AmericanPapist Comments
The brave Cardinal is speaking prophetically. But, given the assaults on innocent human life and the advancement of the gay agenda, his comments are solidly based on Scripture and Tradition. Namely, the Bible tells us that "the shedding of innocent blood" and unnatural sex acts are among the sins "that cry to Heaven for vengeance."
What form the difficulties we may well have to face will take, who knows? But we have built up huge injustices that have eroded the very foundations of our culture/society/nation.
Fr. Tom E. also has a nice summary of things at his site. To many,these words might be "shocking." To me, unfortunately, they just make sense. Lord have Mercy!
http://www.hli.org/sl_2008-11-14.html
Do we know for sure that the events are unrelated?
I do have great fears for the coming years during Obama's presidency. I pray that he may see the destruction of abortion.
My greatest fear is for my sons (one is 2 yrs. old, one is 5 mos.). What is my concern? That soon we will be forced to teach them the virtues of homosexuality or lose them to the state. The government has been allowed to extend it's tentacles into homeschooling more and more, so that may not be an option to escape anti-Christian propaganda in the future. I fear that (with recent episodes involving the Mormon religion) Christian parents who wish to shield their children from immoral teaching will be charged with child abuse for "neglecting their right to an education".
Where would my sons go if taken from my wife and I? Well, there are many Chip-n-Chris' out there getting ready for a "baby boom".
I fear my own weakness when it comes to personal persecution, but I don't know what I would do if my wife or children suffered. My God, the thought!
I don't think my fears are unfounded either, and Cardinal Stafford only helps to confirm them.
Cardinal Stafford's remarks are not surprising, prophetic as they are. Sadly, Sullivan's comments are equally predictable, but what would one expect from a mild variation on Maureen Dowd??
Obviously Stafford hasn't heard that the election of Obama is a great step forward for humanity which actually paves the way for the election of the first black pope.
Seriously, when is Gregory going to man up and respond to this?
"And in completely unrelated news:earthquake swarms today in the Western United States."
Nice. Maybe God is upset about the passing of Prop 8 in California, or maybe he is upset that a convicted felon may win a Senate seat in Alaska. Look at that Alaska map - there were a ton of earthquakes in that great State; I would think that God would want to spare Alaska since Sarah Palin decided to have little Trig even after she found out he had Downs Syndrome. Come to think of it - how about those California wild fires are they because of Obama or or they because of Prop 8?
Who has the audacity on this site to presume they know God's will? Seriously, you people need to get it together.
And Joseph - if the government came to take your kids under the circumstances you describe - well then me and millions like me who undoubtedly disagree with you about everything, would be standing in the doorway saying over our dead bodies. And even more importantly, I would take the same position with regards to your parental rights to raise your children as you seem fit - to teach them to love or hate as you seem appropriate. If you are not abusing your kids - and I mean real abuse - then you can raise them to be good Christians, good Fascists, whatever - its nobody else's business.
Personally, I don't care if gay people marry because it doesn't cost the taxpayer anything and it doesn't effect either my marriage or my family, so I see no downside whatsoever. If we can make some people happy without having it cost us anything, than I say why not - it is essentially a free lunch.
In response to comments to a previous post of mine regarding abortion:
Look at the empirical evidence. The number of abortions decline when the economy is strong and the middle class of this country is economically secure. I have no doubt that you are going to see a spike in the number of abortions that coincides with this latest economic turmoil. That is unfortunate.
Obama is completely right in this regard - we should be able to disagree about choice, but still be able to agree that less abortions is better than more abortions. I know that this is difficult for some of you to accept since you think that even one abortion is unacceptable. I get that, but I respectfully ask that you be rational about it. Think - an abortion ban, with an exception for the life of the mother, was just on the ballot in South Dakota and it got trounced. It wasn't even close. In South Dakota. And the demographics and time are running against you on the issue. The next generation of voters will be even more pro-choice than the current electorate. You are sitting on the low ground and your disadvantage is growing by the minute. The pro-life movement is either going to change their strategy or risk becoming irrelevant.
So where do we go? The smart thing to do is to work at reducing the number of abortions. #1 We need an economically secure middle class; #2 We need better sex education; #3 We need birth control covered in all health care plans; #4 We need to provide better post birth help to single mothers.
If you start working towards a goal of reducing the number of abortions, I think in 8 years you're going to look back and see that President Obama was a greater ally than any of you could have possibly envisioned. He is going to fight for the middle class, not the uber wealthy.
That soon we will be forced to teach them the virtues of homosexuality or lose them to the state.
Ah, the Internets. A series of tubes brimming with delusion and hyperbole.
Try living in the real world for about an hour. The oxygen might give you a headrush, but you'll get used to it.
I fear my own weakness when it comes to personal persecution
You should be more afraid of your ridiculous paranoia.
CBLF:
"12-Year-Old Forced to Watch Brokeback Mountain Sues School"
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNew.../
A000004616.cfm
And so many more related stories:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=...Search&aq=f&
oq=
You should be more afraid of your blind presuppositions.
You should be more afraid of your blind presuppositions.
Oh, will you grow up?
How the HELL you draw the inference that the unsanctioned action of a teacher is a signpost that an avalanche of indoctrination is on the way is beyond reason.
Do you honestly, and I mean really, honestly, truly think that your wingnut poster is reasonable when he says:-
"soon we will be forced to teach them the virtues of homosexuality or lose them to the state."
You think that's coming, do you?
This is why clustering in narrow circles can be so dangerous. You end up with a feedback loop of delusion and misinformation.
And so many more related stories:
Uh, no.
Have a look at your link.
Dear Carbon,
Already the indoctrination is KNOWN to be going on the public schools (and even religious schools).
It is also flooding our youth in the culture through mass media, et al.
Actually, this "narrow circle" you seem to be referring to, tends to see quite clearly and much more widely then most.
As for the parent you bash for what you call paranoia: they were just stating their fears and sharing them on this board which generally has folks who are tolerant enough to allow for the feelings of others to be expressed. The statement isn't conclusive that this or that will happen...but, if you look at history, you may well come to see that children being taken from their families for indoctrination into radical ideologies is not beyond the realm of possibility.
rbru - am sorry you seem to be so rigid as not to accept the reference to earth quakes in relationship to this article with a sense of humor.
though you may be correct that most members of this board can not claim that they "know God's will" with regard to a definitive cause and effect relationship between any given sin and some punishment (as reflected in such as earthquakes, etc)...
the Faithful can know that abortion, homosexual practice, depriving a workman of their just wages, etc. are sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance.
besides: do you claim to know that this or that natural disaster is NOT in God's Providence in the hopes that we may be awakened from our slumber?
Tell you what, ask the folks along the Gulf Coast, incl. N.O. if Katrina was a chastisement. Even the Catholic Priests and the AB of N.O. have stated that it was.
It's not been proven at all that there's a connection between better economic situations and fewer abortions. What HAS been proven is that when pro-life groups advertise for abortion alternatives, abortions drop.
We also have proof that the current IPPF 'sex-education' program coupled with the pop culture of anything that consenting kids/adults do sexually is JUST FANTASTIC do nothing to REDUCE the rate of teen pregnancy or STD transmission. Abstinence - if taught by teachers who actually believe it, works. Go read the fine details in all those studies and you'll see the glaring truth that abstinence works when coupled with strong family values and teachers who teach it without a tongue in check lethargy.
Finally, nothing in Obama's policies, certainly not in FOCA will lead to fewer abortions. Making it a fundamental right that cannot be challenged on penalty of federal crime or civil lawsuit is a recipe for hyper-partisanship and real cultural war, not social harmony and kumbaya feelgoodism. The Left has shown zero sign of restraint when it comes to indoctrinating other kids' children, of pushing the envelope for their constituents vs. the commong good. Case in point is 'gay' marriage whereby an absolute minority can re-define a bedrock concept and force it on the majority via the courts. No harm you say? Well, if they can re-define it to mean two same-sex people, why can't polygamists re-define it to include 3 or 4somes? Or 'temporary' marriages lasting only an hour or so? Once we open the can of worms that ANY settled word can be re-defined by ANY minority, we've arrived at Babel.
As for the parent you bash for what you call paranoia: they were just stating their fears and sharing them on this board
... which are about as likely as an alien invasion.
Do you seriously believe that the above correspondant needs to fear the removal of his children and their placement with a gay couple? Do you actually walk around with these kinds of concerns in your head?
Because if so, you need some help.
if you look at history, you may well come to see that children being taken from their families for indoctrination into radical ideologies is not beyond the realm of possibility.
Oh, fer heck's sake. CONTEXT!
Here's a news flash: Obama is not Pol Pot.
What % chance do you give your nightmare scenario? Please, be sensible!
"Ah, the internets. A series of tubes brimming with delusion and hyperbole."
Irony.
Back in '00 and '04, I ran in some really liberal circles, and I recall them predicting things like this:
"Bush is gonna make Christianity the state religion!"
"Bush is gonna throw us in jail for using birth control!"
"Bush is gonna round up all the [favorite oppressed group here] and send them to Gitmo!"
As we all know, the Chicken Littles on the left were wrong. And you know what? The Chicken Littles on the right are wrong now.
Bush made some bad decisions as president, but the world didn't end and while things could be a LOT better, they aren't nearly as bad as predicted.
Obama will also make some bad decisions as president, but when he leaves office, the world will still be here.
Folks, I'm not trying to be mean to you here. Nor am I saying you have no reason to worry about Obama as president, because you absolutely do - the guy's gonna have a royal mess on his hands come Jan. 20.
But Obama - like his predecessor - is neither Superman nor Satan. He's just a man.
"Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?"
"I think in 8 years you're going to look back and see that President Obama was a greater ally than any of you could have possibly envisioned. He is going to fight for the middle class, not the uber wealthy."
rbru - first of all, you're making a bold statement here about the whole 8 years deal, nothing is guaranteed in the next moment, let alone 4 yrs! It won't take 8 yrs for anyone to realize anything we haven't already see in the president elect.
Secondly, he's not gonna fight for anybody - what makes you think he would stand up for you when he doesn't even stand up for the weakest, defenseless ones in our society! Yes, I'm referring to the unborn, the babies that are 'lawfully' murdered each minute.
Well, in enlightened Germany,where anything decadent goes, they are taking children away from their parents for home schooling. Talk to the Gorber family. The justification is that the children need to be conformed to what the government view of things is. The judges want to prevent a parallel society from growing up alongside the government's society. The excellent education they are receiving is of no concern. In fact the government obviously doesn't care if the children learn anything other than sex, promiscuity and hedonism.
Germany is about 10 years ahead of us in decadence. To see our future visit Germany and see the pornographic and corrupt society which we will become a lot faster under Obama.
By the way the surest way to promote abortion is to promote sex education. Contraception leads to pregnancy like night follows day. No contraception or sterilization is 100%. Why do the abortionists put their young victims on the the pill after their abortion? So that they will be back pregnant again in 6 months ready for another abortion.
I object to being forced to pay for contraception in my insurance when I don't use it. Contraception causes deadly, expensive health problems which I then have to pay for through my premiums.It also pollutes the rivers causing deleterious changes to animal life and it is probably getting into drinking water.
Father Bill:
Is your God vengeful? Is your God unjust? If he is not, how can you reconcile that Katrina was an act of "chastisement" from God. Almost 1,600 people from in and around Godless New Orleans and 250 from God fearing Mississippi died in that storm. Based on a review of demographics, the overwhelming majority of those who perished were probably poor, heterosexual Christians. Is this God's justice? Punishing his own adherents for the sins of others. How ridiculous.
And if you think Katrina was an act of God's vengeance, what was Hurricane Ike? Was that an act of vengeance too? When did the sodomites corrupt Galveston? Was Galveston also corrupt in 1900 when 6,000 people lost their lives due to a hurricane? Galveston beach was a family resort for goodness sakes. Did God strike there because women were wearing bathing suits that cutoff above the knee?
People died in New Orleans during Katrina because our government failed us. Nothing more, nothing less. Yes the government that decided that tax cuts for the rich were more important than strengthening the levees around the 9th ward of New Orleans. The engineering analysis existed for years, we knew exactly what was going to happen and yet the funding wasn't approved to enact the Army Corp of Engineers recommendations. You want to know why? - because the people in the 9th ward were overwhelmingly poor African Americans. To the least of our brothers, huh?
And frankly, I hardly think the Catholic church is in a position to go around thinking they can teach anybody about morals after first enabling and then covering up for a bunch of pedophiles for the better part of 50 years. You think the church can throw some settlement money at some victims and that makes it all better? Well it doesn't. Physician heal thyself.
Uyen:
Check out the electoral landscape. The GOP is a regional party and demographic trends aren't doing the party any favors. The really ironic thing about the GOP's predicament is that they are going to be the minority party for at least a generation because of the general hate that the rank and file have for brown people (i.e. minorities). How frustrating it must be for right wing religious types to see all those Latino Catholics voting overwhelmingly for the Democrats. Here is an instance where Latinos reaction to the racism and bigotry they face trumps considerations of their faith.
Electorally, it isn't going to get better for the GOP in 2012, in fact it will be worse. Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada are going to be double digit wins for Obama. Its in the demographics. Because of the support of Latinos, Democrats are going to start every Presidential election with over 270 votes. And it won't happen in 2012, but it will happen in either 2 or 3 elections, yes Texas is going to be seriously in play.
rbru
If what you say is true, why do the abortionists target minorities? I grew up in Democratic dominated Maryland and now I live in Republican South Carolina. There is a lot more racism in Maryland.
Pax:
While I agree that Obama is not Superman, I disagree with your take on the level of harm that Bush has caused.
Bush/Cheney lied us into a war where 4,200 American servicemen/women and over half a million Iraqis have lost their lives. America preemptively attacked a country based on lies - I didn't think I would ever see that happen in my country. Honestly, I still can't believe it.
Even worse than the loss of life in Iraq, is the situation going forward. Much to the chagrin of our Sunni allies in the region, we have essentially empowered a Shi'ite majority sitting on a quarter of the world's proven oil reserves. And we have removed a natural counterweight to Iranian ambitions by removing the thorn in their side that was the former Sunni ruling class in Iraq. It is not a question of if, but rather when, the Iranian Shi'ite mullah's extend their influence into Iraq.
Okay so Iraq is a fiasco that has almost no parallels in the history of America. Some might say that Vietnam is analogous, but Vietnam was a regional conflict with only short term repercussions. Without doubt, Iraq is the greatest strategic error in the history of American foreign policy.
Moving on, Bush's economic policy has been a disgrace. When he took office he inherited a record surplus. Since Bush took over he has run up historic deficits and the National debt has almost doubled under his watch (from 5.7 trillion to 10 trillion. As a percentage of GNP, the national debt is at an all time high. Since 1950 the only Presidents to preside over an increase of national debt with respect to GNP have been - wait for it - Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.
I could go on for hours about the failings of Bush. But it gets pretty depressing after a while, so I'm going to stop.
Yes - Obama and our nation currently face a steep hill to climb. At the moment I am guardedly optomistic, if for no other reason that we have brought the serious people back to the White House again.
Joe B:
"If what you say is true, why do the abortionists target minorities?"
I have no idea what you're asking here Joe. Care to expound?
LvB:
That was quite the surreal comment. My favorite parts were:
"Contraception leads to pregnancy like night follows day."
That one overloaded the logic circuits in my brain. It simply does not compute.
"Contraception causes deadly, expensive health problems..."
Another one that overloaded my logic circuits, and certainly as false a statement that can be uttered if condoms are considered to be said contraception.
Here's my favorite one, though:
"It (contraception) also pollutes the rivers causing deleterious changes to animal life and it is probably getting into drinking water."
I have to ask you to discuss this more - this statement is fascinating.
Carbon,
Here's a few links on the contraceptives in the water thing. Its late, I'm tired and I hope this helps illuminate the topic.
Dean
http://www.catholicnews.com/data...cns/
0803877.htm
http://www.insiderreports.com/
st...toryID=20009617
Carbon,
Here's a few links on the contraceptives in the water thing. Its late, I'm tired
... and also a bit confused. I'm not the poster who was being addressed regarding contraceptives in the water.
But I share that poster's amazement at the wingnuttery on display here. It's both hilarious and terrifying all at the same time.
"It (contraception) also pollutes the rivers causing deleterious changes to animal life and it is probably getting into drinking water."
http://greatreporter.com/mambo/c...nt/view/1616/1/
http://www.physiciansforlife.org...t/view/1350/36/
http://www.cleandrinking.com/drugs.html
http://www.blogfabulous.com/birt...l-in-the-water/
Many environmental impact studies have shown the environmental damage of contraceptives in waterways. The problem is liberals only smash 'science' down our throats when it fits their agenda. Refuse to let someone build on a plot of land they bought because someone saw an endangered woodpecker there once? OK! Save the environment! Tell people they shouldn't take contraceptives because its decimating fish and amphibian populations in many areas nation(world)wide? Don't even think about it!
"Contraception leads to pregnancy like night follows day."
I would agree with this, in a way. Women who abstain from sex, or use NFP aren't the ones out there getting abortions. The vast majority of women getting abortions were either on the pill or using condoms when they conceived. Whether it's a failure of the product or a failure of the user to properly administer the contraceptive, doesn't really matter. When you put young women on the pill, they are more likely to be sexually active, as one of the major drawbacks has been "removed." So if you run an abortion mill, it behooves you to keep people having sex, as eventually they will make another 'mistake' and be back sitting in you clinic again. Even the manufacturers admit that when taken 100% perfectly, the product is still only 95% effective. So, if you have sex 100 times while on the pill, you'll only have 5 children. Maybe this is why so many men complain about their wives not wanting to have sex? Gotta save those 95 encounters so you don't burn through them too fast.
"Contraception causes deadly, expensive health problems..."
If you disagree with this, you need to read the insert on a pack of birth control pills. Increased instances of heart attack, stroke, breast cancer, blurred vision, decreased libido, etc.. And you're even more at risk if you drink or smoke. Oh, that's right, drinking and antibiotics decrease effectiveness as well.
Carbon the side effects of chemical contraceptives have been known for years as their links show.
Women taking the pill who have never had a child greatly increase their odds of suffering from breast cancer. Good legitimate studies exsist showing this. Why do you not hear of them in the media? Breast Cancer groups get large donations from these companies sadly money and disbeleif will silence many.
As for the chemicals or hormones in the water it was mainstream enough news that one of the CSI shows on TV picked up a plot line regarding it.
I AM NOT USING THAT AS MY SCIENTIFIC PROOF, but I had never heard of this potential issue till watching that dumb show. Afterwards I did a bit of research and found out there was a potential issue here. I can't comment if CSI's science was correct on the show...doubt it. But they did get it right that it was a legitimate issue to be concerned with.
I hate posting long posts like this. Sorry
Foster children have been removed from foster parents in England because they were unwilling to provide same-sex education to their children (it was against their Christian religion to do so) and that was against the hate crime laws there.
Americans amaze me with the "it will never happen here" attitude. Two of my close friends are from Moscow and Warsaw respectively. They are both my age mid-late thirties. They both lived under Marxist socialism in Russia and Poland (though each has different experiences). They were both young adults when the Soviet Union was dissolved. They both remember clearly the anti-Christian (for Poland it was much more prevalent against the Catholics) government forcing their will onto the Church. The first time I asked my Polish friend to give me a description of what it was like he responded with the question, "have you ever read 1984?".
It was only 20 years ago, folks, since the Soviet Union was dissolved. It has been less than a century since the Bolshevik Revolution, the anti-Church laws and persecution of Catholics in Mexico, the Spanish Civil War where anti-clericalism reigned, the Nazi regime which killed the same amount of Catholics as Jews in Poland, etc. Before the French Revolution, Europe was under the rule of Catholic monarchs. Before the first Mexican Revolution in the early 19th century, Mexico flourished (even greater and faster than their American counterparts) under the monarchy of Spain.
On the heels of the French Revolution, we have a completely secular Europe now, threatening to exterminate itself because it is abandoning its Christian heritage. Mexico continues to oppress the Catholic Church (not all of the anti-clerical laws that were written in the 1920s have been abolished to my knowledge) in political fashion. It cannot happen here? Recently, priests in Canada are facing charges of hate crime for speaking the truth about the sinfulness of homosexual activity. Look around you, people? This country has never been a Catholic nation, it has never been a "friend" to the Catholics. By God's grace alone we have escaped persecution up until this day. But don't be fooled into believing that, because the greatest persecution you've ever faced was when the last episode of "Friends" aired, we will never feel its sting. We deserve it.
Now we have a president who is on record voicing his Marxist views. He has sworn allegiance to the abortionists and has made it clear that he intends to expand hate crime laws in similar fashion to that of England (and other European countries) and Canada. What is Marxism or communism? When you answer that question, you'll have to move beyond "economic" systems (as you've probably been taught in school). The bedrock of Marxism is a violent atheism aimed specifically at Christianity. Look at the history books wherever Marxism was employed. The first casualties are the current political structures (since it was always preceded by
Con't...
The first casualties are the current political structures (since it was always preceded by revolution) and the nobility, the second is always the Church (Orthodox and Catholic).
This is the first time that I am aware of that someone who has a history of aligning themselves with Marxist ideology has been chosen by the people without a bloody revolution. Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong. That is how far we've come.
Will the persecution be swift, or will it even come within my lifetime? I don't know. But, my fear is not based on paranoia, it comes from a knowledge of history (recent and past). We have placed ourselves in a predicament (that started many decades ago). It may or may not come to fruition in the coming years. That does not negate the possibility, and therefore my fears are not unsubstantiated.
To conclude, both my Polish friend and my Russian friend have told me that they don't think America is far off from a Marxist experiment. They believe that they've seen it put together piecemeal within just the last decade. These are two individuals who had never met until last year, and their opinions on the direction of the U.S. were remarkably the same (two people who actually experienced anti-Church Marxism, mind you, not just read about it in books).
One more thing,
RBRU and Carbon Based Life Form will have nothing to worry about if a persecution comes. This type of persecution will be about choices that we make. It sounds like neither of those two will have a problem making the "right" choice.
"Contraception leads to pregnancy like night follows day."
I would agree with this, in a way. Women who abstain from sex, or use NFP aren't the ones out there getting abortions. The vast majority of women getting abortions were either on the pill or using condoms when they conceived.
Well said, Nate. Re: NARAL ad below.
RBU:
"The next generation of voters will be even more pro-choice than the current electorate."
...except that pro-lifers are having a lot more children than those who favor abortion rights most fervently.
The south Dakota ban failed because of abysmally bad campaigning by those in charge (Leslie Unrue & co). They refused advice from professional campaign consltants. They failed to respond to disingenuous pro-choice attack ads. They failed to campaign in the Indian reservations (18% of the elctorate) with any vigor.
South Dakota could have been won, at least by a narrow margin.
Richard:
Your armchair electoral analysis is, of course, wrong. The fact is that the US is becoming more and more Democratic every day. To wit:
http://www.america.gov/st/
divers...f0.1078106.html
The U.S. Census Bureau anticipates that by 2042 minorities in the country will outnumber whites. Currently the population consists of 34% minorities. Actually, one of the keys to Obama's win was registering Latinos in Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, Nevada and other States. In past elections Latinos were underrepresented in the electorate compared to their portion of the population. Obama was on the ground registering Latinos and other core constituencies for 2 years - and it showed on election day.
How is the GOP going to win elections when over 85% of African Americans and 70% of Latinos, both growing demographics, are consistently voting against them? The answer is they can't, or at the very least it will be very, very difficult going forward. Go ahead and give it a try - try to get to 270 Electoral Votes giving the Democrats Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona every election. It is darn near impossible.
The choice for the GOP is to either continue with the social conservatives on a path towards electoral oblivion, or become more more socially moderate in an attempt to try and close the gender gap with suburban women voters. My guess is that the money behind the party will chose the later course of action. The US Chamber of Commerce types could care less about Roe V. Wade and they generally like homosexuals (because of their high disposal incomes), so social conservatives better get ready to get thrown under the bus. The high water mark of the pro-life / anti-gay movement has been reached and the tide is now ebbing.
As an aside - why won't social conservatives be honest and forthright and put their draconian views with respect to contraception out there for everybody to see. After reading this site, to me at least it looks like the only things social conservatives despise more than contraception are abortions and gay people. So put it out there. Lets see what the women in the suburbs of Philadelphia and Cleveland and Orlando think about the religious rights position on contraception. Of course that won't happen because to do so would be to open up the biggest can of electoral whoop ass on the GOP that it has ever seen. Disingenuous cowards - thats the religious right.
Thankfully, the serious, smart people are back in charge in Washington. Praise the Lord, Obama sweep into power in landslide fashion bringing along with him 20+ new Democratic House members and at least 7 new Democratic Senators. Democrats are close to having a super majority in the House (where it isn't even needed), and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. For all intents and purposes - we're good to go in the Senate. We will consistently have Arlen Specter's vote as well as Voinovich's vote, and probably
The anonymous post above this to Richard is mine. I don't know why it got truncated or why my name didn't show.
Joseph:
You're hysterical and you need to get a grip on yourself.
Europe does not trend set for the United States. Not politically, not culturally, it just doesn't - in fact the exact opposite is often true. So, without even analyzing the substance of your anecdotal evidence, I don't care what is happening in England or Poland or Germany. It is not relevant.
With regards to Marxist socialism - its pretty ironic that you fear that Obama is going to take us there when Bush essentially just nationalized the country's largest insurer and some of the country's largest financial institutions.
Now the bailouts orchestrated by the Bush administration over the last couple months were a horrible, yet necessary last resort. We could not let AIG fail - we just couldn't allow this to happen. Likewise with GM, Ford, Bear Stearns, Fannie, Freddie, etc. We just could not let it happen, the repercussions would have been too far reaching. But it was Bush's and the GOP failed economic policies that put us in this position in the first place. Obama will clean up this mess like he will clean up the rest of Bush's messes, but it is going to take time and effort.
Carbon the side effects of chemical contraceptives have been known for years as their links show.
Once again: I am not the one who brought up contraceptives. That was rbru.
Joseph:-
The chances of your children being taken off you and given to a gay couple would be about 10 billion to 1.
If you think otherwise, you are in the middle of a self-induced psychotic episode. Your religion isn't helping you here: it's making it worse.
CBLF,
How are the odds that low when it's already happened in developed nations like England (foster children)? When it has already happened in developed nations like Germany, Poland, Russia, et al within the last 50 years (nations that were developed long before the U.S. was)?
I don't think you understand the implications of the expansion of the hate crime laws, nor are you properly estimating at what lengths the gay lobby will go to destroy Christianity. Nor are you taking history into perspective. Marxism is a threat to Christianity. The president you just voted for has been influenced by Marxism and openly admits to Marxist views. Marxism is not something that can co-exist with Christianity, which is why the first reaction of a Marxist regime, historically, is to strip the rights of the Church.
I don't suppose you read books or study history. You don't seem to be convincing me that I'm crazy with comments that can be summarized like this:
"Nuh uh. You're just crazy if you think that. 1:10000000000 odds that it'll happen."
You don't provide any intelligent input beyond that. I'm providing historical perspective and actual current events to back up my claim (though I have already admitted that it might not come to pass). Show me how you've come to your conclusion.
Europe does not trend set for the United States. Not politically, not culturally, it just doesn't - in fact the exact opposite is often true. So, without even analyzing the substance of your anecdotal evidence, I don't care what is happening in England or Poland or Germany. It is not relevant.
It is absolutely relevant. Europe is elated that Obama was elected. I wonder why? Of course you don't care about history or current events. You voted for Obama. Re: the video posted by AmP. Not only that, my Russian and Polish friend were speaking precisely about some of the government powers instituted by Bush. Obama is just the icing on the cake. I happen to develop software for the commercial banking industry. I can tell you that in banking alone, the Patriot Act has really screwed individual Americans over as far as privacy is concerned.
With regards to Marxist socialism - its pretty ironic that you fear that Obama is going to take us there when Bush essentially just nationalized the country's largest insurer and some of the country's largest financial institutions.
Obamabots chain of logic: if you didn't vote for Obama, you must love Bush. This is sad. I believe that Bush has done a great deal to damage protection of personal freedom in this country. I believe that much of what he has done has loaded the gun for a Marxist who, if he so desires, may abuse his powers and alter the United States forever. I am not a Bush fan. I even question his pro-life stance, which was to do something, but not enough. It seems to perfect that we've been appeased with small strides just to have the country placed into the hands of someone who promises to eliminate all of those strides with the strike of a pen.
Why don't you be patient. Call me crazy in eight years.
Now the bailouts orchestrated by the Bush administration over the last couple months were a horrible, yet necessary last resort.
CNN talking point #1
I don't agree with you. I don't believe that they were a necessary last resort.
We could not let AIG fail - we just couldn't allow this to happen. Likewise with GM, Ford, Bear Stearns, Fannie, Freddie, etc. We just could not let it happen, the repercussions would have been too far reaching.
CNN talking point #2
Why couldn't we? Or is all you can do offer up CNN talking points. How do you know we couldn't? I happen to have friends who are Economists that don't believe the bailouts were necessary and that this was all a load of crap.
But it was Bush's and the GOP failed economic policies that put us in this position in the first place.
CNN talking point #3
By design maybe? You also seem to be ignoring the huge effort the Democrats in Congress put forth to stop regulation of Freddie and Fannie before it was too late.
Obama will clean up this mess like he will clean up the rest of Bush's messes, but it is going to take time and effort.
CNN talking point #4
It's possible that, during his reign, the economy will change in a positive manner for many who agree with him. I don't disagree with you there. But, the good times may probably only be for some who make the "acceptable" choices. As far as taking time and effort. I don't know that it will take real time and effort, rather it could be perceived time and effort.
RBRU and CBLF,
Please note my previous comment:
RBRU and Carbon Based Life Form will have nothing to worry about if a persecution comes. This type of persecution will be about choices that we make. It sounds like neither of those two will have a problem making the "right" choice.
You're right, you won't notice a thing.
I don't suppose you read books or study history.
Oh, grow up.
Whatever history you have "studied" has become so distorted that any conclusions you draw from it are wrapped up in hysteria and paranoia.
You are babbling like the Unabomber.
Get some help. You really need it.
CBLF,
Oh, grow up? That's your response? Unibomber? Alright, you've convinced me, I'm wacko.
I don't know why you are so concerned about my concerns. As I've stated before, you have nothing to worry about.
I don't know why you are so concerned about my concerns.
Because it's both fascinating and scary to see how deranged some people can get.
Obama is a "Marxist" because he wants to slightly increase the top marginal rate of a progressive tax system? Call it populist, perhaps. But Marxist? That's ridiculous.
And then back to the original teeth-gnashing: moaning that your children could be taken away from you and given to a gay couple. Absurd rubbish. The Space Shuttle would land in your back yard before that would happen.
I think you enjoy living in unfounded fear. It gives you purpose.
Obama is a "Marxist" because he wants to slightly increase the top marginal rate of a progressive tax system? Call it populist, perhaps. But Marxist? That's ridiculous.
OK. I see where you're coming from now. You have no idea what Marxism is. That's consistent with your willingness to ignore history. So, I'd actually rather not debate with someone as woefully uneducated as you. Thanks for wasting my time.
You have no idea what Marxism is.
Coming from a hysteric like you, that's pretty hilarious.
That's consistent with your willingness to ignore history.
No. It's consistent with my ability to have just a scintilla of context.
Waaah! Waaah! They're going to take my children away! Waaah! They're going to give them to a gay couple!
It's frankly pathetic that you are recruiting examples of real oppression to bolster your solipsistic moaning about an imaginary one.
I agree that raising marginal tax rates by itself is hardly Marxist, and that is true even if some tax revenue is redistributed to the genuinely poor (this is the body politic's expression of charity, which might or might not be wise or prudent, but is not by itself Marxist). But certainly a Marxist impulse is present when the income taxes of those who pay such taxes are directly paid to those who do not pay such taxes even when they are not poor. That is no more than a redistribution of wealth for its own sake, and that is President-designate Obama's proposal as I understand it.
But certainly a Marxist impulse is present when the income taxes of those who pay such taxes are directly paid to those who do not pay such taxes even when they are not poor. That is no more than a redistribution of wealth for its own sake, and that is President-designate Obama's proposal as I understand it.
Who is going to be directly paid?
There is a movement to force Barack Obama to show his orginal legal birth certificate. Alan Keyes is taking this up in California. I also hear that Supreme court justice Souter said Barack Obama has till Dec.1st,2008 to show it! There is an article in Worldnet daily and a link on Drudge report yesterday about the case with Alan Keyes comming from a a major news blog NBCAugusta. There is plenty of you tube videos with Philip Berg explaining the case. We need to fast and pray that Barack Obama is proven to be a fraud that I believe he is. He is a trojan horse for the communist party. Wake up America!
Michael,
Lenin was introduced into Russia on a sealed train car from Germany, Trojan Horse style. He was funded by the powerful and rich Marxist/Mason/Anti-Catholics from New York to Vienna. He had no right to usurp the power, kill his political enemies and the Czar and his family, but he couldn't be stopped. He had too much political support and too much money behind him. Not only that, the faith was weak in Russia. In many ways, you could compare the complacency and spiritual atrophy of the United States today to that of the Russian people in the decades preceding the Bolshevik Revolution. Once a faithful Russian Orthodox nation, they had become entranced with modernism and enlightenment thinking. The only difference between us and them is you probably wouldn't be able to make the case that we were ever as faithful as the Russians were.
My point is, the same money and power thrown behind Obama is a generation of the money and power thrown behind Lenin. They want it that way, that's the way it is. CBLF thinks I'm crazy without providing any input other than his modern MTV viewership ideas, but let's wait and see. I hope that there is some legal barrier that prevents the man from becoming president, but I don't think that it will ever come to light if there is. Not that I doubt Obama was born in the U.S., but even if he wasn't, the type of money behind him and his allies could produce an American birth certificate for Margaret Thatcher.
C-BL-F,
Obama's proffered tax plan is to issue "refund" checks to families with AGI under $250K (or taxable income $100K, depending on which version you believe). The concept of an income tax refund for families who don't pay income taxes strikes me as peculiar, but that in fact was his stated plan in the campaign. Since almost one-half of American adult income earners pay no income taxes this means that many households would simply receive a check paid for by other households. Hope that clears it up.
Mike,
Hope that clears it up.
Don't bet on it.
Obama's proffered tax plan is to issue "refund" checks...
Ah, yes. I thought this is what you were bitching and moaning about.
If this is all it takes to cross the bar to Marxism or even "a Marxist impulse", then you are hopelessly prone to hyperbole.
CBLF thinks I'm crazy without providing any input other than his modern MTV viewership ideas
Wrong again.
Writing conspiratorialist potted histories (replete with references to Masons!) kind of tips off anyone with a clue to back away from you slowly.
What brand of aluminium foil do you prefer? Do you know that the logos indicate whether or not they have been stripped of their gamma-ray repelling power? A Mason told me that.
Carbon,
Anyone reading our respective posts can easily determine who is prone to hyperbole, and who is acting bitchy too.
CBLF,
I love it when I am labeled by a liberal as being a conspiracy theorist when I mention the Freemasons. It tickles.
I suppose Pope Leo XIII was a conspiracy theorist?
And all Popes prior to him from 1738). Were they conspiracy theorists, as well?
Not to mention countless historians and mountains of historical evidence itself, most of which isn't even denied by them but even boasted of?
By the way, the Bull of Pope Clement XII (1738), which declares automatic excommunication for Catholics who become Freemasons, still stands.
And it appears that even Pope Benedict XVI is a conspiracy theorist, as the Masons in British Columbia had noted his "anti-masonry" stance when he was Cardinal Ratzinger.
Yes, you are a conspiracy theorist. An unreconstructed one at that.
The babblings of a late 19th century pope - in the middle of the throes of the geopolitically explosive Roman Question - is hardly the hook upon which you should hang your hat.
And as for the other various popes from 1738 onwards, if you don't realise that the delicate secular battles (both real and diplomatic) going on in pre-French Revolution Europe had a major influence on papal thinking, then you need to go study that history you are so self-proclaiming to be aware of.
By the way, what other papal decisions of Clement XII do you particularly like? The appointment of an 8 year old as a cardinal, perhaps?
What next? Some neo-Jacobite rantings?
And as for the other various popes from 1738 onwards, if you don't realise that the delicate secular battles (both real and diplomatic) going on in pre-French Revolution Europe had a major influence on papal thinking, then you need to go study that history you are so self-proclaiming to be aware of.
I suppose that papal thinking hasn't changed, since what was in the Bull still stands. Thinking of the times? Perhaps not.
Crazy Katherine has a story on her "Catholics" for Obama stating that Cardinal Stafford is the same as Ayman al-Zawahiri!! Check it out!!
Commenting by HaloScan
