Monday, December 22, 2008

Obama vs. The Grinch

While watching Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas with my 8 year old son, there was a scene that stood out in my mind that summarized Barack Obama's approach to answering questions with half-truths, spin-offs, ducks, dodges, and outright lies. Without mentioning it myself during the movie, my 8 year old son stated "Daddy, the Grinch is like Barack Obama" and I immediately almost spit out my drink.

So here is my own interpretation of what I saw in common between the Grinch and Obama:

"The Grinch had been caught by this little Who daughter
Who'd got out of bed for a cup of cold water.
She stared at the Grinch and said, "Santy Claus, why,
"Why are you taking our Christmas tree? WHY?"

But, you know, that old Grinch was so smart and so slick
He thought up a lie, and he thought it up quick!
"Why, my sweet little tot," the fake Santy Claus lied,
"There's a light on this tree that won't light on one side.
"So I'm taking it home to my workshop, my dear.
"I'll fix it up there. Then I'll bring it back here."

And his fib fooled the child. Then he patted her head
And he got her a drink and he sent her to bed.
And when Cindy-Lou-Who went to bed with her cup,
HE went to the chimney and stuffed the tree up!

Then the last thing he took
Was the log for their fire.
Then he went up the chimney himself, the old liar.
On their walls he left nothing but hooks, and some wire."

- Dr. Seuss,
How the Grinch Stole Christmas

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Why do Our Bishops Exile Fellow Pro-Life Bishops?

Answer: The Scourge of Conscience

When the USCCB demotes and attempts to isolate outspoken pro-life bishops, they do so because they are reminded that they are duty-bound to lead with the same manliness, and not simply 'smile and wave with the mob'. According to the Washington Times, Pro-life bishops, that is, those courageous few bishops who put their money where their mouth is and walk the talk are continually relegated to lower positions within the USCCB. Those heroic bishops, by denying Communion to obstinate pro-abortion policy making Catholic dissenters until they have repented of their pro-abortion stances, are the modern Thomas More's of our time. May our entire USCCB exhibit the same manliness in the coming persecutions as those saintly men of God currently leading by example.

Monday, November 17, 2008

Gay Marriage Protesters - Exhibit Their Intolerance

Tom Brokaw wrote a book about that generation that cherished wholesome family values. His book, The Greatest Generation honored our once great American generation that believed in God, prayer, honor . . . and family.

Today however, this nation has turned upon itself. Like ancient roman Emperor Nero, the protesters who took to the California streets immediately after the passing of Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, are blaming Christians. The question that should be asked is why? The majority of voters in California voted for an abortion supporting liberal named Obama, and on the same ballot also voted for keeping traditional marriage defined as between one man and one woman. Are 61% majority of Californians who supported Obama also "extreme right wing Christians"?  Does California really have 61% of its voting populace attending a right wing conservative Christian Church? I highly doubt that. 61% of California voters aren't conservative right wing Christians. Yet the pro-gay marriage protesters are exploiting this opportunity to unleash their hate against God and subsequently against those who defend Him. Carrying signs reading 'fight hate with hate', it is not the Churches protesters are fighting against, but the One Who created them and continually seeks their return.

The argument we keep hearing is that such and such Church spoke out and encouraged their congregation to vote against it. So what? Didn't Brad Pitt, Steven Spielberg, and Matt Damon contribute tens of thousands of dollars and campaign against Proposition 8? According to MSN and Associated Press News:

NCIS actress Pauley Perrette donated $3,000. Brad Pitt donated $100,000 to fight the ballot initiative. Trevor Neilson, Pitt's political and philanthropic adviser, said the actor continues to be surprised that his colleagues in the entertainment industry have not donated more money to support the battle against Proposition 8. Among the other famous contributors: "Point of No Return" actress Bridget Fonda ($200); "One Life to Live" actor Jason Tam ($100); "In Plain Sight" actress Mary McCormack ($200); "Good Will Hunting" director Gus Van Sant ($2,500); "Brothers & Sisters" executive producer Greg Berlanti ($5,000) and "Star Trek" actor George Takei ($2,600). "The Real World" co-creator and executive producer Jonathan Murray donated $10,000 to support gay marriage. Orson Bean, perhaps best known for his frequent appearances as a panelist on "To Tell the Truth" donated $200. Tinseltown put on party fundraisers including Melissa Etheridge and Mary J. Blige which required a minimum donation of $1,000. The bash, which was attended by such celebs as Barbara Streiesand, David Hyde Pierce and Rob Reiner, raised over $4 million for the campaign, according to Lorri L. Jean, CEO of the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center. That money was used to purchase air time for campaign ads.

If hollywood could raise and donate an exorbitant amount of wealth to the gay and lesbian agenda using their glamor, popularity, and entertainment, (and still lose) then why couldn't Church members scrape their rainy day funds to defend God's agenda? It seems only fair:

Hollywood wealthy supports evil and social decadence with the money they've acquired from movie and concert goers


Churchgoing citizens support social order, goodness, and traditional family values with the money they've earned by the sweat of their own brow. Tom Brokaw called the generation who embraced these same principles, The Greatest Generation.

I suppose the lesson we should learn here is that liberals aren't about a fair fight. They're only about getting what they want - and getting it now. When Obama won, I didn't see anyone on the news protesting the most liberal senator's election win to the highest office of our nation. No, what I saw on the news after liberal Obama's victory, was liberals protesting . . . ???? Protesting they didn't get it ALL. Even with Tinseltown throwing over $4 million dollars at the gay marriage agenda, the people of CA voted to keep the Greatest Generation alive and keep marriage between one man and one woman. Since 2004, every gay marriage ballot initiative across the country has unanimously voted for keeping the traditional definition of marriage. Even in states that had election outcomes producing wins for liberal politicians, even these states voted against gay marriage.

America has spoken and California has spoken. The traditional family is the nucleus of our societies and America still remembers The Greatest Generation.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Former Environmentalists Speak Out

Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace, and Bjorn Lomborg, former 4-year member of Greenpeace, Associate Professor of Statistics, and author of The Skeptical Environmentalist have disclosed that the old messages of environmental doom and gloom are nothing but exaggerations and myths. They are speaking out against what they once believed as true. That overpopulation, declining energy resources, deforestation, species loss, water shortages, global warming, and a variety of other environmental propaganda are unsupported by analysis of the relevant data.

The truth of it is that our planet is God's gift to mankind to use within the context of what God produced. The landscape God created is our gift to help us survive. To stand in the way of this noble task, like extreme environmentalists have done, is doing an injustice not only to the environment's natural function, local economies, and global demands, but most importantly to God, Who produced all of our forests, rivers, fertile fields, and streams for our sustainable utilization of the resources these environments produce.

Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, describes the litany of global doom and gloom we have all heard over the decades by the media and environmental activists from groups such as Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, and Wildlife Institute saying, "There is just one problem: it does not seem to be backed up by the available evidence." In Patrick Moore's article Trees Are the Answer, Moore explains his own position in the following excerpts:

"We cannot simply switch to basing all our actions on purely environmental values. Every day 6 billion people wake up with real needs for food, energy and materials.

When foresters create openings or clearcuts when they harvest trees, one of the reasons for doing it is so the new trees growing back can be in full sunlight. Trees are basically plants that want to be in the sun. If trees wanted to be in the shade they would have been shrubs instead, they would not have spent so much time and energy growing long wooden stems.

During the past three years I have asked the World Wildlife Fund on many occasions to please provide me with a list of some of the species that have supposedly become extinct due to logging. They have not offered up a single example as evidence. In fact, to the best of our scientific knowledge, no species has become extinct in North America due to forestry.

The spotted owl is one of the many species that was never threatened with extinction due to forestry, and yet in the early 1990's, 30,000 loggers were thrown out of work in the US Pacific Northwest due to concern that logging in the National Forests would cause the owl’s extinction. Since that time, in just a few short years, it has been shown by actual field observations that there are more than twice as many spotted owls in the public forests of Washington state than were thought to be theoretically possible when those loggers lost their jobs.

So the general public is being given the impression, by supposedly reputable sources such as the New York Times and National Geographic that forestry is a major cause of species extinction when there is actually no evidence to support that position.

The Sierra Club says, "You don't need a professional forester to tell if a forest is mismanaged - if a forest appears to be mismanaged, it is mismanaged." They want you to believe that the ugly appearance of a recently harvested forest is synonymous with permanent destruction of the environment. And yet, the unsightly sea of stumps is not nuclear waste or a toxic discharge, it is 100 percent organic, and will soon grow back to a beautiful new forest again. All the same, the fact that recently harvested areas of forest appear ugly to our eyes makes for very effective images in the hands of anti-forestry activists.

The way we think the land should look often has more to do with personal and social values than anything to do with biodiversity or science. We tend to idealize nature, as if there is some perfect state that is exactly right for a given area of land. There are actually thousands of different combinations of species at all different stages of forest growth that are perfectly natural and sustainable in their own right. There is nothing better about old trees than there is about young trees. Perhaps the ideal state is to have forests of all ages, young, medium, and old in the landscape. This will provide the highest diversity of habitats and therefore the opportunity for the largest number of species to live in that landscape.

If a person strongly believes that forestry is bad because it is ugly, no amount of technical and scientific information will cause them to change their mind. First they must understand that the look of the land is not sufficient, in itself, to make judgments about ecology.

All this controversy, political pressure, and near-hysterical rhetoric over a few percent of biodiversity, with the camera lens focused squarely in on the most recent, ugliest, burnt-out clear-cut available, as if it's going to remain that way forever. The real extreme is the parking lot and other areas of deforestation, not the recently cut forest that is soon going to grow back into a beautiful new forest again.

Greenpeace has gone before the United Nations Inter-Governmental Panel on Forests, calling on countries to reduce the amount of wood they use and to adopt "environmentally appropriate substitutes" instead. No list of substitutes is provided. The Sierra Club is calling for "zero cut" and an end to all commercial forestry on federal public lands in United States. The Rainforest Action Network wants a 75 percent reduction in wood use in North America by the year 2015. I think it is fair to summarize this approach as "cut fewer trees, use less wood". It is my firm belief, as a lifelong environmentalist and ecologist, that this is an anti-environmental policy. Putting aside, for a moment, the importance of forestry for our economy and communities; on purely environmental grounds the policy of "use less wood" is anti-environmental.

On a daily basis, on average, each of the 6 billion people on Earth uses 3.5 pounds or 1.6 kilos of wood every day, for a total of 3.5 billion tons per year. So why don't we just cut that in half and save vast areas of forest from harvesting? In order to demonstrate the superficial nature of this apparent logic it is necessary to look at what we are doing with all this wood.

It comes as a surprise to many people that over half the wood used every year is not for building things but for burning as energy. 60 percent of all wood use is for energy, mainly for cooking and heating in the tropical developing countries where 2.5 billion people depend on wood as their primary source of energy. They cannot afford substitutes because most of them make less than $1000 per year. But even if they could afford substitute fuels they would nearly always have to turn to coal, oil, or natural gas; in other words non-renewable fossil fuels.

Even in cases where fuelwood supplies are not sustainable at present levels of consumption the answer is not to use less wood and switch to non-renewables. The answer is to grow more trees.

25 percent of the wood used in the world is for building things such as houses and furniture. Every available substitute is non-renewable and requires a great deal more energy consumption to produce. That is because wood is produced in a factory called the forest by renewable solar energy. Wood is essentially the material embodiment of solar energy. Non-renewable building materials such as steel, cement, and plastic must be produced in real factories such as steel mills, cement works, and oil refineries.

But the general public and our political leaders have been confused by the misguided approach towards forestry taken by much of the environmental movement. So long as people think it is inherently wrong to cut down trees we will continue to behave in a logically inconsistent and dysfunctional manner.

By far the most powerful tool at our disposal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel consumption is the growing of trees and the use of wood. Most environmentalists recognize the positive benefits of growing trees to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But then they say "don't cut them down or you will undo the good that's been done". This would be true if you simply piled the trees in a heap and lit them on fire. If, however, the wood is used as a substitute for fossil fuels and for building materials whose production consumes fossil fuels, we can dramatically reduce the consumption of fossil fuels and carbon dioxide emissions.

I believe that if forests can recover by themselves from total and complete destruction, that with our growing knowledge of forest science in silviculture, biodiversity conservation, soils, and genetics; we can ensure that the forests of this world continue to provide an abundant, and hopefully growing, supply of renewable wood to help build and maintain our civilization while at the same time providing an abundant, and hopefully growing, supply of habitat for the thousands of other species that depend on the forest for their survival every day just as much as we do. The fact is, a world without forests is as unthinkable as a day without wood."

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Freedom of Choice Act

Freedom is Not the License To Do Whatever We Wish,
But, the Power to Do What is Right
- Fr. John Corapi (1998)

The Freedom of Choice Act is not a very Christian undertaking. 'Christian' politicians are leading our country, but you wouldn't know it from their actions. The self-professed 'Christians' Barack Hussein Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid all have power to do what is right, but they fall far short by doing only what is politically expedient.

It is easy to do what is popular, it is unpopular to do what is right. Unfortunately, it seems that the three 'Christian' amigos in power are more interested in tripping over themselves to be popular among the bloodthirsty mob, than they are about doing what is right - especially in light of the fact that they claim to be Christ-followers.

Fortunately the U.S. Bishops have spoken out against the proposed legislation Freedom of Choice Act. Cardinal Francis George, spokesman for the USCCB said,

"FOCA would coerce all Americans into subsidizing and promoting abortion with their tax dollars. It would counteract any and all sincere efforts by government and others of good will to reduce the number of abortions in our country.

Parental notification and informed consent precautions would be outlawed, as would be laws banning procedures such as partial-birth abortion and protecting infants born alive after a failed abortion. Abortion clinics would be deregulated.

The Hyde Amendment restricting the federal funding of abortions would be abrogated. FOCA would have lethal consequences for prenatal human life."

Perhaps the Three Amigos (Pelosi, Obama, Reid) will heed this admonition and be true and convincing witnesses to the Christian faith they so publicly claim as their own.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Catholic Bishops Vow to Hold Pro-Life Line Against the New Liberal Administration

Christ will not see anyone pushing His Bride around.

Bishops will remain steadfast in the face of the tyranny of abortion. Why should the Church step into the political arena when it comes to defending victims of injustice? Because it is their job. An abortion supporting administration or a "pro-choice" administration is dipping their ugly hand into morality. The pro-choice politicos are responsible for 50 million dead unborn children. Not something I'd want to approach the Gates of Heaven to answer for. When we hear that the Church should not meddle with politics, I say the State should not meddle with morality. This way the State will not hear from the Church.

Nevertheless, there are some in politics who think it is expedient for themselves to dictate to the Church and the nation their unjust "pro-choice" morality. It sends them a 'good-feeling' when they tell ruthless pro-abortion Americans that they "will not yield" to the pro-life message. When the State pushes the Church up against a wall, the Church has only to defend Herself. She is, after all, the Bride of Christ. Christ will not see anyone pushing His Bride around.

A question we need to hold Obama to was presented to him by Family Research Council President Tony Perkins who asked:

Monday, November 10, 2008

Veteran's Day Tribute

During the month of November, in which all Catholics are called to pray for the faithfully departed souls, let us also remember all faithfully departed veterans to rest with God in eternal peace. Many have lost close family and subsequent generations have lost their faith. Many veterans have no one left to pray for them except outsiders who can remember them.

Purgatory is God's merciful plan for those who because, although imperfect, their virtue, acts of charity towards their neighbor, or sincere devotion Him did not deserve punishment of an eternity without the Beatific Vision of God in Heaven. Let us then pray for all departed veterans this Veteran's Day November 11.

Let us also pray for living veterans: that they likewise attain the reward of eternal life in Heaven with their brother veterans who have gone before them.

Mansions of the Lord

"To fallen soldiers let us sing,
Where no rockets fly nor bullets wing,
Our broken brothers let us bring
To the Mansions of the Lord

No more weeping,
No more fight,
No friends bleeding through the night,
Just Devine embrace,
Eternal light,
In the Mansions of the Lord

Where no mothers cry
And no children weep,
We shall stand and guard
Though the angels sleep,
Oh, through the ages let us keep
The Mansions of the Lord"

[Thanks to for lyrics]

Sunday, November 9, 2008

How Obama Won the Election

Simple: People's prejudice blinded them from the truth. Obama is a master of words that serve only to produce election wins - your ultimate career politician. If Obama's lack of accomplishments (other than giving speeches for votes), far left voting record, history, associations, and extreme liberalism that rank even further left than NARAL, Hillary Clinton, Planned Parenthood, and Barbara Boxer couldn't wake America up, what could? According to the National Journal:

"Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate"

Even liberals can't identify one single accomplishment by Obama:

Obama has been running for president since graduating from Harvard. He is a career politician who has not produced a thing for society. Even according to Obama's own Democrat Party, including Joe Biden, Barack Obama lacks essential qualifications:

With the liberal media and Hollywood elitists supporting him the remaining gullible voters in the country slipped into a hypnotic trance as Obama flipped promise after promise after promise of taking care of all of life's messes. The country will have a difficult time realizing that Obama is mere man and not the Divine All Knowing, All Powerful, Deity that our gullible American MTV and Oprah-watchers elected.

When reality meets Obama's Jedi-master speech skills, the country will either be taxed into bankruptcy to fulfill Barack's promises or he'll simply have to humbly admit that he just fed immature American voters empty air. Mastering political speechcraft is all Obama has a talent for. Underneath, he is really an abortion supporting liberal extremist ranking even farther left than Planned Parenthood.

Saturday, November 8, 2008

Obama's Tax Plan

With Obama's moving target of who gets tax increases, I'm frankly not sure what will happen to the middle class like myself. We've got two months to brace ourselves before the new administration takes charge. In the meantime I'll be shoring up my household before Obama's hurricane of expected tax hikes.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

The Three Stooges

. . . are taking charge of my country:

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Obama's Fourth Reich

According to Wikipedia:

The term Nazi is derived from the first two syllables of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the official German language name of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (commonly known in English as the Nazi Party). Party members rarely referred to themselves as Nazis, and instead used the official term, Nationalsozialisten (National Socialists). The word mirrors the term Sozi, a common and slightly derogatory term for members of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands).

Hitler objected to Catholicism’s ungrounded and international character – that is, it did not pertain to an exclusive race and national culture. At the same time, and somewhat contradictorily, the Nazis combined elements of Germany’s Lutheran community tradition with its northern European, organic pagan past.

Nazi publications and speeches included anti-capitalist (especially anti-finance capitalist) rhetoric.

Nazism is just the short name for National Socialism. The Nazi ideology opposes capitalism, conservatism, and any 'groups that are deemed repressive of National Socialism. Like Obama, Hitler rose quickly from obscurity into power in the National Socialist Party which promised 'progress' in the name of 'change'. Hitler had no real accomplishments except his charismatic personality. Obama's running mate Joe Biden even remarked that Barack was not experienced enough for the job when they ran against each other in 2004 and added in October 2008 that Obama would be tested because of his youth and inexperience. Even fellow Democrats claim Obama is not ready to be President, very much like those near Hitler who likewise questioned his qualifications.

Will Obama call his administration the 'Fourth Reich'?

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

"Change Has Come to America"

Obama's "Slow Steep Climb" . . . or Rapid Perilous Drop?

Compare the text from Obama's acceptance speech to Hitler's acceptance speech and it reveals a chilling similarity (see below).

Other than making mutilated babies from abortion our proud American symbol to the world's end, what Change has actually come to America? I suppose the end of the Iraq war is imminent. This is a welcome change, although things in Iraq were already winding down. With the Troop Surge's success our troops can finally return home. Barack made promise after promise to the American people including paying our way through college, providing socialized medicine and socialized medical care, redistributing the earned income of others so that we can 'benefit' from another man's handiwork. Quite the costly promises there. With this faltering economy Obama will either have to cancel his promises or drive our economy into free fall.

So what did he really mean by 'change'? Will Obama reverse those values that inspired even Tom Brokaw to coin traditional America as our 'Greatest Generation'? Changing our entire moral code and American family values into a contrived, forced, pseudo-happiness void of traditional values and virtue? Will our Church be micromanaged by Barack's government? Will Free Speech be muzzled? Will our Catholic doctors be forced into unethical practices by Obama's new policies? Will Obama inflame racial division once again like his 20 year pastor Rev. Wright? Will the new Administration demand an oath of fidelity from the Church to embrace all of the Governments moral standards or 'suffer the consequences'? Will the Catholic Church be split in two over this,
as what happened in China when their government demanded fealty to the State before God? Will America have a Church called 'the American Catholic Patriotic Association' and another called traditionally the Roman Catholic Church, like in China?

Yesterday morning (election day) before Obama won, I posted what he might say to the crowds of supporters if he wins using the following quote from
Adolph Hitler's election victory speech. Hitler too had a new socialist vision to forcibly mold his country and it did not fare Germany too well:

"The great time has only begun. Germany has awoken. We have won power in Germany. Now we must win over the German people. I know my comrades, it must have been difficult at times when you were desiring change which didn't come. . . You mustn't act yourself, you must obey, you must give in. You must submit to this overwhelming need to obey."

These statements were followed by 1,000 people gathered in the German Chancellory chanting "Heil Hitler, Heil Hitler!"

- Adolph Hitler (Acceptance Speech 1933)

Well, Obama won power and according to CNN News
this is what he said, in comparison, to those crowds of supporters as he claimed victory Tuesday night in Chicago before an estimated crowd of up to 240,000 people:

"change has come to America."

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America -- I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you -- we as a people will get there"

". . . While the Democratic Party has won a great victory [I am determined to] heal the divides that have held back our progress. To those Americans whose support I have yet to earn -- I may not have won your vote, but . . . I need your help"

More than 1,000 people gathered outside the White House, chanting "Obama, Obama!"

Not much different from Hitler's 'New Government' Speech we got a bitter taste of in the 1930's. Hitler was not a right wing extremist. Like Obama, Hitler's
National Socialist Party promised 'progress' in the name of 'change'. Look it up, Nazism is literally the short name for National Socialism. This ideology opposes capitalism, conservatism, and any 'groups that are deemed repressive of National Socialism.

According to Wikipedia:

The term Nazi is derived from the first two syllables of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, [15] the official German language name of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (commonly known in English as the Nazi Party). Party members rarely referred to themselves as Nazis, and instead used the official term, Nationalsozialisten (National Socialists). The word mirrors the term Sozi,[16] a common and slightly derogatory term for members of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands).[17]
It is obvious that he is trying to change our value system. You cannot remove an item without filling the void. So what could be our new family values?

Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act
Provide federal funding for overseas abortions
Sign the Freedom of Choice Act
Deny the rights of parents knowledge of their child having abortions
Force Catholic hospitals to perform unethical medical practices that violate their beliefs
Force doctors to perform unethical medical practices that violate their conscience

Is this a "steep climb" . . . or a rapid free fall?

Watch Live! President Obama's Presidential Acceptance Speech

Obama wasn't the only one talking change for a 'Greater [fill in country]':

"It must have been difficult at times when you were desiring change which didn't come.

. . . You mustn't act yourself, you must obey, you must give in. You must submit to this overwhelming need to obey."

- Adolph Hitler (Acceptance Speech 1933)

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

The Catholic Vote

Pope John Paul II's encyclical Evangelium Vitae:

"To the Bishops Priests and Deacons Men and Women religious lay Faithful and all People of Good Will on the Value and Inviolability of Human Life (03/25/1995):

73. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

- Pope John Paul II (Evangelium vitae, 1995)

". . . In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it'[98]".

- Pope John Paul II (Evangelium vitae, 1995)

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Democrats Can't Accept the Finally Tough Questions Without Being Offended

Assuming the media was in their own back pocket, Joe Biden is finally asked some tough questions. Then the Obama campaign canceled all future scheduled interviews saying: "This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign, according to an Orlando Sentinel blog.

Like Joe the Plumber, this reporter is going to be attacked and the media will try to destroy her. Send her your support:

Sunday, October 19, 2008

What is Abortion?

From Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary and used with permission on Catholic Culture, the Church answers and defines abortion. Excerpts include:

"Direct abortion is any destruction of the product of human conception, whether before or after implantation in the womb. A direct abortion is one that is intended either as an end in itself or as a means to an end. As a willful attack on unborn human life, no matter what the motive, direct abortion is always a grave objective evil.

. . . Abortion has been condemned by the Church since apostolic times. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, composed before A.D. 100, told the faithful "You shall not procure abortion. You shall not destroy a newborn child" (II, 2). Direct abortion and infanticide were from the beginning placed on the same level of malice."

If it's not a baby, then she's not pregnant.

Monday, October 13, 2008

"Christian" Barack's Double Talk vs. Pope John Paul II, Mother Teresa, and Alan Keyes' Straight Talk

Mother Teresa on abortion:

"But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"

- Mother Teresa (February 3, 1994 - National Prayer Breakfast in Washington attended by then President Bill Clinton and the First Lady)

Pope John Paul II:

"If, indeed, everyone has the mission and responsibility of acknowledging the personal dignity of every human being and of defending the right to life, some lay faithful are given a particular title to this task: such as parents, teachers, health care workers and the many who hold economic and political power."

- Pope John Paul II (Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici December 30, 1988)

Pope John Paul II:

"Today, when many countries have seen the fall of ideologies which bound politics to a totalitarian conception of the world-Marxism being the foremost of these-there is no less grave a danger that the fundamental rights of the human person will be denied and that the religious yearnings which arise in the heart of every human being will be absorbed once again into politics This is the risk of an alliance between democracy and ethical relativism, which would remove any sure moral reference point from political and social life, and on a deeper level make the acknowledgement of truth impossible. Indeed, "if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism."(161)

- Pope John Paul II Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (August 6, 1993)

Pope John Paul II:

"8. Dear friends, let us commit all our forces to defending the value of the family and respect for human life from the moment of conception. These are values which belong to the basic "grammar" of dialogue and human coexistence among peoples. I fervently hope that governments and national parliaments, international organizations and, in particular, the United Nations Organization will not lose sight of this truth. I ask all people of good will who believe in these values to join forces effectively so that the latter may prevail in daily life, in cultural trends and in the mass media, in political decisions and the laws of nations."

- Pope John Paul II: Address to the families (October 14, 2000)

Mother Teresa:

"Jesus gave even his life to love us. So the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love - that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion."

- Mother Teresa (February 3, 1994)

Pope John Paul II:

"This task is the particular responsibility of civil leaders. Called to serve the people and the common good, they have a duty to make courageous choices in support of life, especially through legislative measures. In a democratic system, where laws and decisions are made on the basis of the consensus of many, the sense of personal responsibility in the consciences of individuals invested with authority may be weakened. But no one can ever renounce this responsibility, especially when he or she has a legislative or decision-making mandate, which calls that person to answer to God, to his or her own conscience and to the whole of society for choices which may be contrary to the common good. Although laws are not the only means of protecting human life, nevertheless they do play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour. I repeat once more that a law which violates an innocent person's natural right to life is unjust and, as such, is not valid as a law. For this reason I urgently appeal once more to all political leaders not to pass laws which, by disregarding the dignity of the person, undermine the very fabric of society."

- Pope John Paul II Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (March 25, 1995)

Mother Teresa:

"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters" And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign."

- Mother Teresa (February 3, 1994 - National Prayer Breakfast in Washington attended by then President Bill Clinton and the First Lady)

Pope John Paul II:

"The Church well knows that it is difficult to mount an effective legal defence of life in pluralistic democracies, because of the presence of strong cultural currents with differing outlooks. At the same time, certain that moral truth cannot fail to make its presence deeply felt in every conscience, the Church encourages political leaders, starting with those who are Christians, not to give in, but to make those choices which, taking into account what is realistically attainable, will lead to the re- establishment of a just order in the defence and promotion of the value of life."

- Pope John Paul II Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (March 25, 1995)

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Pope John Paul II - The Catholic Vote and Abortion

From his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul explains the importance of voting pro-life:

To the Bishops Priests and Deacons Men and Women religious lay Faithful and all People of Good Will on the Value and Inviolabilityof Human Life (03/25/ 1995):

"In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it'[98].

- Ioannes Paulus PP. II (Evangelium vitae, 1995)

The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's Declaration on Procured Abortion (November 18, 1974 - one year following Roe v. Wade decision by the Supreme Court)

. . . These debates would be less grave were it not a question of human life, a primordial value, which must be protected and promoted. Everyone understands this, although many look for reasons, even against all evidence, to promote the use of abortion. . . The Church is too conscious of the fact that it belongs to her vocation to defend man against everything that could disintegrate or lessen his dignity to remain silent on such a topic. Because the Son of God became man, there is no man who is not His brother in humanity . . .

22. It must in any case be clearly understood that whatever may be laid down by civil law in this matter, man can never obey a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application.

. . .
Christ's Church has the fundamental solicitude of protecting and favoring life. She certainly thinks before all else of the life which Christ came to bring: "I have come so that they may have life and have it to the full" (Jn. 10:10). But life at all its levels comes from God, and bodily life is for man the indispensable beginning."

[98] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion (18 November 1974), No. 22: AAS 66 (1974), 744.

Friday, October 3, 2008

The Sheer Hypocrisy of Liberalism

A book written by Tom Brokaw, Veteran reporter and NBC Nightly News anchor, entitled The Greatest Generation described that great American culture of the 1940's (born between 1901–1924) in which God, family, and country were the culture's inspiration to doing what is right even in difficult times. In his book, Tom Brokaw wrote, "this is the greatest generation any society has produced." In another page he points out,

". . . John and Peggy Assenzio were typical. When he came home, they simply resumed their life together. They loved each other. They wanted to have a family. They were faithful Catholics. They were true to the way they had been raised."

This was the Greatest Generation. Then came the Baby Boomers. This generation, born between between 1946 and 1964, was composed of, according to Wikipedia, two cohorts. The first (born from 1946 to 1954) championed the causes of anti-war protests, social experimentation, sexual freedom, civil rights movement, environmental movement, women's movement, protests and riots, experimentation with various intoxicating recreational substances - these were identified by a survey of the Baby Boomers themselves (Wikipedia). The second cohort, also according to a survey of the Baby Boomers themselves, brought upon Nixon's resignation, the Cold War, the oil embargo, gasoline shortages, and whose key characteristics consisted of less optimistic, distrust of government, general cynicism (Wikipedia). About the Baby Boomers, Census Bureau deputy director Arthur Clausewitz said at a press conference,

". . . the curtain will at long last fall on what is regarded by many as the most odious generation America has ever produced . . . The selfishness that has been a hallmark of the Boomers will continue right up to the very end, as they force millions of younger Americans to devote an inordinate amount of time and resources to their care, bankrupting the Social Security system in the process."

Those in the past and present who claim to be 'advocates' and 'champions' of tolerance, free speech, and diversity are in fact against all three. They stand against others' freedoms when those others' opinions are not in complete mind-brick-lock-step with theirs. They only demand these freedoms when they are outnumbered against a Greatest Generation, as they did in the 1960's, but when their numbers rise to form a gang, they completely suppress in others the very same freedoms they demanded for themselves.

Take for example California's ruling that homeschooling is illegal. California did this because they do not have the monopoly on everybody's child in the public school system to indoctrinate them with their liberal ideas. Public school children are being taught things that have nothing to do with reading and arithmetic. Children are learning about Mitch and Hank living as gay partners when they should be learning the times tables. Liberals call this brainwashing 'open mindedness'. However, when parents pull their kids out of school and homeschool them, those same liberals teaching 'open mindedness' come down like a hammer on homeschool families and abuse their Baby Boomer power to declare homeschooling illegal. Sheer hypocrisy.

Take also for example, the absurd claim by the 9th Circuit Court that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because it contains the words "under God". This phrase in no way establishes a religion whatsoever.* Also take the attempt to mint our coins without the expression 'In God We Trust'. Again an unfounded accusation by the 'tolerant' left that this somehow establishes a religion. What religion can possibly be established with this phrase?

Liberals just love to cite science as its ultimate Truth. They forget one thing: Science is God's creation, not theirs. They'll use climate change to intrude into American lives depriving farmers of their much needed water to favor a useless fish, carbon taxes, bringing down the wood production industry, outrageous fishing and hunting regulations, etc. What the Greatest Generation took for granted and held as common knowledge is being stripped away and replaced with excessive regulation under the guise of liberality and 'responsibility'. These Marxist copouts are not the ideals the Greatest Generation fought to preserve. The sky will not fall if Johnny hikes to his favorite fishing spot to fish a pond that has a rare turtle. The ecosystem will not collapse if the local sawmill remains open. The earth will not grind to a halt upon its axes if we don't pay extra fines to recycle.

Speaking of science; how hypocritical is it to make into policy the aborting of children in the womb of its mother straight through the last trimester of development. Liberals claim that the child is not a human. Even with our technological advancement of ultrasound video imagery, liberals still refuse to acknowledge a unique living human being in the womb. They claim science as their ultimate Truth yet throw out science when it's right in their face, black and white, in video imagery. They are either on drugs or their prejudice is blinding them from the truth. Sheer hypocrisy.

Also take for example cyber-bullying in forums and on pro-life or Christian websites. Liberals gang-attack using uncivil personal slanders, physical threats, and outright barbaric behavior towards their fellow Americans who happen to hold an opinion other than theirs. I cannot recall a single conservative person who ever mass-attacked or even solo-attacked a personal blog with the malice that some 'open minded' liberals have resorted to. So much for diversity.

Liberals consider themselves the 'enlightened ones' yet their verbal attacks lack civility, consist of distortions, red-herrings, atheistic drive, and worse yet, presented under the banner of 'freedom to choose'. Unadulterated double talk. Their intent is not the flower child mantra of 'live and let live' but rather, 'misery loves company'. They will not stop until everybody is a perfect clone of their sad miserable selves. This is their idea of freedom, diversity, and tolerance. This is their sheer hypocrisy and it is rather sad.

Another example is the media. Hollywood consistently attempts to drive those with religious beliefs out of society by portraying them as seething-with-hate-fanatics. Hollywood's seething hatred of religion and God is clear. Movies like the DaVinci Code, Priest, The Last Temptation of Christ, etc. are outright attacks on God and His Church. In the liberal attempt to rid the world of their imagined 'yoke' of religion and imagined 'constraints' of the Ten Commandments, they strive to replace the notion of God and virtue with real yokes and real constraints. Their model is a communist regime that repeats Karl Marx's communist view that "religion is the opiate of the people." Hollywood must brainwash their audience with new movies to replace oldies of the Greatest Generation's cinematic creations such as The Bells of St. Mary's, Going My Way, Come to the Stable, etc. To do this, Hollywood creates movies that glamorize decadent behavior as mainstream and acceptable in movies like Sex and the City, Religulous, Brokeback Mountain, Dogma, and others that depict decadence as acceptable and religion as foolishness. A far cry from our Greatest Generation.

The liberal utopia of a culture without God can only come true if a dictatorship is in place. The bumper stickers we often see saying "Free Tibet" attempts to reclaim religious liberty. However, those same slogans can be applied to America with the American left's persecution of Christians that is becoming another Tibet. This again is their sheer hypocrisy.

Liberals repeatedly cite the 1940's culture as their enemy model. The family, consisting of father and mother with children living together in a harmonic Christian home is the liberals' idea of hell. Liberals work to tear down all that is good and holy in order to claim victory - not over the 1940's culture, but victory over God Himself Who was the inspiration for all that was good in the past. The Greatest Generation, although not perfect, was simply a product of being true to their beliefs, as Tom Brokaw wrote above. A model for our culture to once again embrace with Christianity and God at its core. This is not the future envisioned by liberal Baby Boomers.

Brown University history professor A. Thomas Raymond said. "The era-defining flower children of the '60s, hedonistic disco-goers of the '70s, BMW-driving yuppies of the '80s and graying private-investor homeowner parents of the '90s all have one thing in common: They're all Boomers." "It takes a staggering amount of effort to keep oneself the focus of an entire society for one decade, much less four, but the Boomers somehow pulled it off," Raymond continued. "Thankfully, though, their reign will soon come to an end . . ." (

However, the damage has been done. The children of the Baby Boomers have been trained well. In fact, the modern liberals today have far less tolerance of diversity, free speech, and freedom than their Baby Boomer parents. They are ratcheting up their rhetoric and pounding their bongo war drums for the coming persecution of Christianity. This persecution is already underway by the older cohort who, through some crack (because they certainly lack any political tact, a spirit of service, skill, or patriotism), have dug into local and national political positions like a parasitic tick. They refuse to leave at any cost and, like a tick, regurgitate their disease into their host - the country.

Everything is in place to insert the real yoke of suppression, impose the religion of secular humansim, and enforce it in a way that can only be done with an iron fist. Nobody would willingly embrace such insanity. The only way it will be implemented widespread across our country is for the masses to lose their peace of soul. This occurs when they kill their conscience and convince themselves that God doesn't exist and that religion is a burdensome fantasy.

However, to rid themselves of God and religion would require replacing them with their notion of order. This will be their dictatorship of secularism. American secular humanists wish to impose upon America Karl Marx's opinion that "the abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness." This is not the freedoms the Greatest Generation fought the Second World War for. This is not the America envisioned by our founding fathers. This is not the America Tom Brokaw described in his book. Secular humanists are too often willing to forget that the Constitution promises "Freedom OF religion" - a constitutionally guaranteed right provided in the religion clauses of the First Amendment, not "Freedom FROM religion."*

The liberal utopia of America is a nightmarish place that this country has never trodden. Ariel Durant who was nominated as "Woman of the Year" by the Los Angeles Times, said:

“A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.” - Ariel Durant (1898-1981)
America's next generation can quite possibly be called the Last Generation.

*(On a side note, Thomas Jefferson's note of 'separation of church and state' cited by so many secularists to quell religious freedom is referencing the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. It states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The clause was a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era and protects the United States from officially choosing a religion as its establishment such as the Church of England's Anglican Communion, Sharia Law, etc.).

Brokaw, Tom. 1998. The Greatest Generation. Random House 1st Edition, November 30, 1998, p. 238.

Saturday, September 6, 2008

Obama's Views on Life Resembles Another Historical Figure's Views on Life

The sole Democrat presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama, who emerged quickly from an obscure past and just until two years ago was virtually unknown, justifies abortion with a cynical disdain for human life. Barack Hussein Obama wishes to spread our hard working income across the nation - this can only be done by taking it first away. Obama wants to create a civil military force 'with the same strength' as our overseas military forces, much like the SS:
Barack Hussein Obama sees America through a foggy lens of 'newness' much like another arrogant leader from the 20th century.

In a speech, Obama stated that if one of his two daughters "made a mistake" and 'got' pregnant, that he didn't want to see them "punished with a baby" - a life unworthy of life. Yet on Father's Day, June 27, 2008, Obama challenged fathers to live up to their responsibilities and rise to their duty of fatherhood. His statement of avoiding 'punishment with a baby' doesn't exactly challenge men to fulfill the unselfish responsibility of fatherhood. How can Obama's statements of discarding a baby because it was "a mistake" square with his earlier charge of challenging fathers to live up to their responsibilities? It doesn't. It's a contradiction and one too often dismissed by Americans.

However, not all are fooled by the contradictions. Pope John Paul II defined those societies with this prevailing attitude of discarding life to avoid owning up to responsibility as having a "culture of death". The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops state:

"If no one has the truth, politics becomes a matter of who has the most power. Power politics devoid of truth—“the dictatorship of relativism,” in the words of Pope Benedict XVI—cannot unify the nation or protect the common good. History offers us many examples of its failures.

Pope Benedict XVI reminded us during his recent visit to the United States that “America’s quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the Creator.” This conviction is at the heart of our democracy. It allows us to recognize the self-evident truth that all men and women are created equal and that the source of our human rights is not the government but the Creator. The Declaration of Independence sketches these rights as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” at the heart of which is the human person, created in the image of God and endowed with inviolable dignity.
. . . Abortion has helped create what Pope John Paul II called “a culture of death” in which human life is cheapened. We can see this in legislation that provides public funding for destructive embryonic stem cell research and in efforts to legalize euthanasia."

What fuels Obama's worldview where he can defend abortion is his socialist outlook. His socialism and his rapid rise from anonymity to stardom, by mere charisma and promises, resembles another historical figure's political career. Obama is at odds with life and would like to lead America into his cynical world. This little experiment was repeated before with disastrous results.

One misnomer made by liberal revisionists is labeling Adolph Hitler a 'right wing extremist'. Hitler, in fact, was a socialist. His party, The National Socialist German Workers Party's ideology, stressed the racial purity of the German people and persecuted anyone it perceived as either an enemy or Lebensunwertes Leben, that is "life unworthy of life" (those considered to be "deviant" or a "source of social turmoil") in pursuit of a "Greater Germany". To Obama, a "mistake", a "punishment"; ie. unwanted child growing in the mother's womb is his source of social turmoil. The "life unworthy of life" concept was summarized by the author of Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton when he explained the Nazi policy:

"Of the five identifiable steps by which the Nazis carried out the principle of "life unworthy of life," coercive sterilization was the first. There followed the killing of “impaired” children in hospitals; and then the killing of “impaired” adults, mostly collected from mental hospitals, in centers especially equipped with carbon monoxide gas. This project was extended (in the same killing centers) to “impaired” inmates of concentration and extermination camps and, finally, to mass killings, mostly of Jews, in the extermination camps themselves."

In a July 17th, 2007 speech before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Barack said "there will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield." Has Obama never seen an ultrasound?

When the Obama campaign built fake large columns on his stage to dazzle the crowds - what exact image was he trying to implant? One could only imagine it was the image of a powerful statesman - or an arrogant one. His evening of pomp and circumstance treating the crowd to a major spectacle reminds me of another well known socialist:

Obama's dazzling columns. (1)

Adolph Hitler's dazzling columns. (2)

Obama's speech at night with much pomp and circumstance treating the crowd to major spectacles and unforgettable oratory. Obama's stage designed with fake columns for effect. (3)

Large crowds amassed for Nazi rallies were treated to major spectacles and unforgettable oratory by Hitler before real columns. (4,5)

Obama draws massive crowds who listen to him in a hypnotic way promising a new America with hope and change as his mantra.

Hitler drew massive crowds who listen to him in a hypnotic way promising a new Germany with hope and change as his mantra. (Adolph Hitler 1933, Dortmund, Germany Nazi rally (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

Massive crowds chant "Obama, Obama" with unwavering loyalty - not knowing exactly what to expect for America with his message of 'hope and change'.

Massive crowds chant "Heil Hitler" with unwavering loyalty - not knowing exactly what will come to Germany with his message of 'hope and change'.

Obama speaks with articulation and convincing dynamo.

Hitler spoke with articulation and convincing dynamo. (11)

Crowds including frantic screaming women treat Obama like a rock star trying to at least touch the hem of his garment.

Crowds including frantic screaming women treat Hitler like a rock star trying to at least touch the hem of his garment.
(Adolf Hitler is greeted with enthusiasm upon his arrival at the Olympic Stadium. Berlin, Germany, August 1936. Courtesy U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. 14)

It isn't so much the images Obama uses that remind us so much of the historical dictator, but rather, it's more Obama's new policies that he will implement if elected President with promises of a "better America".

More than 400,000 people were sterilized against their will and between 75,000 and 250,000 killed because of an intellectual or physical disability under Nazi Germany's Aktion T4 program. Eerily similar to our many, newly created, liberal American government social programs, Nazi Germany's grim Aktion T4 program was headquartered under the State's social program entitled 'General Foundation for Welfare and Institutional Care'.

Sounds strikingly too familiar. Obama and 'Planned Parenthood' seemed to be joined at the hip. Obama doesn't want to punish anyone with any "mistakes" or the responsibility of motherhood; or fathers with the responsibility of fatherhood. He simply wants to eliminate the 'mistake' - by taking out the baby and add to the 49 million already aborted babies to date.

Abortion proponents are in effect targeting, as statistics prove, single mothers, the lower class, and minorities in pursuit of a "Greater America". Mothers and fathers are told by modern culture that disabled unborn children will live a 'substandard lifestyle' and encourage abortion. A sort of Nazi cleansing of an unwanted populace. What 'standard' are they referring to? The secular utopia of a socialist dreamland where God is dead, morality annulled, and tyranny rules. An Obamination.



1. Doug Pensinger/Getty Images;
14. US Holocaust Memorial Museum