The Invasion of the Southern Border: An Attack by the Communist: Economic Mongrelism

 All we have to do is admit that the cold war is not over. In fact, the cold war never ends. What is taking place on the southern border is not illegal immigration because it is not immigration at all. It is more like economic mongrelism. These are for a large part, not all, people who are not merely materially poor but lack any other dimension of being. They are not spiritually awakened to the point where,  immediate material satisfaction is all that they seek. Why should we sympathize with a people that will sell themselves into slavery for material gain? Like a Terrier or a mole, an animal level of awareness where mere material attainment is the drive. This is exactly what Christ came to eradicate, it is what most Judaism sort to eradicate. Religion has lifted man up from an animal drive to satisfy immediate appetites. Having these people enter the country is no different than the rise of homosexuals and climate change cultists or the invasion of the mentally ill or criminals which is sometimes one and the same. 

Some may say that this sounds like Eugenics however I am not claiming that breeding is what is necessary. Eugenicists were fundamentally Darwinist and atheists. I believe that there is a real need for evangelization amongst these people which did not take hold in their country and truth be told is faltering in the United States. These economic mongrels made a deal with drug cartels to come over the border which basically sacrificed their lives or that of their family members. Ironically the threat hinges under the guise that the economic mongrel love these family members. These people can be abused, raped and even killed if large sums of money are not paid to the cartels. If one studies actual human behavior amongst criminals, which each and everyone of these economic mongrels are, concern for others is not something commonly found, certainly it is not love to put up ones family member as collateral. In many respects this is chattel slavery since the cartels can do whatever they wish to these people. This is not migration in the sense that one is leaving one country voluntarily replete with all of the furnishings of a traveler having an actual place to reside having once entered the country. This is economic mongrelism because the people are leaving voluntarily with little but the shirt on their backs and no place to reside if they get to the country that they are traveling to adding in fact to the vagrancy. The only difference between the vagrants and the economic migrants is their willing to work. However, their skill sets, their political consciousness, command of the language and customs of the country they are entering is negligible and seemingly irrelevant to them. They seem only interested in making money. The sole interest which is acceptable for an American corporation, share holder profit rather than stake holders happiness, is injurious to the country when the only thing the economic mongrel has to offer is cheap labor. That devalues the "cheap labor" already in the country, those with a low skill set. How long will it be before these economic mongrels turn to the black market of drug trades and prostitution?  Interestingly, the cartels would not exist if there wasn't this culture of like minded people to support them. Similarly prostitution would be eradicated if people were chaste, drug dealers would disappear if there wasn't people buying the drugs. 

Clearly Christ is the light not the secular education which does no such thing as far as leading people out of darkness. Prostitution used to be seen as a "victimless crime" where society was the victim because of the demoralization that it lead to. Today a "victimless crime" is one in which only the government sees a grievance even if it is not materially substantiated like the case against Donald Trump in NYC being prosecuted by AG James. Yet it is not a crime but pure political persecution using the law itself to perpetrate acts of injustice. 

This seems to be the case with Pope Francis and his agreement with Fiducia Supplicans which effectively "blesses" homosexual unions. Papal biographer Austen Ivereigh claims Cardinal Sarah should resign for calling Pope Francis a heretic which violates his solemn oath before God which he took as a Cardinal. Yet, what if in fact Pope Francis is a heretic? Why should be play the game that allows the one sitting in highest office to "crash the plane" and simultaneously execute authority over all those that try to stop that from happening? Certainly it is the Cardinal's responsibility to hold the Pope responsible when he is openly flouting the doctrine of the faith. A respect for the chain of command is predicated upon the command having the respect of those under such command. Fiducia Supplicans is a drive to recognize homosexuality as legitimate under the Catholic faith and it is not. These priest did not sacrifice their lives for Pope Francis, they did so for Jesus Christ. 

So with Pope Francis who is probably a Communist and President Biden who is being manipulated by Communist the cold war continues. 

"

"

"

Homosexuality and Censorship

 I recently had a post I had written years  ago taken down because it saw homosexuality as unhealthy and pernicious . 

Homosexuality has become the new NAZIS party or Communist party or Islamic Jihad whereby people are afraid to say anything disfavorable about it because they will be attacked for doing so. Today we will slander a European American Christian as a NAZIS and that is because we do not fear the NAZIS party as we once did because they are dead in this world and we do not fear Christians because they are dead to the world. Yet people do rightfully fear the retaliation of the lavender mafia which is in the works now of attempting to destroy the Church with their Synodal Way in Germany (where all good philosophy comes).

First we took homosexuality out of the DMS because the APA (American Psychiatric Association) was attacked by the homosexuals then we had same sex marriage and same sex adoption now we have Pride Parades and transgendered human beings, children who are simply being routed into self mutilation. When previously we had the feminist going into Africa decrying female genital mutilation being against female circumcision (which it was not a circumcisions but an amputation of the clitoris) now we have Americans sending their children to surgeons to amputate their breasts and surgically make pseudo penises so that they can live out their lives in desperate simulacrum of being the opposite sex. It is nothing less than a psychotic role playing game where somehow the solutions to all their problems is pretending to live life as the other. The theory being that if this charade was not carried out the person would commit suicide and so the parents are supposedly held hostage to the deranged child's demands. The idea being that somehow this child was borne int the wrong body. A Cartesian philosophical and theological error. We are knit through and through from the inside out. 

Yet we must realize all of this to be spiritual and psychological warfare. Homosexuality is seen by the Church as intrinsically disordered in fact according to Fr. Rippenger an exorcist it is governed by several demons.  We find the Left, enemies' of Christ, pick up a theme and drop it as they please whether or not it contradicts what they have previously stated or not. They play language games where words have whatever definition they chose to assign them. A recession is not a recession, "woman" cannot be defined by sexual and biological characteristics, etc. Thus realistically it is a movement we are very familiar with, Socialism or Communism. Therefore the gender bending is to condition the people to lose all sense of personal identity and psychological stability and the public schools and academics seek to separate the children from their parents rendering them as wards of the state. 

It seems to me that a resurgence of a House Un-American Activities Committee sorely needs to be reestablished because there are forces in this country seeking the destruction of the country and this new HUAC could not be worse than the fate that awaits us barring it's existence.

Father James Altman - Bergoglio is Not the Pope

Bishop Lori Explains How the HHS Mandate Negatively Affects the Church

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

HHS: Anti-Woman

Where are the women? I got your women right here...!

"Executive Overeach: The HHS Mandate Versus Religious Liberty" 

To Promote Illegal Immigration is to Devalue Oneself as an American Citizen

At Texas A&M Jose Lewis Zalaya tried to run for president of the student body, he came in fourth out of six candidates. That only makes sense and it shows a revealing glimpse of this new take that our citizenship as United States citizens ought to thought unimportant over all. Will it be possible for a an illegal immigrant to run for President, to be President (as if we don't already have that in President Obama)? Yet here is the psychological question of why US citizens have engaged in a campaign of devaluation.

Freedom in the United States has in fact been defined as the absence of shame. More and more of the television station show demeaning behaviour and themes, rape, prostitution and of course murder as a entertainment genres. Overall the U.S. citizen has become accustomed to going through a floor of shame to leaving them open to a bottomless pit. The shame of pregnancy out of wedlock is gone, so is the shame of being on welfare, receiving food stamps, filing for bankruptcy, the shame of homosexuality has been completely reversed and the shame of pornography and even prostitution.

Is is a psychological operation being run on the U.S.? We were told that the U.S. won the cold war. So why is it that the Catholic Church one of the causes for the down fall of communism is now under attack by the United States government. Now that Russia is a democracy and has embrace capitalism. Is it the case that the United States views the Church as a competitor in the race to be hegemonic force in the world? Or is it that President Barrack Obama is a socialist and an activist as well as a closeted Muslim who seeks to establish Muslim theocracies all across the middle east and defeat the Church where ever possible?

One thing is for sure, the loss of personal identity, of recognizing who one is in the country is seriously being jepordized.

Tag, Your Out

"And with, you'd be aggressively judgmental and intolerant too if you didn't have equal rights, like the ability to see your partner in the emergency room, make their final decisions, and be treated with the same respect everyone else enjoys.  This isn't a mere difference of opinion over whether chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla, these are people's lives"
There is no such thing as 'equal rights'. All 'rights' are inherently equal. There is only one universal ninety degree angle and in order to determine it as such it must be adjacent to something perfect and unchanging, that will be God.  As in baseball one is either on base or not. Or in a game of tag, where it doesen't matter how many people are on base, all are safe. However, one can not possesses a right any more than one can pick up a base and run around with it perfectly  immuned from being 'tagged out' throughout the game. One is either right, or they are not. The homosexual is not right. He is not in accordance with what is good, true and just.
We have only subcumb to this error because we have adpoted the inverted reasoning of the homosexual.
The psychosis of the homosexual is this idea of 'being the same'. It is a psychological error in perception that in fact, we are.  It is an extension of the narcissistic personality disorder. Rather than suffer the subjective feeling of isolation incurred through the realization that we as human souls do not exist in a great liberated state of a Brahmanian 'all', where we lose our individual identities. The homosexual seeks relief from this suffering in a misguided sense of liberation of soul into the 'everyman' and subsequently wants, what 'everyone else has'.   No, to have a subjective identity implies suffering because it implies separation from the others.  A recognition of who we are physically is a starting point. It is because I am male that I can not have sexual play with another male because it will come of nothing. The homosexual tends to be given to a deep level of sentimentalism, where by what they feel outweighs what is objectively true. What you feel is real but it is not necessarily true and thus, you must pull away from such activities. The same can be said to all the 'Romeo and Juilet's " in the world.

Can the State Bestow Gay Marriage On People?

According to Judge Von Walker, marriage has always been in the domain of the State in the United States. That is patently false, considering that the States imported marriage as they did banking and commercial behaviors from Europe, namely England. In fact England either operated under Catholic ideas of marriage or one very close to it Anglican ideas of marriage. That would explain why monogamy has long been valued and yet people will claim that they have no idea how that value surfaced and was maintained for so many years. In fact the Constitution of the United States says very little about marriage if anything at all.

"Marriage has a long history in the religious world. It has become so ingrained in the social fabric of the people of the nation, and indeed of the world, that the benefits of marriage to society at large became apparent. Because this religious rite had so many secular benefits, it became recognized by the secular world, and became subject to governmental definition and regulation."
- http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_marr.html

It is highly unlikely that as colonist or early Americans that many perceived as they do today that marriage by the state would be valid. When we simply look at the writing of President George Washington for instance, we get a sense of the temperament of men in his era.

"Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interposition of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us."
-http://wilstar.com/holidays/wash_thanks.html

This was when President Washington officially put in place the holiday of Thanksgiving, is it astounding to anyone that no public official today not even the president could would have the strength to make such an overt reference to God in their speech?

Now as to the question of whether the state even has the power to marry people, this requires a little thought, at least a little more than what N.Y. State assembly members and senators gave the issue. Not to mention the governor and the mayor of NYC. If the state is to marry people, how are they to do it? How are they to make two people bind together through law? When we place two pieces of metal side by side they do not bind together unless by fusion of some sort heat or some adhesive. When we put two magnets together, the two if at polar opposite poles will bind together through magnetic attraction. When for instance one goes to the dentist or the doctors office and is X-rayed there is some small preparation put in place such as the use of a lead apron and the medical staff member running behind a lead wall, why is that? It is because in each of these cases there is a power or a force or an energy that is binding that is in fact either binding two objects together or taking an effect upon a person to such an extent that another would literally take precautions to avoid. One cannot see these forces such as magnetism or x-ray but yet scientifically, we are well aware that they are there. It is in fact what is producing the phenomena of the binding or the x-rays. If marriage is more than ceremony and certificiates, how then does the state bind two people together as many of the gays would like to say, 'forever'?

The state primarily deals with extrinsic and material affairs such as property rights. The only time the state has been able to bind one to another is when one is considered property. In fact filial responsibility can be determined because a child will actually have the properties of his parents, such as DNA. Thus unless on is bequeath to another as property in a 'gay-marriage' there really is no binding covenant between the two because there is no binding force which governs the two, say as between two magnets. It is not a matter of fiat, because there is no state recriminations or retaliation incurred upon the married couple if they divorce. In fact, as far as the state is concerned, the only role it plays is at the inception and the end of the so-called marriage. The state has no arbitrary role in the marriage for as long as the marriage exists. Why is it that a marriage created by the state is itself free of state intervention during its entire duration. Say for instance it is one partners day to do the dishes and they refuse, where then will the other seek redress. the police station, city hall? Has the state even assigned roles for the two members of this so called marriage?

When two people get together in holy matrimony they sacrifice themselves to be part of a something larger than themselves for reason other than themselves. God, the children and their neighbors and country always comes first. For instance in a Catholic marriage, the marriage is in no way dissolved because the two get a divorce from the state. What God has joined together no man has the power to part. The binding agent here is spiritual and separation through adultery is actionable, it comes with spiritual penalization as wells temporal excommunication from from the Holy Eucharist. Homosexuals fail to realize this. Whenever someone becomes part of something larger than themselves i.e. a group or organization they give up a part of their individualism. When they become a part of a sports team they standardize or uniform into that team they wear the team uniform. When they become a member of corporate society they tend to wear the suit and tie or whatever the prevailing dress code is of that industry. people assimilate into an order such as the military and that is how and why they receive respect and honor. Homosexuals don't want to self sacrifice they do not want to enter into a holy covenant. they prefer to remain in a juvenile psychological state objectifying themselves and subjectifying all things around them to themselves.

When reading Perry v. Schwarzeneggar, a case tried and decided by a homosexual we see clearly that the homosexual is too psychologically immature to actually contract into marriage.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX All four plaintiffs testified that they wished to marry their partners, and all four gave similar reasons. Zarrillo wishes

to marry Katami because marriage has a “special meaning” that would alter their relationships with family and others. Zarrillo

described daily struggles that arise because he is unable to marry Katami or refer to Katami as his husband. Tr 84:1-17. Zarrillo

described an instance when he and Katami went to a bank to open a joint account, and “it was certainly an awkward situation walking to the bank and saying, ‘My partner and I want to open a joint bank account,’ and hearing, you know, ‘Is it a business account? partnership?’ It would just be a lot easier to describe the A

situation —— might not make it less awkward for those individuals, but it would make it —— crystalize it more by being able to say * * * ‘My husband and I are here to open a bank account.’” Id. To

Katami, marriage to Zarrillo would solidify their relationship and provide them the foundation they seek to raise a family together, explaining that for them, “the timeline has always been marriage first, before family.” Tr 89:17-18.

Perry testified that marriage would provide her what she wants most in life: a stable relationship with Stier, the woman she loves and with whom she has built a life and a family. To Perry,

marriage would provide access to the language to describe her relationship with Stier: “I’m a 45-year-old woman. I have been in

love with a woman for 10 years and I don’t have a word to tell anybody about that.” Tr 154:20-23. Stier explained that marrying Tr

Perry would make them feel included “in the social fabric.”
12

Clearly marriage was not invented and support all this time because it had a 'special meaning'. Does it not stand to reason that if the person cannot at all clarify what that 'special meaning' is that they are not qualified psychologically to marry? Will it mean that gays will in fact be included "in the social fabric." ?  I doubt it seriously.

Thus homosexuals who have been barred from marriage given what marriage is a union between two people and also one that allowed for one to enter into the community through a recognized family. For the physical proof of the union of one man and one woman is in fact the child, something that cannot be mimicked by the homosexuals. Still, the homosexuals would like to deny this religious derivative of marriage. They would like to have bestowed upon them the propriety and legitimacy often many seek in marriage but without following the marital norms. There is an effort through 'gay-marriage' to transfer these norms to the homosexual while deny the roots of such legitimacy namely that God blessed the marriage and that children where to come from the marriage. The vague notions of what marriage is to the homosexuals is therefore an extremely fraudulent description of the value of marriage and it is improbable that the state can bestow this title upon the two since marriage has no origin with the state. It certainly has no origin in the gay culture. So here we are again, how exactly does the state marry two people?
To this day the states authority is seen as derived from God. To this day 'In God We Trust" is bolted to courtroom walls and placed on the currency. To this day the President of the United States swears on a Bible when he takes the oath of office. Yet, unlike the Church which stated flatly that it doesn't have the power or authority to ordain women as priest the state has taken it upon itself to marry and to marry two people of the same sex no less. What's more, the people given this authority concerning the fabric of society are some of the lowest public servants, namely the state assembly members and the state senators. It is worth thinking about whether those of us who absent mindedly voted for these public servants if we can at all remember if we had were ever voted in with the notion that they would be deciding what the terms of marriage can be in the state. These are people who are other wise working on bed bug legislation and taking photo ops at the local public school, not strolling through the groves in deep philosophical thought as to the nature of man in society.

Summarily it seems clear that the state cannot marry as it has no means to bind two people together unless one is considered property. The extrinsic quality of the homosexual and their relationships does indeed lead one to suspect that the nature of their relationships are merely extrinsic and in fact the nature of their relationship being abusive would can only lead one to suggest that a form of slavery without penalty has been enacted by the state in the 'gay-marraige'.

The Declaration of Independance: The Spirit of America

The Unanimous Declaration
of the Thirteen United States of America

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

If only one thing can be said of America, it is that she can take great esteem in this declaration written by the "Committee of Five" including John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert Livingston and Roger Sherman. Especially in Thomas Jefferson who wrote the original draft over a period of seventeen days. It is a sublime compliment of political treatise and English prose establishing for itself in each a sovereign place of eruditional distinction. Thomas Jefferson certainly labored diligently and effectively to communicate to the most powerful head of state in his day, King George III, the colonist's every intention to emancipate themselves from English rule. Employing the most equitable and humane correspondence probably ever devised for the purpose of remonstrance and separation of relations.

If there is such a thing as a 'Dear John' letter, the Declaration of Independence is certainly not that. It is the "Dear George" letter, and exists on a plane far above the former in form and commitment as a ball point pen does from a quill dipped in the volunteered blood of her patriots. The Declaration of Independence was not just some well worded essay that would have enchanted the literary crowd of the New Yorker or the politophiles reading the New Republic or The Atlantic. It was a declaration of separation and thereby a declaration of war detailed and dispatched for and to the King of England. Every signer knew, it would entail the loss of thousands of lives and venture them further from any prospects of a homeostatic domesticity.

However, this document today is seldom brought to bear on the contest and disputes we convene today. When it comes to issues of God in America, "The Unanimous Declaration of The Thirteen United States of America" is never addressed. When it comes to natural law, this Declaration so equanimously written is ignored. How is it that this great treasure of these United States can be so removed from our political dialogue and national contentions? Clearly, the founding fathers incorporated God and natural law into the political thesis of what this country was all about? Certainly, no further would they have gone, had the outcome of this written expostulation turned out deleterious for the signers and all involved. Certainly, we would have no Constitution had the War of Independence gone horribly against our favor? How then has this most representative document of the American spirit found no home amongst us? Who is foreign to us? The authors of this political document? God and the recognition of natural law to these shores? Or, have we progressed into delusion and self absorption to the discredit of those who pioneered into the most strident realm of adversity in order to win our independence?

If the Constitution of the United States is the 'body' of American law, certainly the Declaration of Independence is her spirit.

The Fourth Estate Pleads The Fifth

As I sat here and watch the 38th annual March for Life that started with a mass at the Verizon center, (all the more reason to go back to Verizon and leave Cablevision) to the rally point in front of the Supreme Court building and in front of the Capital building and White House where there were hundreds of attendees I found that not one major news organization (I didn't get to check Fox News) even carried the story. It is really astonishing how public perception is shaped or as Noam Chomsky would say how consent is manufactured.

Perhaps it will be on later this evening but I found it eerie how not one station carried the story. President Obama made some public comment on the White House web page of how he "affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters." This is something he can affirm for the crime families of New York and around the world for what he is allowing to take place is murder. Murder, a capital crime is taking place here but people are looking the other way. Yet when it came to the pedophile scandal in the Church where exactly one murder was committed and that against a Fr. John Geoghan in prison there was a great cry of moral injustice. In fact, some were seeking to extend the legislatively imposed statute of limitations on pedophilia in order to get more convictions.

Roe V. Wade was a decision made in 1973, which was really tragic since the A-mode scan which can detect a fetal heart beat, cephalometry and placental localization was used in Europe, Britain, United Sates, Japan, China, USSR, Poland and Australia as fat back as the early sixties. "The ability to recognise and confirm the presence of fetal cardiac action in early pregnancy was considered to be one of the most indispensible use of ultrasonography (and still is). "¹ It would appear that although these technological breakthroughs were making it more and more obvious that the fetus was indeed alive and human the Roe V. Wade decision was made with little or no input with regards to this scientific information. The use of these technologies actually deter any need for a 'theory of life' as stated in the Roe decision. In fact, the entire Roe decision was constituted without any technological input at all. While the Roe decision took issue with the Churches concept of 'quickening' it all together failed to take into consideration that indeed a fetal heart beat was fully accessible to the physician. How can the detection of a heartbeat, completely independent of the mother's not make the case that the human fetus was in fact (a) alive and (b) distinct from the mother? Nothing since chattel slavery in the United States could be a more willful ignorance to the bare facts of nature as the Roe decision in 1973. We are now at the point where 53 million lives have been taken and never before have we had at our disposal such advanced technological and scientific evidence that the human fetus is indeed alive and independent of the mother if even in a symbiotic relationship.

Yet while many liberal organizations bemoan the Supreme Court decision to allow corporations to unrestricted funding of a political candidate, in the Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission in 2008 and are trying to have it over turned, they see nothing wrong with legalizing abortion (and embryonic stem cell research) and having these atrocities funded by the government. The abortion issue is characterized by President Obama as an issue concerning "women’s health and reproductive freedom". It appears that a child is a health risk and detrimental to woman's health, no doubt under the premise that a woman's health could be jeopardized due to complications with the pregnancy. However, as Bishop Thomas J. Olmstead of Phoenix made clear when he revoked the Catholic status of St. Joseph's Hospital in the Diocese of Phoenix, abortion is not a remedy or treatment for any prevailing health condition a woman (or anyone else) might have. The expression "reproductive freedom" is actually a euphemism, replacing the 'freedom' to reproduce with a license to kill.

President Obama goes on to say, "I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly
to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same
freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their
dreams.” Where, as if suffering from a god complex, he 'grants' the same 'rights, freedom and opportunities' to girls as he does to boys. Yet, he avoids the obvious reality that only girls can get pregnant and thereby converts a natural reality into a social injustice. All this time, President Obama and his liberal allies have painted this picture that a large social conspiracy was about. Conservatives and their kind were the cause of female and homosexual oppression. With this perception there is the idea that if only the Catholic Bishops were out of the way pedophiles would not exist to molest young boys, if only the Church was not in the way homosexuality would be completely tolerated and young homosexual men would not commit suicide. If only everyone purchase health insurance people would not suffer from cancer, Alzheimer's disease, the common cold or 'punished' with a baby they did not plan on having.

However, now it does not seem unjustified if many Catholics perceive a conspiracy amongst the liberal media elite. It seems, very similarly to the Roe decision made just as the technological means of establishing the human fetus a living human being was reaching a crescendo before the 1973 decision and was ignored, that the major media outlets have also deliberately ignored the staggering March for Life turn out that was right in front of the Supreme Court building in the heart of American politics, Washington D.C. At this point the conclusion has to be drawn not that the evidence for the right to life of the fetus is not present, it has been present since before 1973 but that the Pro Choice advocates want to have the 'right' to make the choice over whether that human fetus lives or dies and they refuse to extend that choice to the human fetus or anyone else. No different than a murderer or serial killer, the Pro Choice advocates want to maintain the only option available to them, murder, as they have no choice over the actual pregnancy for which the woman either is or is not experiencing. They are no different than an organized crime family who reserves murder as a contingency in a dilemma.

What became startingly and tragically clear in the investigation of the Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell who made millions killing many delivered babies through induced labor of women in their sixth, seventh and eight month of pregnancy then cutting into the back of their neck with a scissors and snipping their spinal cord was that he and others who perform abortions are hired specifically to insure that viability, the standard for life, was never an issue. He clearly understood his job as an abortionist was to eliminate any possibility of child living independently from the mother even when he or she could.

The Pro-life advocates which seem to always be in a debate with one rationalization after another, whether the fetus is a human child or not, at what stage of development is the human fetus able to live independent of it's mother or not (certainly a question that seems to have been answered with the first test tube babies) or whether the human fetus feels pain have all been mere tactics used by those who really have no interest in the life of the child at all. There are day time television shows which are nothing more than a series of paternity test to prove whether a certain man is the father of a woman's child. How then is it possible that after one sexual encounter with the woman that there is a "part of her' that has a genetic link to a man completely outside of her? Would that prove true of her hair tissue or tissue samples from her liver, lungs or kidneys? Absolutely not, yet although we have known from the sixties that the human fetus has an independent heart beat and we know today much about it 's unique DNA we are supposed to think of the human fetus as a mere extension of the mother, like an appendix with eyes and a heartbeat. Similarly to the pedophile scandal where there is a legitimate skepticism as to whether tort attorney Jeff Anderson and his advocates have any interest in his client/victims or if rather, the suffering of these children are only a means to a political and financial end. In the pedophile scandal in the Church there are certainly those that would like to see the Church politically and financially crippled. In the abortion debate there are those who perceive a woman's right to choose as the corner stone of a woman's political power. This push for independence, this high price for freedom like the American, French, Russian and Chinese revolutions amongst others, these all seem to come at the cost of human bloodshed and death. Yet unlike the one sacrifice of Christ, the deaths are interminable, they have become standard fare carried out daily. What's more, the freedom that the United States cherished so greatly, freedom of speech, freedom of the press has today, during the 38th annual March for Life proved muffled by those very advocates. Nothing is free, the press is certainly not free because today it has become clear that they are bought and paid for by the liberal sector of American politics, where "All The News That's Fit To Print" will like the lives of the unborn be chosen by a select few to encourage, propagate and establish a distinct political view. No different than the skewed coverage of the Pope's historic state visit to Great Britain which was distorted by CNN, BBC and other leading news agencies, that went so far as to air rehashed 'specials' about the pedophile scandal (as if no one else in the world had had these troubles and experiences) so removed from the visit itself. Simultaneously these same agencies will report on the decline of the American educational system and yet deliberately distort history in the making. What better way to make history come alive for Jr. high or high school students concerning the events of the reformation (the revolt), King Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon than the then current event of the Papal state visit?

The 38th March For Life was hardly covered to the extent it clearly earned given the number of people I witnessed on the only station affording it live coverage, EWTN. Even as I write this blog as late as 5:20 in the evening I can find an article only from the Washington Post, which incidentally is one of the few papers that actually has a religion section and editor. The other website to publish about the March For Life was the conservative journal, "Human Events" which had a magnificent take on this incredible media black out which even communist in Stalin era Soviet Union would have been proud.

There is no question that we live in a divide America. However, the good news suggest that the split is not evenly divided, with the thousands of mostly young people who showed up to the March For Life in Washington D.C. today. No matter what the media may not want to bring attention to they cannot deny the fact that quantity of young men and women that were in attendance on one of the coldest days of the year. Hallelujah! Still, it must be brought to the fore of our minds that the divide in media attention is so overt that there is now an organization that specializes in bringing this very fact to the attention of millions by staging an open protest against the left wing media. The "Tell The Truth Media Research Center" founded by Brent Bozell literally parks bill board advertisements in front of the leading news corporations around New York City and elsewhere. If this isn't a call for America to wake up that in fact we are in the midst of what can only be called a cold war than what would be? Certainly, the United States did not have such deep division in the media nor was there such a distrust of news organizations twenty years ago. In fact, there was a time when both the left and the right trusted the same media outlets. For the most part many people trusted figures like Walter Conkrite and Edward R. Murrow, today that is not the case. Today many people choose to watch either one news organize to the exclusion of the other or go out in search of news from what were considered non-news sources such as Comedy Central. The irony of this current event is that there isn't any one place to broadcast this division in news reporting.

During the President State Of The Union Address today several of the representatives have decided to 'sit together' even though they are from opposing parties. The gesture I am afraid falls way short of instilling in most any sense that cooperation between the two parties and those whom they represent is possible. In part because the left deliberately set out on an agenda of manipulating public opinion on issue such as gay rights and stem cell research and abortion. In most cases there has been little follow up amongst the people and where the propaganda failed the courts, particularly the ninth district courts of appeal stepped in to complete the effort. In the California proposition 8 debate, seven million people voted in favor of it but yet Judge Vaughn Walker, himself a homosexual, struck down this democratically chosen law to keep marriage between a man and a woman and reject "homosexual marriages'. As for the repeal of DADT, the military leadership, most but not all acted in accord to promote this change, yet it does not seem to have been as widely accepted as they may have hoped. For the most part it seems that the 'progressives' are in a minority yet they hold key places in government and the fourth estate by which they attempt to change and manipulate the democratic rule of governing America had professed before the world. What can not be doubted is that indeed many of the population are being maneuvered like cattle into the development of an America they have in no way chosen for themselves. This is the strange reality of America come clean. Have we ever been a free country?

¹Woo,Joseph Dr. A Short History of the Development of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1998-2001

Hello Psychiatrist, Ah, Are You Doing Your Job?

Here's One For Obama

This commercial was banned by CNN and NBC, big liberal supporters.

Liberal Media: All The News That Fits Their Political Agenda

It seems odd that of all the media that is out there in particular the liberal media that the cause of the shooting in Arizona was due to conservative punditry. It has nothing to do with first person shooter games or pot smoke or irreverent and disgusting morally eroding animation like Family Guy or Odd Jobs. It isn't pornography that should be curbed in any way because that is not leading to physical violence which is the one thing that liberals fear most. It is the Rush Limbaugh show.

This is the second time that the liberal media has taken the opportunity to exploit a tragedy and suffering of others. When it came to the pedophile scandal in the Church the same used the opportunity to attack their political opponents the Church. Never mind the fact that we have the simply minded way of perceiving that if a political figure gets hurt we think that the motives are political if a priest does the rape than we think that there is a moral falling in the the Church and we can therefore be critical on those grounds. We do not perceive in mass media however that the young man that shot Congresswoman Gifford had a direct encounter with the Congresswoman and may have had a affective response to his encounter which motivated his actions. Nor do we attack marijuana which many of the liberals espouse is supposedly so good for one. Nor do we look at the fact that we have a person who is so emotionally ill that his parents, friends and even teachers could tell. No, the problem is the Rush Limgaugh show. The problem is that Sarah Palin has cross hairs on a map because circles on a map mean an entirely different thing.

When we watch Peter Werherner debating Bill Press on C-Span's Washington Journal it seems clear that Bill Press is intent on making a case for the liberal Democrats at the expense of the shootings. In fact the common trait has been that these liberal Democrats have no affection at all for the victims, they are merely tools to further their political agenda. http://www.c-span.org/Events/Washington-Journal-for-Sunday-Jan-9/10737418805-3/

Bill Press says that 'violent talk produces, not always, violent actions". This is the problem that the liberals have it is their perception of violence perpetuating out of language because they hold that language in a way leads to the key reasons for action and belief. They believe that if you change the written definition of a psychiatric illness like homosexuality then the reality of the sexual behavior is amended. They have confused the ideas from the beginning and then reach a conclusion all of their own. Then on top of that they are only concerned with physical bodily harm because this is all that they have in their existence, their bodies which they idolize. What is violent talk? Who participates in it and why is it the only form of speech that the liberals are interested in curbing. What about Hip-Hop music there is plenty of violent talk involved in those arenas and yes their is plenty of violence that takes place but does talk of any kind produce actions? The homosexuals say that the teaching of the Church are what lead Tyler Clemente to jump off the bridge even though suicide is forbidden in Catholicism and they have no answer to those that are not homosexual who jump off the bridge. It is saying that people are somehow completely mechanistic, that because something is said that the person has no intrinsic bearing of their own like a religion that organizes how they behave. Yet the liberals spend most of their time trying to eliminate the intrinsic values of society and then blame the violence that they can encapsulate on the conservative talk show host. They do not blame Howard Stern who would actually send people out to aggravate others they blame and at the same time dismiss Jared Lee Lounghren as a "nut'. Violent talk produces violent actions perhaps in sick egotistical people but that is true of all things. It is shocking and terrible that of all the crimes committed in society to which few have anything to do with talk that we would now try to limit the freedom of speech not with television shows with lots of violent talk and depictions , not with the music industry that has lots of violent talk but with the Rush Limgaugh show, with the Bill O'Rielly show, how interesting how perfectly that suites these liberal democrats, how this Jared who was considered by his peers to be 'liberal pot-head' is now seen as the product of conservative talk radio. These liberals are quite disgusting.

Total Idiots! ABA,APA and Judge Vaughn Walker.

Judge Vaughn Walker ruling is evidence that the homosexuals lives in a disguised condition as an 'adult' psychologically speaking. He declares that marriage is a matter for the State to decide but fails to explain why it has been the condition of one man and one woman for centuries. Why then is polygamy not allowed? The underpinning of state laws or as Pope Leo XIII has stated the 'ordinance of reason' has already drawn its value from Judeo-Christian laws, which is why there are references to God in almost every courtroom in America to this day and even printed on the currency which gives to God or to some super natural entity acting as such the trust of negotiating our fiduciary and economic affairs.

The religions of people, nor their moral values and thus their moral reasoning cannot be expunged on the will and whim of secularists. Who reason towards his personal comfort and satisfactions, who solves for comfort rather than the truth. The supernatural and metaphysical benevolence under the providence of almighty God cannot merely be ignored into dissolution any more than a river dries up simply because there is no one there to watch it flow. To reason thusly is nothing less than the very evidence of a Piagetean psychological immaturity.

Judge Walkers ruling was based on the plaintiff's contention that the Due Process Clause was violated which states that no "State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const Amend XIV. The plaintiffs claim that the freedom to marry the person of one's choice is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause and the Proposition 8 violates this fundamental right because:

1. It prevents each plaintiff from marrying the person of his or her choice.


2. The choice of a marriage partner is sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment from the State's unwarranted usurpation of that choice; and


3. California's provision of a domestic partnership --a status giving same -sex couples the rights and responsibilities of marriage without providing marriage--does not afford plaintiff's an adequate substitute for person of their choice, invidiously discriminates, without justification, against plaintiff's and others who seek to marry a person of the same sex.

The plaintiff's claim of violation of the Equal Protection Clause which states that no State shall "deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" U.S. Const Amend XVI fall under two charges.

1. There is discrimination against gay men and lesbians by denying them a right to marry the person of their choice whereas heterosexual men and women may do so freely; and


2. Proposition 8 disadvantages a suspect class in preventing only gay men and lesbians, not heterosexuals, from marrying.

There is no violation of the Due Process Clause. No one is after Due Process prevented from marrying the person of their choice however, restrictions are in place to prevent maldeveloped persons or the imposition of individuals who wish to cast an absurdity upon the State. Such cases of the former include the ineligibility of close relatives from marrying because of the burden placed on the state for their care and reduction of eligible candidates for it's sustenance and affairs the state should be disinclined to produce unhealthy off spring. Where the probability of healthy offspring falls below fifty percent the marriage can not be granted by the State. As far as homosexual 'marriages' the probability of healthy offspring is absolutely zero and therefore does not meet State requirements, not for the production or probability of healthy offspring but for the improbability of healthy offspring as would be the case if a man married a goat, which constitutes the latter exception, casting an absurdity upon the State. Thus it is not a permissible legal union as production and development is a fundamental interest of any State although not a mandate of marriage, the State constitutes the population of human beings and has a vested interest in seeing to it that the healthiest human beings are brought forth. More so it must be understood that a rule is not subject to it's exceptions and hypotheticals. Elderly and sterile couples in a heterosexual union still meet the criteria of having the universal potential for procreation as have been born out from the power of God, to Abraham and his wife Sarah who was beyond her years. Barren women such as Hannah and Rebecca in the Bible to whom God has granted a child may have been sterile but through a miracle granted by God were able to produce. Miracles do happen and need to be accredit amongst the exceptions and hypotheticals as well. Although belief in Christianity or Judaism or the Bible is not necessary for understanding this principal, so far as exceptions and hypotheticals are included in the debate these will also suffice for the purpose. It is also worth mentioning that although it is not beyond God's power as described in the Bible (a sacred text which happens to be the most widely published book in human history as well as the first in publication) He would most likely not look favorably on a gay union and subsequently that pair would have little hope.

As far as the Fourteenth Amendment sheltering the States unwarranted usurpation of that marriage it seems fitting that an amendment that was put in place for the protection of disadvantaged African American former slaves and manipulated for profit by greedy merchants to defend their universal or realist corporate bodies by identifying them as persons although they be 'hollow' would be used by this group of plaintiffs. Marriages or as it is known in corporate vernacular merges and acquisitions are scrutinized to make sure that there is no anti-trust violations in order to prevent unfair competition and stifled innovation. So this line of reasoning that discrimination is not applied when it comes to granting unions is false. Thirdly, the States allowance of domestic partnership does not in any way appear to impede on the legal rights of the plaintiffs. The courts cannot redress the issue of social standing or social status, legally the status of domestic partnerships and married couples are equal under the law in the state of California already.

Finally, the courts ought to have found that Proposition 8 does not discriminate against homosexuals in deference to heterosexuals because under the Proposition neither homosexuals or heterosexuals can marry the same sex, subsequently there is no discrimination, all are treated equally.

African American experience, their trials and tribulations in this great country of ours have been tokenized at will by the homosexuals to prove their case. They repeatedly site miscegenation laws that prevent African Americans from marrying Anglo Americans and they recount that when AA where slaves they were considered property and where no allowed to marry. I would like to cite some other tokenism from the AA experience which are apparently missed on the homosexual community . For instance the Jim Crow era like court room in which this case was held, Judge Vaughn Walkeer is reported to be gay himself, having a homosexual Judge who would directly benefit from his own ruling makes his ruling inadmissible. It was akin to the AA man being accused of raping a white woman and having a horse come in and serve as an eye witness, having the horse stomp once for yes and two for no on the courtroom floor. Secondly this idea that the homosexuals have that their marriages would in no way effect the lives of heterosexuals is only indicative of their psychotic illness. It is they that live by the idea that we, an integrated society, are not effected by the actions, lifestyles and behaviors of our neighbors and fellow citizens, this is not true. In this respect they hearken to a separate but equal doctrine which in itself was considered unconstitutional in Brown vs. The Board of Education but they over look this fact.

The evidence makes bare the fact that homosexuality itself is little more than a psychiatric illness. What is more, it only goes to prove how dependant man is on God to reason correctly. Homosexuals are psychotically ill and need to be barred from pivotal positions such as judges. Further the APA (American Psychiatric Association) needs to be sued for abandoning their patients for the whimsical elopement with an unproven theoretical frame work of adaptation rather than the proven psychoanalytic framework by which most of the diagnostic criteria was originally established. Their claim that if 'distress, disability or disadvantage' is not readily observable that person does not have a disorder is fallacious in light of serial killers and sociopaths who do not have dystonic personalities chiefly because they are unconscionable. In fact those disordered people who are 'disturbed' with their maladaptive or abusive behaviors and show it are demonstrating their humanity are in 'jihad' with their negative thoughts and impulses and deserve to be respected for at least being aware that the way they feel and behave is inappropriate. They should not be singled out as 'the crazy ones' while the others roam about blithely undaunted by public opinion and have no fear of God.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/California-Prop-8-Ruling-Augusst-2010

Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media:NY Times Works Hand in Glove with New World Order Masters To Legitimize Homosexuality

Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media

Noam Chomsky has been proven right again when he pointed out in the 1980’s that the NY Times was complicit in helping to shape public opinion for the American elitist who want to mold this New World Order. His analysis as presented in his book co-authored with Edward S. Herman Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media Pantheon Books 1988, of the behavior of the NY Times then is consistent with their method of dealing with the Church Sex scandal of 2010. Apparently the necessity found by the Times and their allies to dethrone the Church as a moral authority by the publishing the legal cases currently being taken up in court by attorney Jeff Anderson plays a role in how the elitist of the new global society believe the world should operate under them. In this New World Order there is no place for the Church so it had to be neutralized through attempted moral and financial bankruptcy. Yet as Chomsky so effortlessly demonstrated when in 1975 the Khmer Rogue merciless committed atrocities against their people by killing them in the hundreds of thousands the Times only picked up on it when it could be documented as a Communist act of aggression. However, when an equal act of aggression against the people of East Timor was being carried out by American sponsored Indonesian forces the story was so effectively buried and under reported that Chomsky openly declared the American media and the NY Times itself complicit in the genocide, a tremendous charge.

Homosexuality fits into the schema of the New World Order so seamlessly that it has been declassified as a psychiatric disorder altogether. That would mean that the American Psychiatric Society was either wrong twenty years ago or they are wrong now, or as it seems, simply marginalized as have Professor Kenneth Howard of Illinois State University http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jul/10071907.html and biology professor, June Sheldon of San Jose/Evergreen community college who just won a $100,000 settlement for being fired after her comments on homosexuality was reported as offensive by one of her students. Calif. Professor Fired for Homosexual Comments Wins $100K Settlement.

All Muslims Are Called To Be Jihadist

According to Faisal Shahzad all Muslims are called on to be Jihadist. Perhaps his strident extrinsic interpretation of this belief is incorrect and certainly he is no more an authority on Islam any more than John Hagee is on Christianity (He calls Catholicism the "whore of Babylon" a Cathari belief established during the 12th Century subject to the Medieval Inquisition and crusade known to Catholics as the Albigensian Heresy). However, it interesting to note that this was the young man to whom many people in New York thought to be a 'nice guy'. All the while he was convinced that they were only worthy of death if they did not convert to Islam and that only Allah was to be worshiped.

Obama blasted, 13 nations cited on religious freedom - USATODAY.com

Obama has proven that he is a man that detest religious freedom or at least that he is against the Catholic Church exclusively as he has changed the long standing American 1st Amendment interpretation of religious freedom to “freedom to worship”. What this means is that he will no longer defend the right for people to have their own religious beliefs in terms of education and public display of religious belief but instead that one ought merely has the right to pray inside their parish, synagogue or mosque.

Yet at the same time he has pledged to help fight and defend Muslim intolerance any where in the world but has not pledged to do the same for other religions.

Obama blasted, 13 nations cited on religious freedom - USATODAY.com

United States Commission on International Religious Freedoms

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/july/2.12.html

Baptist Press - Evangelicals frustrated by Obama's 'Gay Pride' decree - News with a Christian Perspective

President Barrack Hussein Obama has declared June officially the “Gay Pride” month for Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay and Transsexuals community. This coming from the President who had a his own previous Baptist minister condemn the United States to hell, contrary to the teachings of Christ.

At heart here in America is the reality that the separation of Church and State is a devise to not create two “separate and equal” groups but rather to do away with God altogether. They are in fact usurping God as the Bible has stated. This faction of Americas talk about God but they do not adhere to the tenants of Judaism, Christianity or Islam. It is not clear that they adhere to any religious belief. All of this comes from the President, a Harvard graduate who stated that he was not going to place “obscure references” to homosexuality over the teachings of Jesus Christ. In this he is refereeing to St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans, Chapter 1 verse 18-32.

“18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: 19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

21 Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. 23 And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. 24 Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. 27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. 28 And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, 30 Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

26 "God delivered them up"... Not by being author of their sins, but by withdrawing his grace, and so permitting them, in punishment of their pride, to fall into those shameful sins.

31 Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. 32 Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them. “

What the Baptist Churches are asserting quite truthfully here is the President’s and that of the LGBT people of the total defiance of God which is the actual reason for pushing God out of the public square. They manage to discuss “injustices” while committing injustice against the American people by mangling normal human relationship as consecrated by God. God cannot be pushed out of the public square for the fact that He is the exact object of rejection. We the people to which the LGBT community believes need educational reform in order to see things as they would choose but the heterosexuals, even those who oppose sexual deviance, are not their problem. Their true enemy is God Himself, it is not man that they defy but God. (1st Romans 12:19)

John 7:7 found 2
”The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth: because I give testimony of it, that the works thereof are evil.”

Often the LGBT community and their supporters talk about love as the true test of their values and yet even the dismissed Catholic Bishop Ugandan Bishop Christopher Senyonjo who was denied his pension by the Catholic Church for his support of LGBT community in Uganda where sexual deviance is still illegal says in a pro LGBT conference sponsored by Center For American Progress stress that his determination of what is a valid relationship is not the scripture of God but whether there is love in the relationship. He shared the stage with Episcopal Bishop Gene Bishop Robinson of New Hampshire. Michal Posner assistant secretary of United States opened the discussing affirming Americas or rather the State Departments interest in promoting Human Rights in to that end protection for LGBT. Ironically he does not do anything for Catholics and Christians who are under such torturous situations as well. President Barrack Hussein Obama and Secratary of State Hiliary Clinton are the protaganist who support the entire gay agenda and yet Barrack Hussein Obama said that he was a Christian. What Christian would support the homosexuals to this extent. He is changing the language of the law on religious freedom to freedom to worship so that Catholocism and all of Christianity will be outlawed. These people have to be voted out of office asl soon as possible because they do not respect religious freedom in the least. President B.H.O is trying to take God out of the public square and sequester He and His Holy Word from the minds of millions. When B.H.O first came to office it was very much a matter of him following an idelogy that was quite liberal, he has succeeded in doing that but he has also not removed the troops as he said he would from Iraq and he has sided with big pharmactical compies and big drug companies. He appears to be a two-faced type of politician even taking the big insurance companies to task after agreeing to deal with them making them appear to be the enemey.

Baptist Press - Evangelicals frustrated by Obama's 'Gay Pride' decree - News with a Christian Perspective

Hillary Clinton in Lima Pushes Abortion, Gay Agenda - International - Catholic Online

There were rumors on Wall Street that Hillary Clinton was a lesbian. There was much talk of this after her husband’s debacle with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. The general talk was that she didn’t take care of her man at home so poor Bill had to satisfy his needs outside the marriage. It was assumed that this is how their marriage worked, they were more of a “power couple” rather than loving couple. Unfortunately men are notorious liars when it comes to women. They devise all manner of calumny as a psychosexual defense against women to thrawt their ability to accumulate power over them, sexually as well as politically. In fact this behavior has been documented long ago in merry ol’ England when men walked about with cod pieces in their pants (stockings?) or in eighteenth century Russia when Catherine the Great was rumored to be a hedonist who had a voracious sexual appetite (for men) which other state leaders manipulated in rumor to whittle away at her basic dignity as Empress. Sex and politics one would think would make for strange bed fellows. Sex and the Catholic Church would make strange bed fellows as well and yet only the naive would believe that the two are never entwined. Different demographics take turns scandalizing and evangelizing the moral depravity of the others sexual predilections. However the homosexuals have started a political movement to redraw the very social schema of human relations. Which is the reason why all of a sudden those calumnious rumors concerning the now Secretary of State don’t seem so incredible anymore, that and Hillary’s big push for the queer agenda. Of course her boss President Barrack Hussein Obama pushes hard for the queers. Obama is a servant of the queers.They yelled at him to hurry up on their gay agenda like he was a step-N-fetch it servant in fifteenth century France, not even waitresses are spoken to in such a manner these days.

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s a queer, at least many people harbor a lurking suspicion concerning her sexuality. She looks like a dyke, all damned up or whatever the term “dyke” refers. The queers are a danger to this democracy. Queers are subversives like feminists (also queers) and communists (makes no difference). There should be McCarthy-like hearings where people have to testify before a Congressional committee as to whether they are in fact a queer or a queer sympathizer. “Are you now or have you ever been a queeeeeer!” in the best affected Boston accent one can muster. It could be on C-span, in fact it might very well be on C-span at this moment as far as the number of people actually watching C-span is concerned or for that matter the actual difference an informed democracy has on the outcome of ones political ambitions.

There is a queer agenda in America, the queers want to take over and dominate heterosexuals till we are all hapless breeding "monkeys” who believe everything they write and take them to be gods, so they are eager to take these top spots. These truths are also held to be self-evident.

Homosexuals push on every front to ratify into human consciousness a lie, that their behavior is “normal” and acceptable when in fact it is a psychiatric illness. Homosexuals are psychotic, one would have to be in light of the fact that one man puts his penis in the anus of another man and pretends that this is the same as coitus with a woman. However, the great evil of homosexuals is their perpetuation of this lie and their attempt to have everyone accept this lie as something true. Now they want to adopt children but if they truly loved children they would want the best for them and that would include providing a sane, stable home with two natural parents at best or as an adopting couple giving them the minimal grace of having both a mother and a father. This is also true of divorce. If one purchased a pair of shoes and got home to find that there was only one shoe in the box, how do you think that person would feel? Exactly, they would feel cheated, they would feel angry and hurt. Which is exactly how the children of divorce parents feel. It is as much a treachery to ones generation to divorce as it is to be homosexual and still try to adopt. To be homosexual is to opt out of the emotional responsibility of both having a loving partner and loving children.

Raising children that are not your own is not the same as raising those you had naturally. There surely will be lots of sentimental rebuffs of this notion but that would not make it any less true. There is an inherent sense of responsibility that courses both down to posterity and up towards ones linage. Queers have already made the decision that no ol' ball and chain will drag them back down to the convoluted plains of emotional reality and neither will the weight of being responsible for children who, when naturally born through a married couple obliges as well as inspires the pair to put aside childish things of their own and take actions on behalf of the child. Chief amongst this responsibility is to provide them with a world that has a basic psychiatric structural integrity by which all men, once they become men, can rely. Homosexuals instead have already made the decision to be beholden to no one, not God, not to secular convention and customary tradition nor to their families. It is ridiculous to abandon ones own hereditary line as homosexuals do only to rush out and adopt someone else’s child. Anyone who can abandon their own family in that manner can never be an honest and loving parent. Albeit, most parents are not “all loving” however they are the natural parent and have shown some modicum of decency in how they raised their children by quite simply… well, raising them decently. The same can not be said of those who abort their living responsibility and inheritance in the womb or enters into divorce proceedings leaving their own child to dangle in insecurity or wallows in psychological immaturity unwilling to put away their own post modern romp through a world cast in their own image, a world with no absolute truth. One will admit, President Barrack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are good parents from what any stranger can discern. However, they are bad parents and poor leaders for their crusade to attempt to legitimize what is ersatz, namely homosexuality. God Bless America.

Hillary Clinton in Lima Pushes Abortion, Gay Agenda - International - Catholic Online