drastic drop; therefore, providing them a two-fold accomplishment....use up what excess they had, and look like the parishioners are not contributing what is needed to warrant keeping the parish open.
I had predicted, back in 2008, that it was what would come to fruition: Step one - close down the school, Step two – show a drop in weekly collection, thus giving way to close the parish altogether! The church has one main job, that of saving as many souls as possible from going to Hell and leading them instead to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!
Pray for Our Lady of Lourdes Parish, good people being crushed by those to whom their well-being was entrusted.
To all those responsible for the demise of Our Lady of Lourdes Parish, may GOD have mercy on your Souls!
Itzik
going to retire (no doubt, with a gun to his head).
Why would the parish keep Rapanaro, when we had a full voiced, professionally trained opera singer like Mr Titone. What is the difference in their salaries? I will guess
that Rapanaro's salary is much higher, and he probably has a contract with Msgr, which Mr Titone never needed with the former Pastor, Fr. Mason.
My take on this situation is that the Msgr. has burned through the surplus that was left by Fr. Mason. This “lack of funds” now paves the way for the Bishop to claim that there was not enough money in OLL to justify keeping it open.... particularly since there are several other parishes close by. The motives are blatantly obvious, like looking through a pane of clear glass... you can see right through it. What happened to Monsignor’s claim of receiving over $17,000 per week in collections? Could it be that the monies have been taken out of the surplus to inflate the weekly collections? When the true collection amounts are revealed, it will look like a drastic drop; therefore, providing them a two-fold accomplishment....use up what excess they had, and look like the parishioners are not contributing what is needed to warrant keeping the parish open.
I had predicted, back in 2008, that it was what would come to fruition: Step one - close down the school, Step two – show a drop in weekly collection, thus giving way to close the parish altogether! The church has one main job, that of saving as many souls as possible from going to Hell and leading them instead to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!
Pray for Our Lady of Lourdes Parish, good people being crushed by those to whom their well-being was entrusted.
To all those responsible for the demise of Our Lady of Lourdes Parish, may GOD have mercy on your Souls!
Itzik
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Gender-bending? No, gender destruction!
May 20, 2010
Yogyakarta Principles Brought to Council of Europe
By Terrence McKeegan, J.D.
Co-authored by Emanuele Rizzardi
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) Two recent initiatives out of the Council of Europe (CoE) on sexual orientation and gender identity are seen as the first major step to codify the radical Yogyakarta Principles into the framework of international institutions.
The Yogyakarta Principles (Principles) is a 2007 document adopted by a group of human rights “experts” including several United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteurs and members of UN treaty monitoring bodies. The Principles list human rights that already exist in binding international law, and reinterprets each one to include homosexual “rights.” Further, they seek to ensure that the exercise of freedom of expression and religion do not violate “the rights of freedoms of persons of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities.”
The Council of Ministers (CoM) Recommendation states “that neither cultural, traditional, nor religious values, nor the rules of a ‘dominant culture’ can be invoked to justify hate speech or any other form of discrimination, including on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity.” Every paragraph of this document’s appendix refers directly to the aspect of the Yogyakarta Principles, including the right to security and protection from violence, to privacy, to respect for same-sex marriages and to adoption for homosexual couples.
The Parliamentary Assembly of Europe (PACE) Resolution 1728, was adopted with 51 votes in favor, 25 against and 5 abstentions. It repeats verbatim the Yogyakarta Principles definition of gender identity that “refers to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender.” The European People’s Party, led by its newly elected Italian chairman Luca Volontè, succeeded in passing several amendments which helped to mitigate the most radical provisions of the original text. One amendment provides a stronger exemption to “religious institutions and organizations,” while other amendments prevented new rights to same-sex marriage or adoption by homosexual couples.
Despite this, the final PACE resolution succeeded in capturing many of the core new “rights” contained in the Yogyakarta Principles, including a hate speech provision defined as “speech likely to legitimize and fuel discrimination or hatred based on intolerance.” According to Gregor Puppinck, Director of the European Centre for Law and Justice, the hate speech provision is too “broad and vague” and poses serious risks to religious preachers who cite the biblical passages about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior.
Prominent among those invited to speak during the drafting meetings of the PACE resolution was Michael O’Flaherty, a member of the UN Human Rights Committee and a professor at the University of Nottingham, who is widely credited as the principle author of the Yogyakarta Principles. Although not mentioned on his faculty profile, O’Flaherty is a Catholic priest who is still listed as a member of the clergy for the Diocese of Galway, Ireland.
The CoE, founded in 1949, is the primary European institution devoted to safeguarding human rights, of which the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is the judicial body. Although neither CoE document is binding, Roger Kiska, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, warned the Friday Fax,“These CoE documents in the future would be likely quoted by the ECHR and influence its interpretations.”
Yogyakarta Principles Brought to Council of Europe
By Terrence McKeegan, J.D.
Co-authored by Emanuele Rizzardi
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) Two recent initiatives out of the Council of Europe (CoE) on sexual orientation and gender identity are seen as the first major step to codify the radical Yogyakarta Principles into the framework of international institutions.
The Yogyakarta Principles (Principles) is a 2007 document adopted by a group of human rights “experts” including several United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteurs and members of UN treaty monitoring bodies. The Principles list human rights that already exist in binding international law, and reinterprets each one to include homosexual “rights.” Further, they seek to ensure that the exercise of freedom of expression and religion do not violate “the rights of freedoms of persons of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities.”
The Council of Ministers (CoM) Recommendation states “that neither cultural, traditional, nor religious values, nor the rules of a ‘dominant culture’ can be invoked to justify hate speech or any other form of discrimination, including on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity.” Every paragraph of this document’s appendix refers directly to the aspect of the Yogyakarta Principles, including the right to security and protection from violence, to privacy, to respect for same-sex marriages and to adoption for homosexual couples.
The Parliamentary Assembly of Europe (PACE) Resolution 1728, was adopted with 51 votes in favor, 25 against and 5 abstentions. It repeats verbatim the Yogyakarta Principles definition of gender identity that “refers to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender.” The European People’s Party, led by its newly elected Italian chairman Luca Volontè, succeeded in passing several amendments which helped to mitigate the most radical provisions of the original text. One amendment provides a stronger exemption to “religious institutions and organizations,” while other amendments prevented new rights to same-sex marriage or adoption by homosexual couples.
Despite this, the final PACE resolution succeeded in capturing many of the core new “rights” contained in the Yogyakarta Principles, including a hate speech provision defined as “speech likely to legitimize and fuel discrimination or hatred based on intolerance.” According to Gregor Puppinck, Director of the European Centre for Law and Justice, the hate speech provision is too “broad and vague” and poses serious risks to religious preachers who cite the biblical passages about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior.
Prominent among those invited to speak during the drafting meetings of the PACE resolution was Michael O’Flaherty, a member of the UN Human Rights Committee and a professor at the University of Nottingham, who is widely credited as the principle author of the Yogyakarta Principles. Although not mentioned on his faculty profile, O’Flaherty is a Catholic priest who is still listed as a member of the clergy for the Diocese of Galway, Ireland.
The CoE, founded in 1949, is the primary European institution devoted to safeguarding human rights, of which the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is the judicial body. Although neither CoE document is binding, Roger Kiska, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, warned the Friday Fax,“These CoE documents in the future would be likely quoted by the ECHR and influence its interpretations.”
Why GOD'S punishment is close at hand!
May 20, 2010
Portugal Legalizes Homosexual Marriage, Visiting Pope Condemns It
By Samantha Singson Terrence McKeegan, J.D.
(NEW YORK - C-FAM) This week, the president of Portugal announced his decision to ratify a law allowing gay marriage in the small European country. The same-sex marriage bill first passed in the Portuguese parliament in January, but was subject to a presidential veto. The president's decision to sign the bill into law makes Portugal the sixth European country allowing same-sex couples to wed.
The ratification by President Anibal Cavaco Silva, described as a practicing Catholic, comes just days after a papal visit to the predominantly Catholic country where Pope Benedict spoke out against the legislation. When the Portuguese parliament first passed the same-sex "marriage" legislation, the Pope called it an "attack" on the "natural differences between men and women."
In his address to Catholic lay workers in Fatima last week, Benedict XVI expressed his deep appreciation for “initiatives aimed at protecting the essential and primary values of life, beginning at conception, and of the family based on the indissoluble marriage between a man and a woman, [that] help to respond to some of today’s most insidious and dangerous threats to the common good. Such initiatives represent, alongside numerous other forms of commitment, essential elements in the building of the civilization of love.”
The Socialist government's bill was backed by all of Portugal's left-of-center parties, who comprise a Parliamentary majority. Right-wing parties opposed the legislation and demanded a national referendum. Despite opposition, however, the Constitutional Court of Portugal ruled that the bill was legal last month.
More than 90% of the Portuguese population identifies themselves as Catholic, but the passage of the same-sex "marriage" law is just the latest in a trend away from Catholic values. After years of being targeted by abortion rights advocates, Portugal liberalized their strict abortion laws in 2007. Prior to the change, Portugal had one of Europe's most pro-life laws; permitting abortion up to 12 weeks only in cases of rape or to save the life of the mother. The liberalized law now allows abortion on demand up to the 10th week of pregnancy, requiring only a three-day waiting period.
International homosexual groups have heralded the decision and have said they do not intend to stop there. When the law first passed in parliament last January the European arm of International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) announced that, "It is clear that a European consensus is fast emerging on marriage equality." Linda Freimane, Co-Chair of ILGA-Europe's Executive Board cautioned that despite the promising start, "there still is a fight for full equality – and that is also including entitlement to adoption."
Portugal's left-leaning trend has also become apparent at the United Nations. At the Commission on Population and Development last month, Portugal led the push for numerous references to "sexual and reproductive health" and language on comprehensive sexuality education for young people, despite sustained opposition from a number of other countries.
The other European countries to allow same-sex "marriage” are the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway and Sweden.
Portugal Legalizes Homosexual Marriage, Visiting Pope Condemns It
By Samantha Singson Terrence McKeegan, J.D.
(NEW YORK - C-FAM) This week, the president of Portugal announced his decision to ratify a law allowing gay marriage in the small European country. The same-sex marriage bill first passed in the Portuguese parliament in January, but was subject to a presidential veto. The president's decision to sign the bill into law makes Portugal the sixth European country allowing same-sex couples to wed.
The ratification by President Anibal Cavaco Silva, described as a practicing Catholic, comes just days after a papal visit to the predominantly Catholic country where Pope Benedict spoke out against the legislation. When the Portuguese parliament first passed the same-sex "marriage" legislation, the Pope called it an "attack" on the "natural differences between men and women."
In his address to Catholic lay workers in Fatima last week, Benedict XVI expressed his deep appreciation for “initiatives aimed at protecting the essential and primary values of life, beginning at conception, and of the family based on the indissoluble marriage between a man and a woman, [that] help to respond to some of today’s most insidious and dangerous threats to the common good. Such initiatives represent, alongside numerous other forms of commitment, essential elements in the building of the civilization of love.”
The Socialist government's bill was backed by all of Portugal's left-of-center parties, who comprise a Parliamentary majority. Right-wing parties opposed the legislation and demanded a national referendum. Despite opposition, however, the Constitutional Court of Portugal ruled that the bill was legal last month.
More than 90% of the Portuguese population identifies themselves as Catholic, but the passage of the same-sex "marriage" law is just the latest in a trend away from Catholic values. After years of being targeted by abortion rights advocates, Portugal liberalized their strict abortion laws in 2007. Prior to the change, Portugal had one of Europe's most pro-life laws; permitting abortion up to 12 weeks only in cases of rape or to save the life of the mother. The liberalized law now allows abortion on demand up to the 10th week of pregnancy, requiring only a three-day waiting period.
International homosexual groups have heralded the decision and have said they do not intend to stop there. When the law first passed in parliament last January the European arm of International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) announced that, "It is clear that a European consensus is fast emerging on marriage equality." Linda Freimane, Co-Chair of ILGA-Europe's Executive Board cautioned that despite the promising start, "there still is a fight for full equality – and that is also including entitlement to adoption."
Portugal's left-leaning trend has also become apparent at the United Nations. At the Commission on Population and Development last month, Portugal led the push for numerous references to "sexual and reproductive health" and language on comprehensive sexuality education for young people, despite sustained opposition from a number of other countries.
The other European countries to allow same-sex "marriage” are the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway and Sweden.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
"Bring out the Bus for Pelosi!"
Pelosi: ObamaCare Helps Artists Avoid Hassle of Working
Posted by Michael F. Cannon
ObamaCare creates incentives not to climb the economic ladder. It also creates incentives not to work at all; able-bodied people can quit their jobs, safe in the knowledge that the suckers working man will foot the bill for any health care they may need. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi thinks that’s a not a bug, but a feature of the new law, at least if those able-bodied non-paycheck earners are artists.(HT: CNS News.)
(And I thought it was to help those that couldn't afford health care! So let me get this straight,
if more people quit their jobs to learn how to paint , then that is going to help the unemployment
situation????? I wonder if the Botox is going to her brain? No matter, November is not that far away, she will be thrown under the bus, just like Obamna did with Specter! If he doesn't support those that supported him, what do you think he feels about the American people? Which answers the question, "Why is the government producing millions of extra large buses?")
Posted by Michael F. Cannon
ObamaCare creates incentives not to climb the economic ladder. It also creates incentives not to work at all; able-bodied people can quit their jobs, safe in the knowledge that the suckers working man will foot the bill for any health care they may need. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi thinks that’s a not a bug, but a feature of the new law, at least if those able-bodied non-paycheck earners are artists.(HT: CNS News.)
(And I thought it was to help those that couldn't afford health care! So let me get this straight,
if more people quit their jobs to learn how to paint , then that is going to help the unemployment
situation????? I wonder if the Botox is going to her brain? No matter, November is not that far away, she will be thrown under the bus, just like Obamna did with Specter! If he doesn't support those that supported him, what do you think he feels about the American people? Which answers the question, "Why is the government producing millions of extra large buses?")
Bishops prefer Slavery!
Monday, May 17, 2010
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops prefer Slavery!
Hat tip to Tuleesh who provided this little gem from the Cathechism of the Catholic Church:
Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens" (CCC 2241)
So I ask all of the Bishops and Priests that support the opposition to Arizona's new law to explain to us faithful just why you would deny this state and the lawful abiding citizens within it the right to protect itself from a lawless and sinful group of people who are clearly not respecting or showing gratitude to this country which has received them? ...........Silence
Also you are being very obtuse in your position. It makes one wonder if the real reason is that you prefer to keep this group of people in their current status so they can continue to work in deplorable conditions and as slaves to their dishonest masters who pay them under the table?........Silence
Could it be because like the progressive politicians you observe keenly that if you invest now, when these illegals take over through propogation you will be in the catbird seat to fill your pews and coffers? ..........Silence
Dare I suppose, in an even more devious and evil way you have chosen to be cowards and turn on God and his directives through the Magisterium in order to keep your cushy and serene lifestyle here on earth? ........Silence
Apply your dumbass logic to any other law, and it would be quickly rebuffed. For example, if we applied the same thought process to someone who is homeless breaking into YOUR rectory because they were in need of a place to stay, would your position would be to allow this person to stay regardless of the illegal occupancy and laws they broke. I doubt it. What if a person who could not afford a car but needed one to get to work, so they stole yours. What illegal immigrants are doing is NO DIFFERENT, and they should be sent back to whence they came.
Once more and I have said this before, if their government is so corrupt that it oppresses its people which need to come to the USA to get their "fair shot at life" Why shouldn't they be instructed to stay in that country and fight for a just government? Isn't that the morally just action for their case?
You guys are doing nothing but destroying what it is that illegals come here seeking, and when they do propogate to the point where they are the majority you will not be treated kindly. Because if they were not willing to work to change their own country what idiotic logic tells you they will do anything to change this government once they and the rest of the progressives corrupt this one.
Yeah, I know...........SILENCE!
Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the Divine Power of God, cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.
posted by Simplex Vir
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops prefer Slavery!
Hat tip to Tuleesh who provided this little gem from the Cathechism of the Catholic Church:
Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens" (CCC 2241)
So I ask all of the Bishops and Priests that support the opposition to Arizona's new law to explain to us faithful just why you would deny this state and the lawful abiding citizens within it the right to protect itself from a lawless and sinful group of people who are clearly not respecting or showing gratitude to this country which has received them? ...........Silence
Also you are being very obtuse in your position. It makes one wonder if the real reason is that you prefer to keep this group of people in their current status so they can continue to work in deplorable conditions and as slaves to their dishonest masters who pay them under the table?........Silence
Could it be because like the progressive politicians you observe keenly that if you invest now, when these illegals take over through propogation you will be in the catbird seat to fill your pews and coffers? ..........Silence
Dare I suppose, in an even more devious and evil way you have chosen to be cowards and turn on God and his directives through the Magisterium in order to keep your cushy and serene lifestyle here on earth? ........Silence
Apply your dumbass logic to any other law, and it would be quickly rebuffed. For example, if we applied the same thought process to someone who is homeless breaking into YOUR rectory because they were in need of a place to stay, would your position would be to allow this person to stay regardless of the illegal occupancy and laws they broke. I doubt it. What if a person who could not afford a car but needed one to get to work, so they stole yours. What illegal immigrants are doing is NO DIFFERENT, and they should be sent back to whence they came.
Once more and I have said this before, if their government is so corrupt that it oppresses its people which need to come to the USA to get their "fair shot at life" Why shouldn't they be instructed to stay in that country and fight for a just government? Isn't that the morally just action for their case?
You guys are doing nothing but destroying what it is that illegals come here seeking, and when they do propogate to the point where they are the majority you will not be treated kindly. Because if they were not willing to work to change their own country what idiotic logic tells you they will do anything to change this government once they and the rest of the progressives corrupt this one.
Yeah, I know...........SILENCE!
Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the Divine Power of God, cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.
posted by Simplex Vir
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Central planning VS Individual Liberty
Many of us go through life never really thinking about the above two subjects. However at the current rate that the United States government is closing ranks and centralizing one major activity after another, i.e. Healthcare, Finance, et al. We are going to experience the destructive forces of bureaucratic reprobates on a massive scale.
In my field of profession, which is procurement, I have been awash in the battle between central planning and individual liberty all my career. There are two ways that this comes into play. There is either sales (who represent individual liberty) versus procurement (who represents central planning) or local procurement (who represents individual liberty) versus central/corporate procurement (who represents central planning). In both cases each side has a case to be made for why the processes which they undertake in order to better the bottom line profit merit more consideration and should take precedence over the other.
Beginning with sales versus procurement lets examine the facts. First, it is the responsibility of sales to bring business to a company so that revenue comes in and profits can be made. If a company can minimize their expenditures in gaining the revenue, profits will increase. Here is where the stealthy central planning procurement professional can exploit a not so vigilant manager into believing that he can increase profits through "standardization", "risk management", and "bundling procurements". This latter term means taking multiple procurements that are similar in nature across an organization and putting them together to gain a cheaper price. These are all very noble goals and when properly applied indeed improve the bottom line. However, there is ALWAYS enmity between sales and procurement. This is primarily a personality issue. Most sales people are "drivers" they typically act on emotion and are not detail oriented. They can't afford to be, their job is to make a person "feel" confident about doing business with your company. This frustrates the beejeezus out of procurement who is typically an "analytical" personality. This guy gets a sales order from sales and can't figure out what was sold. Proper numbers aren't used, some things are promised that should not be, etc... All the procurement guy knows is now he has to make chicken salad out of chicken &%)*. So from this point procurement always thinks in terms that if they ever get the chance to run things they would put a stop to all this inattention to detail by controlling, who, what, when, where, and why goods are sold and purchased.
This is certainly not a good idea, sales needs the ability to be flexible to bring in revenue. Many times the difference between getting a sale and not getting one is being able to do something the other guys can't. If you have no sales, you can't very well "control" the procurement of nothing. It took me a very long time to come to grips with this fact as a professional. That sales guy gives me the butter and the bread I have to figure out how to spread it. That is a fact of business life. You just have to put up with some amount of inefficiency. Yes I said that all you Six Sigma Black Belts, to hell with you and your DMAIC!
Next lets examine in more detail the actual "standardization", "risk management", and "bundling" aspects of a central procurement planner. This is still one of my biggest pet peeves professionally. As the story goes, when you have decentralized procurement (procurement at every branch, departmental, organizational level, as the case may be, there are duplicated processes, or multiples of the same product being procured separately and from different suppliers, etc. The big push has been going on for 20 years now to centralize, standardize, and bundle as much procurement as possible in order to get costs lower. Sounds like a great idea doesn't it! I agree these are also noble goals but what happens if you let it carry away your organization? Well I will tell you, first if you are in manufacturing the first casualty is usually your product line. Soon when you used to make five different types of pressure washers, you now can only provide three. So all of the clients that sales guy had that needed the other two types are no longer served. In most cases if that client still wanted to do business with you he either bought a pressure washer that was a little too small for his needs or way too big for his needs. All because some pointy headed number cruncher decided that he could save some money by standardizing on three models only. This same practice can be applied to IT equipment that is internal to a company. "Thou Shalt Buy This Model Only" who cares what the need is, which can vary by the geographical market served or industry served etc. It becomes the equivalent of a Star Trek uniform. You only have a choice of red, gold, or blue of this ugly polyester jumpsuit. Again decentralized procurement has many inefficiencies but at the same time you can more easily adapt to changes and challenges in the marketplace.
"So SimplexVir, that was a lot of useless information that I would have preferred not to have read, why have you vexed me so?" GOOD QUESTION!
You see what is happening in America right now is you have a bunch of bureaucrats that are chomping at the bit to "finally" put into place all of these theories and centralization plans so that they can CONTROL what the population does. They have no tolerance for individual liberty, you just do not know what is best for you and you need to fit into the proper processes that they have designed. If you don't fit tough, they will make you fit. You must comply in order for their plans to work. They do not care about your inefficient, independent, individual liberty. This is a cancer on this country. Just like allowing a procurement professionals to take over a company would absolutely KILL the company, allowing a central planning style of government to become so large and have so much control will KILL this Nation. We already have one foot in the grave!
posted by Simplex Vir
In my field of profession, which is procurement, I have been awash in the battle between central planning and individual liberty all my career. There are two ways that this comes into play. There is either sales (who represent individual liberty) versus procurement (who represents central planning) or local procurement (who represents individual liberty) versus central/corporate procurement (who represents central planning). In both cases each side has a case to be made for why the processes which they undertake in order to better the bottom line profit merit more consideration and should take precedence over the other.
Beginning with sales versus procurement lets examine the facts. First, it is the responsibility of sales to bring business to a company so that revenue comes in and profits can be made. If a company can minimize their expenditures in gaining the revenue, profits will increase. Here is where the stealthy central planning procurement professional can exploit a not so vigilant manager into believing that he can increase profits through "standardization", "risk management", and "bundling procurements". This latter term means taking multiple procurements that are similar in nature across an organization and putting them together to gain a cheaper price. These are all very noble goals and when properly applied indeed improve the bottom line. However, there is ALWAYS enmity between sales and procurement. This is primarily a personality issue. Most sales people are "drivers" they typically act on emotion and are not detail oriented. They can't afford to be, their job is to make a person "feel" confident about doing business with your company. This frustrates the beejeezus out of procurement who is typically an "analytical" personality. This guy gets a sales order from sales and can't figure out what was sold. Proper numbers aren't used, some things are promised that should not be, etc... All the procurement guy knows is now he has to make chicken salad out of chicken &%)*. So from this point procurement always thinks in terms that if they ever get the chance to run things they would put a stop to all this inattention to detail by controlling, who, what, when, where, and why goods are sold and purchased.
This is certainly not a good idea, sales needs the ability to be flexible to bring in revenue. Many times the difference between getting a sale and not getting one is being able to do something the other guys can't. If you have no sales, you can't very well "control" the procurement of nothing. It took me a very long time to come to grips with this fact as a professional. That sales guy gives me the butter and the bread I have to figure out how to spread it. That is a fact of business life. You just have to put up with some amount of inefficiency. Yes I said that all you Six Sigma Black Belts, to hell with you and your DMAIC!
Next lets examine in more detail the actual "standardization", "risk management", and "bundling" aspects of a central procurement planner. This is still one of my biggest pet peeves professionally. As the story goes, when you have decentralized procurement (procurement at every branch, departmental, organizational level, as the case may be, there are duplicated processes, or multiples of the same product being procured separately and from different suppliers, etc. The big push has been going on for 20 years now to centralize, standardize, and bundle as much procurement as possible in order to get costs lower. Sounds like a great idea doesn't it! I agree these are also noble goals but what happens if you let it carry away your organization? Well I will tell you, first if you are in manufacturing the first casualty is usually your product line. Soon when you used to make five different types of pressure washers, you now can only provide three. So all of the clients that sales guy had that needed the other two types are no longer served. In most cases if that client still wanted to do business with you he either bought a pressure washer that was a little too small for his needs or way too big for his needs. All because some pointy headed number cruncher decided that he could save some money by standardizing on three models only. This same practice can be applied to IT equipment that is internal to a company. "Thou Shalt Buy This Model Only" who cares what the need is, which can vary by the geographical market served or industry served etc. It becomes the equivalent of a Star Trek uniform. You only have a choice of red, gold, or blue of this ugly polyester jumpsuit. Again decentralized procurement has many inefficiencies but at the same time you can more easily adapt to changes and challenges in the marketplace.
"So SimplexVir, that was a lot of useless information that I would have preferred not to have read, why have you vexed me so?" GOOD QUESTION!
You see what is happening in America right now is you have a bunch of bureaucrats that are chomping at the bit to "finally" put into place all of these theories and centralization plans so that they can CONTROL what the population does. They have no tolerance for individual liberty, you just do not know what is best for you and you need to fit into the proper processes that they have designed. If you don't fit tough, they will make you fit. You must comply in order for their plans to work. They do not care about your inefficient, independent, individual liberty. This is a cancer on this country. Just like allowing a procurement professionals to take over a company would absolutely KILL the company, allowing a central planning style of government to become so large and have so much control will KILL this Nation. We already have one foot in the grave!
posted by Simplex Vir
Saturday, May 15, 2010
What happened to their cry of " Separation of Church and State"?
Friday, May 14, 2010
Pope Nancy Wags Finger At American Bishops
Only a handful stand up to her
Here's some of a pathetically sad article from The California Catholic Daily;
Pelosi lectures bishops
House Speaker says Church should preach immigration reform from its pulpits
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat and self-described Catholic who has repeatedly run afoul of American bishops for her pro-abortion, pro-stem cell research voting record, has counseled U.S. prelates they should preach immigration reform from the pulpit.
"The cardinals, the archbishops, the bishops that come to me... say, 'We want you to pass immigration reform,' and I said, 'I want you to speak about it from the pulpit,'" Pelosi told participants at a May 6 conference at the U.S. Capitol sponsored by the National Catholic Reporter and Trinity Washington University, her alma mater. "Some (who) oppose immigration reform are sitting in those pews, and you have to tell them that this is a manifestation of our living the Gospels."
“Within the last 24 hours, the archbishops of Denver, New York, Philadelphia and Washington D.C., along with Bishop William Lori have all publicly upbraided the Speaker of the House for her erroneous comments on the Church’s abortion teaching,” reported Catholic News Agency at the time.
Five.
A whopping five of our alleged 'leaders' have had the backbone to stand up to Pope Nancy. Keep in mind, there are over 300 members of the USCCB.
Could we be seeing the real 3d Message of Fatima being played out? Just a thought.
posted by Vir Speluncae Catholicus
(I guess when it suits their purpose, there is not separation of Church and State!)
Pope Nancy Wags Finger At American Bishops
Only a handful stand up to her
Here's some of a pathetically sad article from The California Catholic Daily;
Pelosi lectures bishops
House Speaker says Church should preach immigration reform from its pulpits
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat and self-described Catholic who has repeatedly run afoul of American bishops for her pro-abortion, pro-stem cell research voting record, has counseled U.S. prelates they should preach immigration reform from the pulpit.
"The cardinals, the archbishops, the bishops that come to me... say, 'We want you to pass immigration reform,' and I said, 'I want you to speak about it from the pulpit,'" Pelosi told participants at a May 6 conference at the U.S. Capitol sponsored by the National Catholic Reporter and Trinity Washington University, her alma mater. "Some (who) oppose immigration reform are sitting in those pews, and you have to tell them that this is a manifestation of our living the Gospels."
“Within the last 24 hours, the archbishops of Denver, New York, Philadelphia and Washington D.C., along with Bishop William Lori have all publicly upbraided the Speaker of the House for her erroneous comments on the Church’s abortion teaching,” reported Catholic News Agency at the time.
Five.
A whopping five of our alleged 'leaders' have had the backbone to stand up to Pope Nancy. Keep in mind, there are over 300 members of the USCCB.
Could we be seeing the real 3d Message of Fatima being played out? Just a thought.
posted by Vir Speluncae Catholicus
(I guess when it suits their purpose, there is not separation of Church and State!)
Apathy will destroy America
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning last November's Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29
2. Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000 3. Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million 4. Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1 Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.
Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal’s - and they vote - then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
Apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom!
Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29
2. Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000 3. Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million 4. Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1 Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.
Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal’s - and they vote - then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
Apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom!
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Supreme Court To Face Mecca
by Ann Coulter
05/12/2010
Americans can thank the Supreme Court for the attempted car bombing of Times Square, as well as any future terrorist attacks that might be less "amateurish" and which our commander in chief will be unable to thwart unless the bomb fizzles.
Over blistering dissents by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, five Supreme Court justices have repeatedly voted to treat jihadists like turnstile jumpers. (Thanks, Justice Kennedy!)
That's worked so well that Obama's own attorney general is now talking about making massive exceptions to the Miranda warnings -- exceptions that will apply to all criminal suspects, by the way -- in order to deal with terrorists having to be read their rights as a bomb is about to go off.
Let's be clear: When Eric Holder thinks we're being too easy on terrorists, we are being too easy on terrorists.
Either the five liberal justices demanding constitutional rights for terrorists are out of their minds, or the religious worship of President Franklin D. Roosevelt has got to stop. According to liberal logic in the war on terrorism, FDR was a bloodthirsty war criminal.
When six Germans and two Americans were suspected of plotting an attack on U.S. munitions plants during World War II, FDR immediately ordered them arrested and tried in a secret military tribunal held behind closed doors at the Department of Justice.
Within weeks, all were found guilty. Six of the eight, including one U.S. citizen, were given the electric chair. One German was sentenced to life in prison and the other American citizen -- who had turned himself in and revealed the plot to the FBI -- got 30 years.
The Supreme Court upheld the secret trial, but didn't get around to producing an opinion until after Old Sparky had rendered its own verdict.
Consider that the eight saboteurs never actually did anything other than enter the country illegally, which I gather is considered a constitutional right these days (except in my future home state of Arizona).
Still, FDR had them executed or imprisoned after trial in a secret military tribunal.
How many future car bombers would be discouraged if Faisal Shahzad were tried by military tribunal and executed by, say, the end of the month? What if Army doctor Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had already gotten the chair?
But we can't do that because, according to five Supreme Court justices who aren't "progressive" enough for American liberals, terrorists waging war on U.S. soil get full constitutional protections.
So, instead, we're left arguing about whether an exception should be made to Miranda rights in the case of a terrorist who plotted with foreign agents to plant a car bomb in Times Square. ("You have the right to remain violent ...")
We are at war. The Supreme Court has no right to stick its fat, unelected nose into the commander in chief's constitutional war powers, particularly in a war against savages whose only reason for not nuking us yet is that they don't have the technology. (The New York Times hasn't gotten around to printing it.)
The reason Democrats are obsessed with controlling the courts is that unelected judges issuing final edicts is the only way liberals can attain their insane policy agenda. No group of Americans outside of Nancy Pelosi's district would vote for politicians who enacted laws similar to the phony "constitutional rights" liberal justices proclaim from the Supreme Court.
President Obama would rather surrender his authority as commander in chief to the Supreme Court than get blamed for deciding to treat terrorists as if they're Paris Hilton facing a drunk driving charge. Let the court do it.
(Recall that Obama's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attack, in a civilian court in New York was even less popular with the American people than Jay Leno at 10 p.m.)
Meanwhile, elected Democrats in Congress are also happy to yield their law-making authority to the court, so they don't have to be the ones voting for laws mandating late-term abortions; hard-core pornography on the Internet; government-sanctioned race discrimination; forced cross-district busing; confiscatory property tax hikes to fund socially engineered school desegregation plans; bans on the public observation of religious traditions shared by most Americans; free education, health care and welfare benefits for illegal immigrants; and a redefinition of the 2,000-year-old institution of marriage against the express wishes of voters in every state to vote on it.
(Note: This is only a partial list.)
The Supreme Court has become a Blue Ribbon Commission for Lunatics, issuing binding edicts in 5-4 votes that Americans would never in a million years vote for. Distinguishing between Elena Kagan and any other Democratic nominee is like distinguishing between Hannibal Lecter and Vlad the Impaler.
05/12/2010
Americans can thank the Supreme Court for the attempted car bombing of Times Square, as well as any future terrorist attacks that might be less "amateurish" and which our commander in chief will be unable to thwart unless the bomb fizzles.
Over blistering dissents by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, five Supreme Court justices have repeatedly voted to treat jihadists like turnstile jumpers. (Thanks, Justice Kennedy!)
That's worked so well that Obama's own attorney general is now talking about making massive exceptions to the Miranda warnings -- exceptions that will apply to all criminal suspects, by the way -- in order to deal with terrorists having to be read their rights as a bomb is about to go off.
Let's be clear: When Eric Holder thinks we're being too easy on terrorists, we are being too easy on terrorists.
Either the five liberal justices demanding constitutional rights for terrorists are out of their minds, or the religious worship of President Franklin D. Roosevelt has got to stop. According to liberal logic in the war on terrorism, FDR was a bloodthirsty war criminal.
When six Germans and two Americans were suspected of plotting an attack on U.S. munitions plants during World War II, FDR immediately ordered them arrested and tried in a secret military tribunal held behind closed doors at the Department of Justice.
Within weeks, all were found guilty. Six of the eight, including one U.S. citizen, were given the electric chair. One German was sentenced to life in prison and the other American citizen -- who had turned himself in and revealed the plot to the FBI -- got 30 years.
The Supreme Court upheld the secret trial, but didn't get around to producing an opinion until after Old Sparky had rendered its own verdict.
Consider that the eight saboteurs never actually did anything other than enter the country illegally, which I gather is considered a constitutional right these days (except in my future home state of Arizona).
Still, FDR had them executed or imprisoned after trial in a secret military tribunal.
How many future car bombers would be discouraged if Faisal Shahzad were tried by military tribunal and executed by, say, the end of the month? What if Army doctor Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had already gotten the chair?
But we can't do that because, according to five Supreme Court justices who aren't "progressive" enough for American liberals, terrorists waging war on U.S. soil get full constitutional protections.
So, instead, we're left arguing about whether an exception should be made to Miranda rights in the case of a terrorist who plotted with foreign agents to plant a car bomb in Times Square. ("You have the right to remain violent ...")
We are at war. The Supreme Court has no right to stick its fat, unelected nose into the commander in chief's constitutional war powers, particularly in a war against savages whose only reason for not nuking us yet is that they don't have the technology. (The New York Times hasn't gotten around to printing it.)
The reason Democrats are obsessed with controlling the courts is that unelected judges issuing final edicts is the only way liberals can attain their insane policy agenda. No group of Americans outside of Nancy Pelosi's district would vote for politicians who enacted laws similar to the phony "constitutional rights" liberal justices proclaim from the Supreme Court.
President Obama would rather surrender his authority as commander in chief to the Supreme Court than get blamed for deciding to treat terrorists as if they're Paris Hilton facing a drunk driving charge. Let the court do it.
(Recall that Obama's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attack, in a civilian court in New York was even less popular with the American people than Jay Leno at 10 p.m.)
Meanwhile, elected Democrats in Congress are also happy to yield their law-making authority to the court, so they don't have to be the ones voting for laws mandating late-term abortions; hard-core pornography on the Internet; government-sanctioned race discrimination; forced cross-district busing; confiscatory property tax hikes to fund socially engineered school desegregation plans; bans on the public observation of religious traditions shared by most Americans; free education, health care and welfare benefits for illegal immigrants; and a redefinition of the 2,000-year-old institution of marriage against the express wishes of voters in every state to vote on it.
(Note: This is only a partial list.)
The Supreme Court has become a Blue Ribbon Commission for Lunatics, issuing binding edicts in 5-4 votes that Americans would never in a million years vote for. Distinguishing between Elena Kagan and any other Democratic nominee is like distinguishing between Hannibal Lecter and Vlad the Impaler.
The Lisante replacement speaks! Kennedy funeral revisited
Msgr. Maniscalco (took over pastor-ship from Msgr Lisante at St Thomas) Tries To Balance the Equation
I think it's worth taking a second look at this disturbing statement of Msgr. Frank Maniscalco in his recent explanation of the Kennedy funeral in The Long Island Catholic:
First of all, fairness demands pointing out the many areas of agreement between Senator Kennedy’s public policy positions and Catholic social teaching. Undoubtedly his dissent on the respect for life is a most serious matter, but we cannot disregard the Lord’s own emphasis on feeding the hungry and welcoming strangers. He tells us that all persons will be judged on our response to those facing these kinds of needs (see Matt. 25:31-46.)
Is Msgr. Maniscalco really saying what I think he's saying---that Senator Kennedy's fervent 30-year advocacy of legalized abortion was mitigated by the late Massachusetts legislator's political support of state-controlled public assistance for the poor and needy???
Is he saying, in other words, that, as bad as it is that Senator Kennedy did all the following:
voted consistently to legalize abortion for three decades,
worked tirelessly to block the nominations of pro-life Supreme Court Justices,
voted for public funding of Planned Parenthood and, most egregiously,
voted several times against banning partial-birth abortion,
fairness demands that we include his other legislative efforts in the equation when assessing the sum total of the man's public career?
Our clerical commentator seems to be suggesting that although Sen. Kennedy deserves a big minus sign for his 100% pro-abortion record, he also earned some plus signs for his other public acts. In the end, then, after tallying things up, the public Kennedy balance sheet comes out pretty even.
Wrong, Msgr. M.!
Senator Kennedy's longtime and enthusiastic public support of abortion has resulted, as Rick Hinshaw tells us in his article, in the merciless execution of tens of millions of unborn children. This is in a moral category by itself, and, on the scale of human actions, is objectively way up there with the very worst crimes against humanity in the history of the world.
The late Catholic Senator was a vaunted champion of the pro-abortion movement, a true NARAL and Planned Parenthood hero---and objectively speaking, his immoral voting record on this issue alone was a most heinous sin in the eyes of God and His Church.
Msgr. Maniscalco should be ashamed for suggesting that the late lawmaker's concern for issues like the minimum wage, increased public school funding, and affirmative action somehow compensated for his long and passionate crusade for legalized child-killing, and most especially, his approval of the most savage and unspeakable practice of partial-birth abortion.
Msgr. Frank, I'm afraid your proportionalist accounting just doesn't add up. The killing of even one innocent life cannot be mitigated by supporting all the social welfare programs ever devised by man.
Sadly enough, it would seem that "the abortion mentality" which Mr. Hinshaw described so effectively in his editorial on the same page has at last pervaded the minds of some of our own clergy.
Posted by Julie
(Which is why Catholics today judge themselves, and do not see the need of going to confession. "Why should I go to confession, when I did this, to make up for the sins I have committed?" Not showing ,that the leaders of the Church DO NOT CONDONE, AND
WILL TAKE ACTION AGAINST POLITICIANS WHO FURTHER THE CAUSE OF ABORTIONS, IS WRONG! This only shows that politicians will not be held responsible for their actions, which will further, and cause, more and more fetal murders.
Bishops have the responsibility to publicly speak out on matters of our religion,
in concert with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Abortion is wrong, and those
that pass ABORTION laws, should be voted out of office by every true catholic.
REMEMBER THIS THE NEXT TIME YOU GO TO VOTE!)
I think it's worth taking a second look at this disturbing statement of Msgr. Frank Maniscalco in his recent explanation of the Kennedy funeral in The Long Island Catholic:
First of all, fairness demands pointing out the many areas of agreement between Senator Kennedy’s public policy positions and Catholic social teaching. Undoubtedly his dissent on the respect for life is a most serious matter, but we cannot disregard the Lord’s own emphasis on feeding the hungry and welcoming strangers. He tells us that all persons will be judged on our response to those facing these kinds of needs (see Matt. 25:31-46.)
Is Msgr. Maniscalco really saying what I think he's saying---that Senator Kennedy's fervent 30-year advocacy of legalized abortion was mitigated by the late Massachusetts legislator's political support of state-controlled public assistance for the poor and needy???
Is he saying, in other words, that, as bad as it is that Senator Kennedy did all the following:
voted consistently to legalize abortion for three decades,
worked tirelessly to block the nominations of pro-life Supreme Court Justices,
voted for public funding of Planned Parenthood and, most egregiously,
voted several times against banning partial-birth abortion,
fairness demands that we include his other legislative efforts in the equation when assessing the sum total of the man's public career?
Our clerical commentator seems to be suggesting that although Sen. Kennedy deserves a big minus sign for his 100% pro-abortion record, he also earned some plus signs for his other public acts. In the end, then, after tallying things up, the public Kennedy balance sheet comes out pretty even.
Wrong, Msgr. M.!
Senator Kennedy's longtime and enthusiastic public support of abortion has resulted, as Rick Hinshaw tells us in his article, in the merciless execution of tens of millions of unborn children. This is in a moral category by itself, and, on the scale of human actions, is objectively way up there with the very worst crimes against humanity in the history of the world.
The late Catholic Senator was a vaunted champion of the pro-abortion movement, a true NARAL and Planned Parenthood hero---and objectively speaking, his immoral voting record on this issue alone was a most heinous sin in the eyes of God and His Church.
Msgr. Maniscalco should be ashamed for suggesting that the late lawmaker's concern for issues like the minimum wage, increased public school funding, and affirmative action somehow compensated for his long and passionate crusade for legalized child-killing, and most especially, his approval of the most savage and unspeakable practice of partial-birth abortion.
Msgr. Frank, I'm afraid your proportionalist accounting just doesn't add up. The killing of even one innocent life cannot be mitigated by supporting all the social welfare programs ever devised by man.
Sadly enough, it would seem that "the abortion mentality" which Mr. Hinshaw described so effectively in his editorial on the same page has at last pervaded the minds of some of our own clergy.
Posted by Julie
(Which is why Catholics today judge themselves, and do not see the need of going to confession. "Why should I go to confession, when I did this, to make up for the sins I have committed?" Not showing ,that the leaders of the Church DO NOT CONDONE, AND
WILL TAKE ACTION AGAINST POLITICIANS WHO FURTHER THE CAUSE OF ABORTIONS, IS WRONG! This only shows that politicians will not be held responsible for their actions, which will further, and cause, more and more fetal murders.
Bishops have the responsibility to publicly speak out on matters of our religion,
in concert with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Abortion is wrong, and those
that pass ABORTION laws, should be voted out of office by every true catholic.
REMEMBER THIS THE NEXT TIME YOU GO TO VOTE!)
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Think not? what do you think they are aiming for?
Franklin Graham: Christians Will Lose the Power to Pray Outside Church Walls ‘Maybe in My Lifetime’
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor
Franklin Graham, son of the Rev. Billy Graham, speaking at a 2009 event. (AP photo)(CNSNews.com) –
The Rev. Franklin Graham, who last month was officially “dis-invited” by the Army to speak at a National Day of Prayer ceremony at the Pentagon for statements he made about Islam, said he will not back down in preaching the Gospel as he sees it.
“We’re living in a time where we cannot compromise, we cannot back up, we cannot retreat,” Graham said Wednesday during a live Webcast from the Washington, D.C. offices of the Family Research Council.
“The Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is to be preached to the ends of the Earth – that’s what He’s called us to do,” he said.
He alluded to Eastern Europe under communism, where Christians and others were allowed to pray only within their homes or inside the officially sanctioned churches that were allowed by the state.
“I think its coming to this country where we (will) have the freedom to preach inside a church wall, but we will lose the freedom to do it outside. That day will probably come – maybe in my lifetime,” Graham said.
.
“The secularists are going to get ticked off, the news media’s going to hate it. I don’t know, maybe the people in the White House are going to be mad. But you know what, I don’t care. Because God has called us to take the Gospel -- His Gospel, the power of God and His Salvation -- unto the ends of the Earth.”
Graham was joined by James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, and Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr., who is leading efforts to stop and force a referendum on recent action by the Washington, D.C., city council creating homosexual marriage in the nation's capital.
“I am convinced that there are people in high places, people with a great deal of authority and influence, who want to eliminate every vestige of religion -- especially Christian religion, or evangelical religion – from the public square. They want to expunge it. They want to get rid of it. They want to take away our right to worship and to have a prayer service in a government building. That’s not unconstitutional!” Dobson said.
Dobson said 33 of 44 U.S. presidents have called for a National Day of Prayer.
“This has been our history. We dare not lose it now,” Dobson exclaimed. “And we will, if we don’t have the guts to stand up with that kind of intensity.”
Dobson, whose wife Shirley serves as chairman of the National Day of Prayer Task Force, recounted a case in Santa Rosa County, Fla. -- near Pensacola -- involving a high school principal and athletic director at an off-campus event who prayed at an off-campus meeting.
“Prior to the meeting, one of them said to the other, ‘Why don’t you say a word of prayer from wisdom and what we’re about to do?’ And he said a 16-second prayer. It was a prayer for their food! Sixteen seconds! It was reported and a judge in Northern Florida hauled them into court, harangued them for eight hours in one day, and threatened to put them in prison for six months,” Dobson said.
Dobson said the judge did not back off until members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus took up the cause.
Lay had asked Freeman to pray at the dedication of a field house held during school hours, but conducted on the property of a nearby church.
The men had faced up to six months in jail and $5,000 in fines each for violating the order, which the same judge had issued as a result of a 2008 lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on bahalf of two anonymous students at the high school.
The judge held that the violation of the order had been "spontaneous" -- and not voluntary.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor
Franklin Graham, son of the Rev. Billy Graham, speaking at a 2009 event. (AP photo)(CNSNews.com) –
The Rev. Franklin Graham, who last month was officially “dis-invited” by the Army to speak at a National Day of Prayer ceremony at the Pentagon for statements he made about Islam, said he will not back down in preaching the Gospel as he sees it.
“We’re living in a time where we cannot compromise, we cannot back up, we cannot retreat,” Graham said Wednesday during a live Webcast from the Washington, D.C. offices of the Family Research Council.
“The Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is to be preached to the ends of the Earth – that’s what He’s called us to do,” he said.
He alluded to Eastern Europe under communism, where Christians and others were allowed to pray only within their homes or inside the officially sanctioned churches that were allowed by the state.
“I think its coming to this country where we (will) have the freedom to preach inside a church wall, but we will lose the freedom to do it outside. That day will probably come – maybe in my lifetime,” Graham said.
.
“The secularists are going to get ticked off, the news media’s going to hate it. I don’t know, maybe the people in the White House are going to be mad. But you know what, I don’t care. Because God has called us to take the Gospel -- His Gospel, the power of God and His Salvation -- unto the ends of the Earth.”
Graham was joined by James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, and Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr., who is leading efforts to stop and force a referendum on recent action by the Washington, D.C., city council creating homosexual marriage in the nation's capital.
“I am convinced that there are people in high places, people with a great deal of authority and influence, who want to eliminate every vestige of religion -- especially Christian religion, or evangelical religion – from the public square. They want to expunge it. They want to get rid of it. They want to take away our right to worship and to have a prayer service in a government building. That’s not unconstitutional!” Dobson said.
Dobson said 33 of 44 U.S. presidents have called for a National Day of Prayer.
“This has been our history. We dare not lose it now,” Dobson exclaimed. “And we will, if we don’t have the guts to stand up with that kind of intensity.”
Dobson, whose wife Shirley serves as chairman of the National Day of Prayer Task Force, recounted a case in Santa Rosa County, Fla. -- near Pensacola -- involving a high school principal and athletic director at an off-campus event who prayed at an off-campus meeting.
“Prior to the meeting, one of them said to the other, ‘Why don’t you say a word of prayer from wisdom and what we’re about to do?’ And he said a 16-second prayer. It was a prayer for their food! Sixteen seconds! It was reported and a judge in Northern Florida hauled them into court, harangued them for eight hours in one day, and threatened to put them in prison for six months,” Dobson said.
Dobson said the judge did not back off until members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus took up the cause.
Lay had asked Freeman to pray at the dedication of a field house held during school hours, but conducted on the property of a nearby church.
The men had faced up to six months in jail and $5,000 in fines each for violating the order, which the same judge had issued as a result of a 2008 lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on bahalf of two anonymous students at the high school.
The judge held that the violation of the order had been "spontaneous" -- and not voluntary.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
What the Obama spending is driving us towards!
Jim Rogers' Latest Bearish Calls: Shorting U.S. and Emerging Market Indexes 11 comments
by: Market Folly May 07, 2010 | about: EDZ / EEM Market Folly 25693
Followers 3
Following FollowProfile
Articles (816)
Instablog (16)
Comments (223)
Send Message You are currently following Market Folly
Stop FollowingYou are no longer following Market Folly
About this author:
Visit: Market Folly
View: Top Hedge Fund Portfolios
Submit
an article to Customize Font Size: PrintEmail Recommend 1 Share this page
Share0 A few months ago we detailed how Jim Rogers had started some short positions. At the time, he was pretty vague but we did get a market call from him. This time around, he was more specific and more bearish.
Legendary investor and ex-Quantum Fund founder Jim Rogers recently disseminated some of his thoughts via the Economic Times in India (and keep in mind that he actually made these comments on Wednesday, so they preceded the downward market spiral we saw yesterday). Rogers noted that,
I am shorting a stock market index in the US; I am shorting an emerging market index and I am shorting one of the large western international financial institutions.
He specifically mentions that he's not shorting a particular country in the emerging markets but rather a cumulative index. Thus, traders/investors wanting to piggyback his trade could simply short the Emerging Markets exchange traded fund EEM. He is currently short that index because he feels there are excesses developing there. While he does not name names regarding his western bank short, Rogers says that,
it is a bank which people think is extremely sound and if I am right, there are going to be more currency problems and more turmoil in the markets. It will have to come down.
So, let the guessing game begin there.
Further elaborating on currencies, Rogers says that,
The currency crisis has been going on for a while. It did not start this week. It has been happening for a while. It started with, maybe depending on how you want to look at it, with Iceland or Latvia or many other countries who have been having problems. And the currency crisis is continuing and is going to get worse. This is not the end. Over the next year or more, we are going to see more, so prepare yourself.
An ominous omen from Mr. Rogers there, certainly. You'll remember that hedge fund 'rockstar' John Paulson has designed a fund to bet against the US dollar as he clearly feels the currency is in trouble. He is obviously not alone as Rogers is also worried about various currencies as is Eric Sprott who said to beware of fiat currencies at the recent Value Investing Congress.
So, we know what Rogers is bearish on, but what is he bullish on? Well, we previously outlined how Rogers is bullish on commodities and he has been for some time. We'll have to see how all of his market calls turn out, but even he admits that he's not a great market timer.
by: Market Folly May 07, 2010 | about: EDZ / EEM Market Folly 25693
Followers 3
Following FollowProfile
Articles (816)
Instablog (16)
Comments (223)
Send Message You are currently following Market Folly
Stop FollowingYou are no longer following Market Folly
About this author:
Visit: Market Folly
View: Top Hedge Fund Portfolios
Submit
an article to Customize Font Size: PrintEmail Recommend 1 Share this page
Share0 A few months ago we detailed how Jim Rogers had started some short positions. At the time, he was pretty vague but we did get a market call from him. This time around, he was more specific and more bearish.
Legendary investor and ex-Quantum Fund founder Jim Rogers recently disseminated some of his thoughts via the Economic Times in India (and keep in mind that he actually made these comments on Wednesday, so they preceded the downward market spiral we saw yesterday). Rogers noted that,
I am shorting a stock market index in the US; I am shorting an emerging market index and I am shorting one of the large western international financial institutions.
He specifically mentions that he's not shorting a particular country in the emerging markets but rather a cumulative index. Thus, traders/investors wanting to piggyback his trade could simply short the Emerging Markets exchange traded fund EEM. He is currently short that index because he feels there are excesses developing there. While he does not name names regarding his western bank short, Rogers says that,
it is a bank which people think is extremely sound and if I am right, there are going to be more currency problems and more turmoil in the markets. It will have to come down.
So, let the guessing game begin there.
Further elaborating on currencies, Rogers says that,
The currency crisis has been going on for a while. It did not start this week. It has been happening for a while. It started with, maybe depending on how you want to look at it, with Iceland or Latvia or many other countries who have been having problems. And the currency crisis is continuing and is going to get worse. This is not the end. Over the next year or more, we are going to see more, so prepare yourself.
An ominous omen from Mr. Rogers there, certainly. You'll remember that hedge fund 'rockstar' John Paulson has designed a fund to bet against the US dollar as he clearly feels the currency is in trouble. He is obviously not alone as Rogers is also worried about various currencies as is Eric Sprott who said to beware of fiat currencies at the recent Value Investing Congress.
So, we know what Rogers is bearish on, but what is he bullish on? Well, we previously outlined how Rogers is bullish on commodities and he has been for some time. We'll have to see how all of his market calls turn out, but even he admits that he's not a great market timer.
Your assistance is still needed and appreciated
With the School closing in June, it does not end our assistance for those that have moved on to higher schooling, and need our assistance to continue their education.
The fruits of this loving assistance will probably never been seen, but others in the years to come, will recognize that those that are being helped, became what they are, through the loving gifts, and assistance, started by Fr Robert Mason. Would that every priest had the Love, and Dedication that he exudes always. What a different Catholic family we would have! If you can, please give to the continuing education for those that had graduated from Our Lady of Lourdes School, if for no other reason than to show the appreciation for all that Fr Mason has given us for over 32 years,
and for all that he has taught, and guided us, with Catholic Love, and compassion.
Please give it directly to Fr Mason, and be assured, that it is going for the Educational Assistance Program.
Yours in Jesus,
Itzik
The fruits of this loving assistance will probably never been seen, but others in the years to come, will recognize that those that are being helped, became what they are, through the loving gifts, and assistance, started by Fr Robert Mason. Would that every priest had the Love, and Dedication that he exudes always. What a different Catholic family we would have! If you can, please give to the continuing education for those that had graduated from Our Lady of Lourdes School, if for no other reason than to show the appreciation for all that Fr Mason has given us for over 32 years,
and for all that he has taught, and guided us, with Catholic Love, and compassion.
Please give it directly to Fr Mason, and be assured, that it is going for the Educational Assistance Program.
Yours in Jesus,
Itzik
How the Vitriol's can not contend with Love!
What Nonsense
Farmingdale, NY
Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#1053 33 min ago
The Real Janowitz Seaford wrote:
Dominus Vobiscum
Precor vobis, penuriosus, penuriosus, animus
Go **** yourself, Itchy.(Itzik Janowitz)
(end)
Just as I had said before, the vitriol's can not contend with a return of "Dominus Vobiscum", as it gives them no one to attack, and rant against.
So well have we been taught by our Lord, "love thy enemies". They live on turmoil, and strife, and can not contend with Peace and Love.
I had gotten away from that, as it is not my normal nature to be placid with those that attack me, but allowing Our Lord to guide us, and drive our car, instead of us trying to do it alone, always comes out Peaceful and leaves you with content instead of anger.
Those Precor vobis, penuriosus, penuriosus,animus,
should be prayed for, which is what our faith is
about.
Praise be to Almighty God, Father, Son, and the
Holy spirit. Amen.
In Jesus Always,
Itzik
Farmingdale, NY
Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#1053 33 min ago
The Real Janowitz Seaford wrote:
Dominus Vobiscum
Precor vobis, penuriosus, penuriosus, animus
Go **** yourself, Itchy.(Itzik Janowitz)
(end)
Just as I had said before, the vitriol's can not contend with a return of "Dominus Vobiscum", as it gives them no one to attack, and rant against.
So well have we been taught by our Lord, "love thy enemies". They live on turmoil, and strife, and can not contend with Peace and Love.
I had gotten away from that, as it is not my normal nature to be placid with those that attack me, but allowing Our Lord to guide us, and drive our car, instead of us trying to do it alone, always comes out Peaceful and leaves you with content instead of anger.
Those Precor vobis, penuriosus, penuriosus,animus,
should be prayed for, which is what our faith is
about.
Praise be to Almighty God, Father, Son, and the
Holy spirit. Amen.
In Jesus Always,
Itzik
Friday, May 7, 2010
Praise God! Keep Praying.
NEW YORK TIMES POLL PROVES REVEALING
Catholic League president Bill Donohue finds interesting data in the New York Times poll on the Catholic Church:
The pope's favorability rating among Catholics at the end of March was 27 percent. After hearing the non-stop negative media reports over the past month, his favorability rating jumped to 43 percent. How can this be? It's due to the backlash. When asked whether the media have been harder on the Catholic Church, 64 percent of Catholics said yes, and almost half said the abuse stories were blown out of proportion.
Three in four Catholics believe the Vatican today is more interested in preventing abuse than trying to cover it up; this represents a 180 degree turnaround when asked how it handled the problem in the past. Yet about the same number today think that abuse is still going on. This is likely due to two factors: the realization that sexual misconduct will never be wholly stamped out; and the dearth of media coverage on the success the Church has had. Regarding the latter, the latest annual report on this subject shows that between 2008-2009, there were only six credible allegations made against over 40,000 priests. But the New York Times story on this subject (which totaled 92 words) merely said that the number of accusations had declined, never citing the figure of six.
The news story on the survey says that "most Catholics are unconvinced" that there is an underlying problem in the priesthood with homosexuality. Yet the data show that only 37 percent say homosexuality is not a factor: 30 percent say it is a major factor and 23 percent say it is minor. This is striking given the media propaganda—led by the Times—that the scandal involves pedophilia. In fact, most of the cases involve homosexuality.
Those of us who have been defending the pope, criticizing the media and telling the truth about the link between homosexuality and sexual abuse have reason to be pleased with the survey results.
Jeff Field
Director of Communications
Catholic League president Bill Donohue finds interesting data in the New York Times poll on the Catholic Church:
The pope's favorability rating among Catholics at the end of March was 27 percent. After hearing the non-stop negative media reports over the past month, his favorability rating jumped to 43 percent. How can this be? It's due to the backlash. When asked whether the media have been harder on the Catholic Church, 64 percent of Catholics said yes, and almost half said the abuse stories were blown out of proportion.
Three in four Catholics believe the Vatican today is more interested in preventing abuse than trying to cover it up; this represents a 180 degree turnaround when asked how it handled the problem in the past. Yet about the same number today think that abuse is still going on. This is likely due to two factors: the realization that sexual misconduct will never be wholly stamped out; and the dearth of media coverage on the success the Church has had. Regarding the latter, the latest annual report on this subject shows that between 2008-2009, there were only six credible allegations made against over 40,000 priests. But the New York Times story on this subject (which totaled 92 words) merely said that the number of accusations had declined, never citing the figure of six.
The news story on the survey says that "most Catholics are unconvinced" that there is an underlying problem in the priesthood with homosexuality. Yet the data show that only 37 percent say homosexuality is not a factor: 30 percent say it is a major factor and 23 percent say it is minor. This is striking given the media propaganda—led by the Times—that the scandal involves pedophilia. In fact, most of the cases involve homosexuality.
Those of us who have been defending the pope, criticizing the media and telling the truth about the link between homosexuality and sexual abuse have reason to be pleased with the survey results.
Jeff Field
Director of Communications
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
If I find out his name, I will post it! More politicians like this needed!
82Ladies and Gentlemen, our problem is not whether or not the president is a citizen of this great nation, it is what he is doing to it right now and what he will do to it in the next three years.
I read all of the comments on this page and then sat for a moment to bring it all in and try to understand the feelings you all are having. If you would do the same, we are all mostly scared or at least worried about the direction our president is taking us. We have seen no relief and there are no promises made yet for help in jobs, food and shelter for our citizens that really need it, (and right now!) and there is so much needed right here in our own country with no answers to any of them in the immediate future.
I believe some of you hit it right on the head. Running for office takes a lot of money. I mean a lot! And to get some of that money deals are made. I’ve held office, and I know that when someone knows you have a chance in winning, the check books come out and promises are made to cover those checks. This is true!
I watched for quite some time during the past year of 2009 waiting and watching the "Shovel Ready" money that he pushed through Congress shortly after taking office. If you all will recall, he was conveniently flying around this country holding town hall meetings while Congress was tied up in Washington and told not to leave until it is passed. Not quite a trillion dollars when it was all said and done, but very, very close. That was a trillion dollars that we didn’t have, not matter how bad we were doing. I know that sounds heartless, but it’s the truth.
As of August of 2009, only 8 percent of that money was released. Eight percent does not put many men and women of this country to work. Also the recent drop of around 2 percent in unemployment that was announced, I believe last month, was not from people getting jobs, it was the fact that those people that were on unemployment, ran out of extensions of benefits and were no longer counted as being unemployed, thus lowering the unemployment rate.
I’m not trying to blow smoke here, just trying to open your eyes to a few things that once heard, you think is a good thing, is really a terrible thing because now there are an additional 2 percent of U.S. citizens without any income whatsoever. You may be one of them. But the government made it sound like they were doing their job at getting jobs.
I am disabled Marine and I have plenty of time to sit here and do research on what is truth and what is not. And believe me when I say I too am upset with him not wearing an American flag or fails to salute here or there, or when he said to another nation that “We are not a Christian based country”, that it in fact does bother me.
This country was founded by our forefathers on Christian beliefs, our money has “In God We Trust” on it, and in a football player’s interview after winning a game, he thanks God for making it all possible. Then there was our 32nd president, President Franklin Roosevelt who led this great nation in prayer prior to World War II, it makes one wonder what Mr. Obama is up to.
Instead of bailing out the auto companies, why didn’t he say, lower your prices and sell more cars, it will work out. If not the smaller companies will get stronger. All the smaller companies, Mom and Pop shops do that and they don’t get a bail out. They lower their prices, take a little loss but have a little coming in to survive on until the economy comes back. It probably didn’t help with all the negativity he used saying this country is in a recession so many times, I quit counting!
A president needs to be positive and give hope. The same hope he used during the campaign. Once in office, hope went out the window. He said prior to the elections that he is a professional speaker, which only means he will tell you things to make you believe, see elections, then get out of it with other words when he is caught. And he is good.
I’m almost finished and apologize for such a long comment. But here are my gut feelings on what is going on. The economy will come back, and come back strong, but when “he” wants it to. That will happen well prior to the elections for his next term to be the savior and get reelected. Being a savior would be to fix it now, give money to the people of this nation to spend and bring back the economy. Not take $3 trillion and pay back your election promises to build things we just don’t need right now.
If you saw and read the first stimulus bills that were passed, then you know what I mean. Don’t get mad folks, do your homework. You have time and are on this site writing what you are feeling and defending your president or not. Instead of doing that, poke around a little bit.
You’ll find that Mr. Obama and someone I won’t name are wanting to do away with the dollar and strongly supports a world government with world currency. Look, you will find it. It is there, but you need to dig a little.
My daughters both know I would love to run for president in the next election. I’ve considered it very strongly. I am for the little people and have no promises or ties to any government officials. The people would be allowed to vote on issues that are raised just as my father and mother did when I was a little boy growing up outside Cleveland.
This president is calling all of the shots and most are behind your back. It seemed my parents were always at the polls about something. But if I were the president, the priorities would be much different than those of Mr. Obama’s. This country’s people first, including our troops overseas and their families here or abroad. Our poor, our lower and middle class citizens. Taxes need to come from those that have money, not forced upon those that don’t. We do not need a health reformed bill shoved down our throats that will “fine” us money if we do not use it or go without because we feel we are better off. Read it folks!
I would also take a minute to shake the Marines' hands who protect the president on every trip the man takes. I enjoyed and am very proud to call myself a U.S. Marine and serving this great country of ours nearly 17 years and it wouldn't slow down my daily routine to take a couple minutes out of the schedule to ask where the Marines are from or find out how long they have been in. Not a problem here. And they would, each and every one of them get a salute from their Commander in Chief!
But there is such a bigger picture that all of America is failing to see. Mr. Obama did a big no-no while at the UN meeting(s) when he took the floor. That in itself calls for his immediate removal from office as “No one man shall take control during one of those meetings”, yet he did. I'm still trying to find out why and how he received the Nobel Peace Prize and with being in office for nine months or less! Now that’s a good one.
I haven’t decided to run yet and I meet all the requirements. I’m 50 years old with a lot of experience and I know the one thing you only need is to keep the people of this country number one on your list of things. If I run, I will run for you, “You, the people.” Remember that as I will use that in my campaign. LPC, Pennsylvania
I read all of the comments on this page and then sat for a moment to bring it all in and try to understand the feelings you all are having. If you would do the same, we are all mostly scared or at least worried about the direction our president is taking us. We have seen no relief and there are no promises made yet for help in jobs, food and shelter for our citizens that really need it, (and right now!) and there is so much needed right here in our own country with no answers to any of them in the immediate future.
I believe some of you hit it right on the head. Running for office takes a lot of money. I mean a lot! And to get some of that money deals are made. I’ve held office, and I know that when someone knows you have a chance in winning, the check books come out and promises are made to cover those checks. This is true!
I watched for quite some time during the past year of 2009 waiting and watching the "Shovel Ready" money that he pushed through Congress shortly after taking office. If you all will recall, he was conveniently flying around this country holding town hall meetings while Congress was tied up in Washington and told not to leave until it is passed. Not quite a trillion dollars when it was all said and done, but very, very close. That was a trillion dollars that we didn’t have, not matter how bad we were doing. I know that sounds heartless, but it’s the truth.
As of August of 2009, only 8 percent of that money was released. Eight percent does not put many men and women of this country to work. Also the recent drop of around 2 percent in unemployment that was announced, I believe last month, was not from people getting jobs, it was the fact that those people that were on unemployment, ran out of extensions of benefits and were no longer counted as being unemployed, thus lowering the unemployment rate.
I’m not trying to blow smoke here, just trying to open your eyes to a few things that once heard, you think is a good thing, is really a terrible thing because now there are an additional 2 percent of U.S. citizens without any income whatsoever. You may be one of them. But the government made it sound like they were doing their job at getting jobs.
I am disabled Marine and I have plenty of time to sit here and do research on what is truth and what is not. And believe me when I say I too am upset with him not wearing an American flag or fails to salute here or there, or when he said to another nation that “We are not a Christian based country”, that it in fact does bother me.
This country was founded by our forefathers on Christian beliefs, our money has “In God We Trust” on it, and in a football player’s interview after winning a game, he thanks God for making it all possible. Then there was our 32nd president, President Franklin Roosevelt who led this great nation in prayer prior to World War II, it makes one wonder what Mr. Obama is up to.
Instead of bailing out the auto companies, why didn’t he say, lower your prices and sell more cars, it will work out. If not the smaller companies will get stronger. All the smaller companies, Mom and Pop shops do that and they don’t get a bail out. They lower their prices, take a little loss but have a little coming in to survive on until the economy comes back. It probably didn’t help with all the negativity he used saying this country is in a recession so many times, I quit counting!
A president needs to be positive and give hope. The same hope he used during the campaign. Once in office, hope went out the window. He said prior to the elections that he is a professional speaker, which only means he will tell you things to make you believe, see elections, then get out of it with other words when he is caught. And he is good.
I’m almost finished and apologize for such a long comment. But here are my gut feelings on what is going on. The economy will come back, and come back strong, but when “he” wants it to. That will happen well prior to the elections for his next term to be the savior and get reelected. Being a savior would be to fix it now, give money to the people of this nation to spend and bring back the economy. Not take $3 trillion and pay back your election promises to build things we just don’t need right now.
If you saw and read the first stimulus bills that were passed, then you know what I mean. Don’t get mad folks, do your homework. You have time and are on this site writing what you are feeling and defending your president or not. Instead of doing that, poke around a little bit.
You’ll find that Mr. Obama and someone I won’t name are wanting to do away with the dollar and strongly supports a world government with world currency. Look, you will find it. It is there, but you need to dig a little.
My daughters both know I would love to run for president in the next election. I’ve considered it very strongly. I am for the little people and have no promises or ties to any government officials. The people would be allowed to vote on issues that are raised just as my father and mother did when I was a little boy growing up outside Cleveland.
This president is calling all of the shots and most are behind your back. It seemed my parents were always at the polls about something. But if I were the president, the priorities would be much different than those of Mr. Obama’s. This country’s people first, including our troops overseas and their families here or abroad. Our poor, our lower and middle class citizens. Taxes need to come from those that have money, not forced upon those that don’t. We do not need a health reformed bill shoved down our throats that will “fine” us money if we do not use it or go without because we feel we are better off. Read it folks!
I would also take a minute to shake the Marines' hands who protect the president on every trip the man takes. I enjoyed and am very proud to call myself a U.S. Marine and serving this great country of ours nearly 17 years and it wouldn't slow down my daily routine to take a couple minutes out of the schedule to ask where the Marines are from or find out how long they have been in. Not a problem here. And they would, each and every one of them get a salute from their Commander in Chief!
But there is such a bigger picture that all of America is failing to see. Mr. Obama did a big no-no while at the UN meeting(s) when he took the floor. That in itself calls for his immediate removal from office as “No one man shall take control during one of those meetings”, yet he did. I'm still trying to find out why and how he received the Nobel Peace Prize and with being in office for nine months or less! Now that’s a good one.
I haven’t decided to run yet and I meet all the requirements. I’m 50 years old with a lot of experience and I know the one thing you only need is to keep the people of this country number one on your list of things. If I run, I will run for you, “You, the people.” Remember that as I will use that in my campaign. LPC, Pennsylvania
WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?
A Free Press For A Free People
----------
Is billboard campaign working?
'Where's the birth certificate?' slogan bringing issue home, says organizer
----------
WASHINGTON – It all started only one year ago, recalls WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah.
That's when he launched what became something of a national sensation and, he believes, rekindled the debate about Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility for office – billboard campaign that asks the question, "Where's the birth certificate?"
"It has certainly changed my life," explains Farah. "A year ago I was still getting regular invitations to be on cable TV shows and talk about the issues of the day. The minute I was labeled a 'birther,' I became radioactive – just like Lou Dobbs."
But, Farah says, even though "the establishment media" are in lockstep on this issue, the billboard campaign has fundamentally changed the public's mind to the point at which all the polls are shocking the elite and state legislatures are passing bills to ensure this never happens again in future presidential elections.
"There's no denying it," says Farah. "No matter how hard my colleagues try to make the public forget about this issue, no matter how hard they attempt to ridicule anyone who wants to see the proof, no matter how much they demean even decorated military officers who take their own oaths seriously, this issue will not go away. It's going to be around in 2012. It may even be the defining issue in 2012."
Just last month, Farah commissioned the latest new billboard in Atlanta. Just weeks later, Rep. Mark O. Hatfield of the Georgia legislature, introduced a bill that would require state officials to ensure only constitutionally eligible presidential candidates can get on ballots in the state beginning in 2012. A similar bill passed the Arizona legislature this month. Similar legislation is expected to be debated in statehouses around the country later this year.
"Can you imagine the impact of several states adopting this kind of legislation before the next presidential election?" Farah says. "It's almost an inevitability at this point. Obama is going to have to reveal the documents he has stubbornly refused to reveal to the American people, in spite of the polls. If he doesn't, he will be forfeiting electoral votes in those states. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama decided not to run for re-election. I honestly don't think he will ever produce a long-form birth certificate. I think he has something serious to hide."
Farah says he could not have pulled off the campaign without the support of WND's visitors. The cost of the billboards has been offset by donations – and Farah says he wants to step up the campaign because it's winning.
The latest CBS/New York Times poll showed only 58 percent of Americans even think Obama was born in the USA.
"I'm quite sure based on our own polls that if those people were asked whether they would like to see Obama release his birth certificate, more than half the country would say 'yes'– and all the other personal papers he has refused to disclose," Farah said.
Farah says the billboards have had a lot to do with changing popular opinion – even if the media don't get it.
"People simply shouldn't have to conjecture about where they think their president was born," he says. "It ought to be a matter of public record – and it clearly is not."
Aside from the billboard campaign, WND has devoted more investigative reporting to the issue of eligibility than "all other media outlets combined, says Farah.
In addition, the billboard campaign was rejected by three major billboard companies all owned by major media outlets – CBS, Clear Channel and Lamarr.
"What I need Americans to understand is that this billboard campaign is working," said Farah. "There is no shortage of billboards available to us. The only thing there's a shortage of is the money to erect them. We need to raise tens of thousands of dollars a month just to keep them in place."
The impact of the billboards is magnified by local television and talk radio shows in every market they enter, explains Farah. "It's not just the billboard," said Farah. "It's the earned media that comes along with it. It's astounding. We have turned millions of people around on this issue with the billboards. It's just that simple."
(You can force the issue by calling up the News
Media, Newspapers, TV, and Internet. The Democratic
party leaders have sworn to the legitimacy of his
eligibility, now LET THEM PROVE IT! Every president
up to this time has done it, WHY NOT MAKE HIM DO
AS EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT HAS DONE?)
----------
Is billboard campaign working?
'Where's the birth certificate?' slogan bringing issue home, says organizer
----------
WASHINGTON – It all started only one year ago, recalls WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah.
That's when he launched what became something of a national sensation and, he believes, rekindled the debate about Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility for office – billboard campaign that asks the question, "Where's the birth certificate?"
"It has certainly changed my life," explains Farah. "A year ago I was still getting regular invitations to be on cable TV shows and talk about the issues of the day. The minute I was labeled a 'birther,' I became radioactive – just like Lou Dobbs."
But, Farah says, even though "the establishment media" are in lockstep on this issue, the billboard campaign has fundamentally changed the public's mind to the point at which all the polls are shocking the elite and state legislatures are passing bills to ensure this never happens again in future presidential elections.
"There's no denying it," says Farah. "No matter how hard my colleagues try to make the public forget about this issue, no matter how hard they attempt to ridicule anyone who wants to see the proof, no matter how much they demean even decorated military officers who take their own oaths seriously, this issue will not go away. It's going to be around in 2012. It may even be the defining issue in 2012."
Just last month, Farah commissioned the latest new billboard in Atlanta. Just weeks later, Rep. Mark O. Hatfield of the Georgia legislature, introduced a bill that would require state officials to ensure only constitutionally eligible presidential candidates can get on ballots in the state beginning in 2012. A similar bill passed the Arizona legislature this month. Similar legislation is expected to be debated in statehouses around the country later this year.
"Can you imagine the impact of several states adopting this kind of legislation before the next presidential election?" Farah says. "It's almost an inevitability at this point. Obama is going to have to reveal the documents he has stubbornly refused to reveal to the American people, in spite of the polls. If he doesn't, he will be forfeiting electoral votes in those states. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama decided not to run for re-election. I honestly don't think he will ever produce a long-form birth certificate. I think he has something serious to hide."
Farah says he could not have pulled off the campaign without the support of WND's visitors. The cost of the billboards has been offset by donations – and Farah says he wants to step up the campaign because it's winning.
The latest CBS/New York Times poll showed only 58 percent of Americans even think Obama was born in the USA.
"I'm quite sure based on our own polls that if those people were asked whether they would like to see Obama release his birth certificate, more than half the country would say 'yes'– and all the other personal papers he has refused to disclose," Farah said.
Farah says the billboards have had a lot to do with changing popular opinion – even if the media don't get it.
"People simply shouldn't have to conjecture about where they think their president was born," he says. "It ought to be a matter of public record – and it clearly is not."
Aside from the billboard campaign, WND has devoted more investigative reporting to the issue of eligibility than "all other media outlets combined, says Farah.
In addition, the billboard campaign was rejected by three major billboard companies all owned by major media outlets – CBS, Clear Channel and Lamarr.
"What I need Americans to understand is that this billboard campaign is working," said Farah. "There is no shortage of billboards available to us. The only thing there's a shortage of is the money to erect them. We need to raise tens of thousands of dollars a month just to keep them in place."
The impact of the billboards is magnified by local television and talk radio shows in every market they enter, explains Farah. "It's not just the billboard," said Farah. "It's the earned media that comes along with it. It's astounding. We have turned millions of people around on this issue with the billboards. It's just that simple."
(You can force the issue by calling up the News
Media, Newspapers, TV, and Internet. The Democratic
party leaders have sworn to the legitimacy of his
eligibility, now LET THEM PROVE IT! Every president
up to this time has done it, WHY NOT MAKE HIM DO
AS EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT HAS DONE?)
Monday, May 3, 2010
If Anything we're Homotaedets!
Homotaedet=One's who are disgusted by active homosexuality.
I'm One Proud Homotaedet.
So Seton Hall is a diocesan school? Then where the hell's the bishop? In the meantime, try to stomach this article from LifeSiteNews.com . Here's some of it; (Emphasis mine)
Catholic Seton Hall U. to Offer Gay 'Marriage' Course by Homosexualist Prof
SOUTH ORANGE, New Jersey, April 28, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com )- Seton Hall University, the oldest Catholic diocesan university in the U.S., will be offering a same-sex "marriage" course taught by a homosexualist professor.
The Setonian, the university's newspaper, reported that the new course offering for Fall 2010 would be offered by associate professor W. King Mott, an open homosexual who was demoted in 2005 after complaining about the Catholic Church's stance against homosexuality.
“The Roman Catholic Church is prima facie homophobic,” Mott had told the press.“The Roman Catholic Church considers me to be inherently disordered. I don't know how much more homophobic one can be.” However, the university insisted that it was not rebuking Mott for his personal views, but only for failing to disassociate himself from the school.
Mott, who as of 2005 lived with his male partner, openly maintains an affiliation with Lambda Legal, the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies, and Human Rights Campaign, all leading homosexualist groups.
posted by Vir Speluncae Catholicus
I'm One Proud Homotaedet.
So Seton Hall is a diocesan school? Then where the hell's the bishop? In the meantime, try to stomach this article from LifeSiteNews.com . Here's some of it; (Emphasis mine)
Catholic Seton Hall U. to Offer Gay 'Marriage' Course by Homosexualist Prof
SOUTH ORANGE, New Jersey, April 28, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com )- Seton Hall University, the oldest Catholic diocesan university in the U.S., will be offering a same-sex "marriage" course taught by a homosexualist professor.
The Setonian, the university's newspaper, reported that the new course offering for Fall 2010 would be offered by associate professor W. King Mott, an open homosexual who was demoted in 2005 after complaining about the Catholic Church's stance against homosexuality.
“The Roman Catholic Church is prima facie homophobic,” Mott had told the press.“The Roman Catholic Church considers me to be inherently disordered. I don't know how much more homophobic one can be.” However, the university insisted that it was not rebuking Mott for his personal views, but only for failing to disassociate himself from the school.
Mott, who as of 2005 lived with his male partner, openly maintains an affiliation with Lambda Legal, the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies, and Human Rights Campaign, all leading homosexualist groups.
posted by Vir Speluncae Catholicus
Latest SurveyUSA Poll Results
According to the latest SurveyUSA Poll Results:
Are Decisions being made by the Obama administration good for America?
37% good
58% Bad
6 % not sure
Political Corruption:
How Serious
65% Very
24% Somewhat
8 % not very
2 % not serious
1 % not sure
Which party fights Political corruption?
25% Republicans
21% Democrats
54% No Difference
How much of a roll did Political Corruption play in the Financial Crisis?
72% Major Roll
18% Minor Roll
7 % No Roll
2 % Not Sure
What roll has TARP played for America?
25% Good for America
50% Bad for America
17% Made no Difference
7 % Not Sure
Size of Government?
64% Too Large
6 % Too Small
25% About right
6 % Not Sure
If size of Government shrunk 25%, would that be good or Bad?
58% Good
19% Bad
17% no Difference
5% not sure
How is Obama admin on Giving Information?
8% Too Much
56% Not Enough
31% About Right
4% Not Sure
Illegal immigration, do you approve or disapprove Amin Handling of Problems?
22% Approve
59% Disapprove
19% Not Sure
What is your opinion of Acorn?
8 % Favorable
56% Unfavorable
17% Neutral
20% No Opinion
Climate Change information Genuine or not?
41% Mostly Genuine
49% Mostly False
10% Not Sure
Is Federal Government in line with Constitution?
35% In Line
56% Out of Line
8 % Not Sure
Are Decisions being made by the Obama administration good for America?
37% good
58% Bad
6 % not sure
Political Corruption:
How Serious
65% Very
24% Somewhat
8 % not very
2 % not serious
1 % not sure
Which party fights Political corruption?
25% Republicans
21% Democrats
54% No Difference
How much of a roll did Political Corruption play in the Financial Crisis?
72% Major Roll
18% Minor Roll
7 % No Roll
2 % Not Sure
What roll has TARP played for America?
25% Good for America
50% Bad for America
17% Made no Difference
7 % Not Sure
Size of Government?
64% Too Large
6 % Too Small
25% About right
6 % Not Sure
If size of Government shrunk 25%, would that be good or Bad?
58% Good
19% Bad
17% no Difference
5% not sure
How is Obama admin on Giving Information?
8% Too Much
56% Not Enough
31% About Right
4% Not Sure
Illegal immigration, do you approve or disapprove Amin Handling of Problems?
22% Approve
59% Disapprove
19% Not Sure
What is your opinion of Acorn?
8 % Favorable
56% Unfavorable
17% Neutral
20% No Opinion
Climate Change information Genuine or not?
41% Mostly Genuine
49% Mostly False
10% Not Sure
Is Federal Government in line with Constitution?
35% In Line
56% Out of Line
8 % Not Sure
Sunday, May 2, 2010
IN THE NY TIMES NO LESS?
Search All NYTimes.com
Opinion
World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Autos Editorials Columnists Contributors Letters The Public Editor Global Opinion Advertise on NYTimes.comOp-Ed Contributor
Why Arizona Drew a Line
Christophe Vorlet
Share
Published: April 28, 2010
Kansas City, Kan.
Room for Debate: Will Arizona's Immigration Law Survive?
Times Topics: Jan BrewerON Friday, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed a law — SB 1070 — that prohibits the harboring of illegal aliens and makes it a state crime for an alien to commit certain federal immigration crimes. It also requires police officers who, in the course of a traffic stop or other law-enforcement action, come to a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal alien verify the person’s immigration status with the federal government.
Predictably, groups that favor relaxed enforcement of immigration laws, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, insist the law is unconstitutional. Less predictably, President Obama declared it “misguided” and said the Justice Department would take a look.
Presumably, the government lawyers who do so will actually read the law, something its critics don’t seem to have done. The arguments we’ve heard against it either misrepresent its text or are otherwise inaccurate. As someone who helped draft the statute, I will rebut the major criticisms individually:
It is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them. It is true that the Arizona law makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry certain documents. “Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers ... you’re going to be harassed,” the president said. “That’s not the right way to go.” But since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime. Moreover, as anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar documentation requirements.
“Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct. Over the past four decades, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions defining those two words. The Arizona law didn’t invent the concept: Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable suspicion; when several are combined, the “totality of circumstances” that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.
For example, the Arizona law is most likely to come into play after a traffic stop. A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.
The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling. Actually, Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in making any stops or determining immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment.
It is unfair to demand that people carry a driver’s license. Arizona’s law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a driver’s license. Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass if his immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country.
State governments aren’t allowed to get involved in immigration, which is a federal matter. While it is true that Washington holds primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That’s why Arizona’s 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
In sum, the Arizona law hardly creates a police state. It takes a measured, reasonable step to give Arizona police officers another tool when they come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law enforcement duties.
And it’s very necessary: Arizona is the ground zero of illegal immigration. Phoenix is the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of America, with more than 240 incidents reported in 2008. It’s no surprise that Arizona’s police associations favored the bill, along with 70 percent of Arizonans.
President Obama and the Beltway crowd feel these problems can be taken care of with “comprehensive immigration reform” — meaning amnesty and a few other new laws. But we already have plenty of federal immigration laws on the books, and the typical illegal alien is guilty of breaking many of them. What we need is for the executive branch to enforce the laws that we already have.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration has scaled back work-site enforcement and otherwise shown it does not consider immigration laws to be a high priority. Is it any wonder the Arizona Legislature, at the front line of the immigration issue, sees things differently?
Kris W. Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, was Attorney General John Ashcroft’s chief adviser on immigration law and border security from 2001 to 2003.
Opinion
World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Autos Editorials Columnists Contributors Letters The Public Editor Global Opinion Advertise on NYTimes.comOp-Ed Contributor
Why Arizona Drew a Line
Christophe Vorlet
Share
Published: April 28, 2010
Kansas City, Kan.
Room for Debate: Will Arizona's Immigration Law Survive?
Times Topics: Jan BrewerON Friday, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed a law — SB 1070 — that prohibits the harboring of illegal aliens and makes it a state crime for an alien to commit certain federal immigration crimes. It also requires police officers who, in the course of a traffic stop or other law-enforcement action, come to a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal alien verify the person’s immigration status with the federal government.
Predictably, groups that favor relaxed enforcement of immigration laws, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, insist the law is unconstitutional. Less predictably, President Obama declared it “misguided” and said the Justice Department would take a look.
Presumably, the government lawyers who do so will actually read the law, something its critics don’t seem to have done. The arguments we’ve heard against it either misrepresent its text or are otherwise inaccurate. As someone who helped draft the statute, I will rebut the major criticisms individually:
It is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them. It is true that the Arizona law makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry certain documents. “Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers ... you’re going to be harassed,” the president said. “That’s not the right way to go.” But since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime. Moreover, as anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar documentation requirements.
“Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct. Over the past four decades, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions defining those two words. The Arizona law didn’t invent the concept: Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable suspicion; when several are combined, the “totality of circumstances” that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.
For example, the Arizona law is most likely to come into play after a traffic stop. A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.
The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling. Actually, Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in making any stops or determining immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment.
It is unfair to demand that people carry a driver’s license. Arizona’s law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a driver’s license. Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass if his immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country.
State governments aren’t allowed to get involved in immigration, which is a federal matter. While it is true that Washington holds primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That’s why Arizona’s 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
In sum, the Arizona law hardly creates a police state. It takes a measured, reasonable step to give Arizona police officers another tool when they come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law enforcement duties.
And it’s very necessary: Arizona is the ground zero of illegal immigration. Phoenix is the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of America, with more than 240 incidents reported in 2008. It’s no surprise that Arizona’s police associations favored the bill, along with 70 percent of Arizonans.
President Obama and the Beltway crowd feel these problems can be taken care of with “comprehensive immigration reform” — meaning amnesty and a few other new laws. But we already have plenty of federal immigration laws on the books, and the typical illegal alien is guilty of breaking many of them. What we need is for the executive branch to enforce the laws that we already have.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration has scaled back work-site enforcement and otherwise shown it does not consider immigration laws to be a high priority. Is it any wonder the Arizona Legislature, at the front line of the immigration issue, sees things differently?
Kris W. Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, was Attorney General John Ashcroft’s chief adviser on immigration law and border security from 2001 to 2003.
Liberal abortion laws = increased maternal mortality
New Global Study Shows Maternal Mortality Significantly Lower Than Previously Thought/Policy Implications Worry Abortion Advocates
By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D. Austin Ruse
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) A new study out this week by the leading British medical journal shows maternal mortality rates have been significantly overestimated by United Nations (UN) agencies. The Lancet reports that maternal deaths worldwide in 2008 totaled 342,900 rather than the 500,000+ used by the World Bank, World Health Organization (WHO) and the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) in recent years.
The study finds both that the numbers from WHO and UNICEF were faulty due to a lack of proper reporting and also imprecise statistical modeling. But The Lancet study also finds progress has been made in preventing pregnant women from dying.
The study cites four main reasons for the improvement: declining pregnancy rates in some countries, higher per capita income, higher education rates for women, and increasing availability of basic medical care including “skilled birth attendants.”
The report finds that HIV/AIDS caused 60,000 maternal deaths and suggests that maternal deaths would have been significantly lower in Africa if mothers were given antiretroviral drugs. This sharply contradicts current UN and Obama administration policies, which divert funding from HIV/AIDS to family planning as a way to reduce maternal deaths.
The study shows that 50% of maternal deaths come from just six countries; India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Researchers were surprised that three of the richest countries in the world actually showed increased maternal mortality: the United States, Canada and Norway, three countries with the most liberal abortion laws in the world.
What was not cited anywhere in the document is abortion. Contrary to this study, the UN has promoted better maternal health through legal, or “safe,” abortion. At the UN-sponsored Women Deliver Conference in London two years ago, which was billed as a conference on maternal mortality, abortion advocate Frances Kissling told the Friday Fax the conference was a “pro-choice conference.”
The Lancet’s editor Dr. Richard Horton told the New York Times he was pressured “by advocacy groups” to delay publication of the report until later this year. Horton said the groups wanted the information withheld until after the current UN Commission on Population and Development (CPD), the Women Deliver Conference scheduled for this June in Washington DC, and the next UN General Assembly, which is also scheduled to address maternal mortality.
Pro-life critics of the maternal mortality numbers have long complained that the 500,000 number was likely too high and based on ideological assumptions. Dr. Donna Harrison, writing in a C-FAM briefing paper last year, said the WHO introduction of medical abortion in some countries to reduce maternal mortality has been based on unreliable data, unreliability now confirmed by a much broader and more detailed study by The Lancet.
Regarding the new Lancet study, Harrison, the president of the American Academy of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) said, “This study uses the best statistical methods currently available and clearly demonstrates that worldwide legalization of abortion is unnecessary to bring about significant decreases in maternal mortality. AAPLOG encourages UN member nations to continue to develop even better statistical information by improving the identification of maternal mortality causality, especially induced abortion related mortality, which is most often underreported or misreported.”
There is little doubt that this new study will have a direct impact on the negotiations going on this week at the UN CPD, where the negotiated document on maternal mortality includes dozens of references to reproductive health, which is used as a codeword for abortion
By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D. Austin Ruse
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) A new study out this week by the leading British medical journal shows maternal mortality rates have been significantly overestimated by United Nations (UN) agencies. The Lancet reports that maternal deaths worldwide in 2008 totaled 342,900 rather than the 500,000+ used by the World Bank, World Health Organization (WHO) and the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) in recent years.
The study finds both that the numbers from WHO and UNICEF were faulty due to a lack of proper reporting and also imprecise statistical modeling. But The Lancet study also finds progress has been made in preventing pregnant women from dying.
The study cites four main reasons for the improvement: declining pregnancy rates in some countries, higher per capita income, higher education rates for women, and increasing availability of basic medical care including “skilled birth attendants.”
The report finds that HIV/AIDS caused 60,000 maternal deaths and suggests that maternal deaths would have been significantly lower in Africa if mothers were given antiretroviral drugs. This sharply contradicts current UN and Obama administration policies, which divert funding from HIV/AIDS to family planning as a way to reduce maternal deaths.
The study shows that 50% of maternal deaths come from just six countries; India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Researchers were surprised that three of the richest countries in the world actually showed increased maternal mortality: the United States, Canada and Norway, three countries with the most liberal abortion laws in the world.
What was not cited anywhere in the document is abortion. Contrary to this study, the UN has promoted better maternal health through legal, or “safe,” abortion. At the UN-sponsored Women Deliver Conference in London two years ago, which was billed as a conference on maternal mortality, abortion advocate Frances Kissling told the Friday Fax the conference was a “pro-choice conference.”
The Lancet’s editor Dr. Richard Horton told the New York Times he was pressured “by advocacy groups” to delay publication of the report until later this year. Horton said the groups wanted the information withheld until after the current UN Commission on Population and Development (CPD), the Women Deliver Conference scheduled for this June in Washington DC, and the next UN General Assembly, which is also scheduled to address maternal mortality.
Pro-life critics of the maternal mortality numbers have long complained that the 500,000 number was likely too high and based on ideological assumptions. Dr. Donna Harrison, writing in a C-FAM briefing paper last year, said the WHO introduction of medical abortion in some countries to reduce maternal mortality has been based on unreliable data, unreliability now confirmed by a much broader and more detailed study by The Lancet.
Regarding the new Lancet study, Harrison, the president of the American Academy of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) said, “This study uses the best statistical methods currently available and clearly demonstrates that worldwide legalization of abortion is unnecessary to bring about significant decreases in maternal mortality. AAPLOG encourages UN member nations to continue to develop even better statistical information by improving the identification of maternal mortality causality, especially induced abortion related mortality, which is most often underreported or misreported.”
There is little doubt that this new study will have a direct impact on the negotiations going on this week at the UN CPD, where the negotiated document on maternal mortality includes dozens of references to reproductive health, which is used as a codeword for abortion
Not satisfied with Killing unborn children in the US, now need to expand it Worldwide!
New US House Bill Would Overturn Last Meaningful Restrictions on International Abortion Funding
By Terrence McKeegan, J.D.
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) Last Friday, a Congresswoman from Brooklyn, New York introduced a bill in the United States (US) House of Representatives that would greatly expand international funding for abortion, contraception, and sex education, and would effectively eliminate the long-standing Helms Amendment prohibiting the use of US foreign assistance funds for abortion.
The Global Sexual and Reproductive Health Act of 2010, sponsored by Representative Yvette Clarke and co-sponsored by at least 17 other House members, appears to be linked to the US statement at the recently concluded United Nations (UN) Commission on Population and Development (CPD). That statement touted that “President Obama has requested $715.7 million for bilateral and multilateral reproductive health, including family planning, in 2011. If approved later this year by Congress, this amount will represent the single largest U.S. contribution in history for international reproductive health programs.”
The stated purpose of the bill is the “advancement of sexual and reproductive health is necessary to meeting most of the eight United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),” with its findings based almost entirely on the controversial UN report entitled “Adding It Up." That report was authored and sponsored by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and was also cited prominently in the US statement to the CPD. It advocated increased family planning and access to abortion as the primary means of reducing maternal mortality worldwide.
The bill states that foreign assistance funds should be used to “support safe abortion services, including referrals, and support the training of abortion providers and the necessary equipment and commodities for surgical and medical abortion.”
Section 7 of the bill calls for funding to ensure and promote “sexual and reproductive health care for young people,” including comprehensive sexuality and reproductive health education, as well as abortion services. The bill defines “young people” as including all individuals as young as 10 years of age up to 25 years old.
According to the pro-abortion Ipas organization, “Adoption of the Act would mean the end of the Helms Amendment.” The Helms Amendment was first enacted in 1973 and states that, “No foreign assistance funds may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions.”
A statement from Representative Clarke’s office suggests the bill is needed to comply with international norms: “By revising existing legislation to meet current international standards, we can establish an integrated, progressive model for delivering more efficient and effective sexual and reproductive health services across the globe.”
Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, expressed her outrage to the Friday Fax. “This bill is beyond irresponsible. No abortion procedure is fully safe – and the danger multiplies for women without access to basic medical care, clean water or penicillin. Exporting abortion to the most deprived women in the world and promoting 10 year olds to engage in sex, putting them at risk of deadly disease, exploitation by pedophiles, and candidates for abortion, could be considered a method of ethnic cleansing.”
By Terrence McKeegan, J.D.
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) Last Friday, a Congresswoman from Brooklyn, New York introduced a bill in the United States (US) House of Representatives that would greatly expand international funding for abortion, contraception, and sex education, and would effectively eliminate the long-standing Helms Amendment prohibiting the use of US foreign assistance funds for abortion.
The Global Sexual and Reproductive Health Act of 2010, sponsored by Representative Yvette Clarke and co-sponsored by at least 17 other House members, appears to be linked to the US statement at the recently concluded United Nations (UN) Commission on Population and Development (CPD). That statement touted that “President Obama has requested $715.7 million for bilateral and multilateral reproductive health, including family planning, in 2011. If approved later this year by Congress, this amount will represent the single largest U.S. contribution in history for international reproductive health programs.”
The stated purpose of the bill is the “advancement of sexual and reproductive health is necessary to meeting most of the eight United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),” with its findings based almost entirely on the controversial UN report entitled “Adding It Up." That report was authored and sponsored by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and was also cited prominently in the US statement to the CPD. It advocated increased family planning and access to abortion as the primary means of reducing maternal mortality worldwide.
The bill states that foreign assistance funds should be used to “support safe abortion services, including referrals, and support the training of abortion providers and the necessary equipment and commodities for surgical and medical abortion.”
Section 7 of the bill calls for funding to ensure and promote “sexual and reproductive health care for young people,” including comprehensive sexuality and reproductive health education, as well as abortion services. The bill defines “young people” as including all individuals as young as 10 years of age up to 25 years old.
According to the pro-abortion Ipas organization, “Adoption of the Act would mean the end of the Helms Amendment.” The Helms Amendment was first enacted in 1973 and states that, “No foreign assistance funds may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions.”
A statement from Representative Clarke’s office suggests the bill is needed to comply with international norms: “By revising existing legislation to meet current international standards, we can establish an integrated, progressive model for delivering more efficient and effective sexual and reproductive health services across the globe.”
Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, expressed her outrage to the Friday Fax. “This bill is beyond irresponsible. No abortion procedure is fully safe – and the danger multiplies for women without access to basic medical care, clean water or penicillin. Exporting abortion to the most deprived women in the world and promoting 10 year olds to engage in sex, putting them at risk of deadly disease, exploitation by pedophiles, and candidates for abortion, could be considered a method of ethnic cleansing.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)