Imagine a former president of the United States completely disregarding our First Amendment rights….
Oh wait! You don’t have to imagine.
Former President Barack Obama gave a speech on Thursday in which he called for more regulation of social media content, declaring that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to Facebook and Twitter.
Obama began by stating that he is a “pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist” but then went to explaining exactly the opposite.
“The First Amendment is a check on the power of the state. It doesn’t apply to private companies like Facebook and Twitter,” he said. “While content moderation can limit the distribution of clearly dangerous content, it doesn’t go far enough.”
Dangerous content? I think he means opinions that clash with his.
“[O]ver time we lose our capacity to distinguish between fact, opinion, and wholesale fiction. Or maybe we just stop caring,” Obama continued. “Our brains aren’t accustomed to taking in this much information this fast, and a lot of us are experiencing overload.”
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on WHAT IS WRONG WITH OBAMA? ARE ALL DEMOCRATS AS CRAZY AS HE IS IN THIS INSTANCE?
Transgender Mania Grips The White House April 22, 2022 Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the Biden administration’s focus on transgenderism: There is no such person as a transgender—you are either male or female—but there is such a thing as transgenderism: it is an ideology that promotes the fiction that the sexes are interchangeable. To win, proponents are bent on getting to children, prompting little kids to question whether they are satisfied being a boy or a girl. If they are in doubt, they should be advised to at least consider making the switch. There is no more rabid advocate of transgenderism in America than the President of the United States. Indeed, transgender mania has gripped the White House. Within months, the Biden administration will finalize changes to Obamacare that will make it easier for persons seeking to transition to the opposite sex. The Department of Health and Human Services is leading the way, treating gender identity as a status worthy of being covered by laws against sex discrimination. Changes will also be made to healthcare plans, so that sex-transition procedures can be covered. This is a classic case of top-down politics. There is no national outcry demanding that those who want to flip their sex should be given the green light. If anything, there is a growing consensus that we need to hit the pause button on this subject. When White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki recently said that “Gender affirming healthcare for transgender kids is the best practice and potentially lifesaving,” she offered no evidence to support this outlandish claim. But she did make plain that gender-affirming care meant a) social affirmation b) puberty blockers c) hormone therapy and d) gender-affirming surgery.This four-step approach is a sanitized way of saying that the White House is committed to encouraging the sexually confused to transition to the opposite sex, and that chemical castration and genital mutilation will follow. Psaki also warned lawmakers who work against them that they have been “put on notice” not to mess with the president. She specifically said the White House will go after states that resist their agenda. She was supported by Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra who said he wants taxpayers to pay for the drugs, incisions and genital reconstructions. The White House says that gender-affirming care will help transgender adolescents who are suffering from mental health problems, drugs and suicidal thoughts. They should first inquire why these young people are so messed up in the first place and then seek to give them the help they need. It is nonsense to argue that their problems are due to social rejection—their maladies are a function of their mental state. Dr. Paul McHugh is a noted psychiatrist who has studied this issue as well as anyone. The Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Hospital maintains that transgender people suffer from a “mental disorder” and that “the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken—it does not correspond with physical reality.” Undeterred, the Biden administration cites a Trevor Project survey to support its conclusion, never mentioning that two of organization’s donors, AbbVie and Allergan, make drugs and medical products that facilitate sex transitions. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis apparently was not “put on notice,” or he is simply recalcitrant. His Department of Health has issued its own guidelines on this subject. It declared that because the evidence is inconclusive regarding sex-transition procedures, and could, in fact have “long-term, irreversible effects,” the best way forward is to recommend against treating children and adolescents at this time. To back up its stance, the Florida agency cited evidence that 80% of those seeking to transition lose their desire to do so over time. It also cited the serious health effects of making the change. There is good reason to support this position. We could learn a thing or two from the Europeans; they have a richer history of dealing with those who are in rebellion against their nature. The Amsterdam University Medical Center surveyed 4,600 transgender men and women between 1972 and 2018. It found that transgender medical treatment shortened the lifespan of patients by 50%. This is an astounding finding, one that should make everyone reconsider the conventional wisdom on this subject. After allowing cross-sex hormone treatment in children for 22 years, Sweden slammed on the brakes and made the practice illegal. Its health officials said these procedures are “potentially fraught with extensive and irreversible adverse consequences such as cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, infertility, increased cancer risk, and thrombosis.” Denmark and France did the same thing. It must also be said that the psychological problems these people have are every bit as serious as their physical condition. We look back today at controversial medical treatments that have proven to be a disaster and wonder why we went down this road. Some day we will do the same with regard to sex-transition treatments, but by that time the psychological and physiological damage will have been done, thanks in large part to our “devout Catholic” president. There is a reason why Pope Francis calls gender ideology “demonic.” This mania has got to stop.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on THERE IS NO MORE RABID ADVOCATE OF TRANSGENDERISM IN AMERICA THAN JOE BIDEN
Transgender Mania Grips The White House April 22, 2022 Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the Biden administration’s focus on transgenderism: There is no such person as a transgender—you are either male or female—but there is such a thing as transgenderism: it is an ideology that promotes the fiction that the sexes are interchangeable. To win, proponents are bent on getting to children, prompting little kids to question whether they are satisfied being a boy or a girl. If they are in doubt, they should be advised to at least consider making the switch. There is no more rabid advocate of transgenderism in America than the President of the United States. Indeed, transgender mania has gripped the White House. Within months, the Biden administration will finalize changes to Obamacare that will make it easier for persons seeking to transition to the opposite sex. The Department of Health and Human Services is leading the way, treating gender identity as a status worthy of being covered by laws against sex discrimination. Changes will also be made to healthcare plans, so that sex-transition procedures can be covered. This is a classic case of top-down politics. There is no national outcry demanding that those who want to flip their sex should be given the green light. If anything, there is a growing consensus that we need to hit the pause button on this subject. When White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki recently said that “Gender affirming healthcare for transgender kids is the best practice and potentially lifesaving,” she offered no evidence to support this outlandish claim. But she did make plain that gender-affirming care meant a) social affirmation b) puberty blockers c) hormone therapy and d) gender-affirming surgery.This four-step approach is a sanitized way of saying that the White House is committed to encouraging the sexually confused to transition to the opposite sex, and that chemical castration and genital mutilation will follow. Psaki also warned lawmakers who work against them that they have been “put on notice” not to mess with the president. She specifically said the White House will go after states that resist their agenda. She was supported by Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra who said he wants taxpayers to pay for the drugs, incisions and genital reconstructions. The White House says that gender-affirming care will help transgender adolescents who are suffering from mental health problems, drugs and suicidal thoughts. They should first inquire why these young people are so messed up in the first place and then seek to give them the help they need. It is nonsense to argue that their problems are due to social rejection—their maladies are a function of their mental state. Dr. Paul McHugh is a noted psychiatrist who has studied this issue as well as anyone. The Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Hospital maintains that transgender people suffer from a “mental disorder” and that “the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken—it does not correspond with physical reality.” Undeterred, the Biden administration cites a Trevor Project survey to support its conclusion, never mentioning that two of organization’s donors, AbbVie and Allergan, make drugs and medical products that facilitate sex transitions. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis apparently was not “put on notice,” or he is simply recalcitrant. His Department of Health has issued its own guidelines on this subject. It declared that because the evidence is inconclusive regarding sex-transition procedures, and could, in fact have “long-term, irreversible effects,” the best way forward is to recommend against treating children and adolescents at this time. To back up its stance, the Florida agency cited evidence that 80% of those seeking to transition lose their desire to do so over time. It also cited the serious health effects of making the change. There is good reason to support this position. We could learn a thing or two from the Europeans; they have a richer history of dealing with those who are in rebellion against their nature. The Amsterdam University Medical Center surveyed 4,600 transgender men and women between 1972 and 2018. It found that transgender medical treatment shortened the lifespan of patients by 50%. This is an astounding finding, one that should make everyone reconsider the conventional wisdom on this subject. After allowing cross-sex hormone treatment in children for 22 years, Sweden slammed on the brakes and made the practice illegal. Its health officials said these procedures are “potentially fraught with extensive and irreversible adverse consequences such as cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, infertility, increased cancer risk, and thrombosis.” Denmark and France did the same thing. It must also be said that the psychological problems these people have are every bit as serious as their physical condition. We look back today at controversial medical treatments that have proven to be a disaster and wonder why we went down this road. Some day we will do the same with regard to sex-transition treatments, but by that time the psychological and physiological damage will have been done, thanks in large part to our “devout Catholic” president. There is a reason why Pope Francis calls gender ideology “demonic.” This mania has got to stop.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on BIDEN SHOULD PAVE THE WAY BY CHANGING HIS OWN SEX
Might it be Good for all of us & for Francis to Read about the “Gruesome Death of Arius”?
I have read the letters of your piety, in which you have requested me to make known to you the events of my times relating to myself, and to give an account of that most impious heresy of the Arians, in consequence of which I have endured these sufferings, and also of the manner of the death of Arius. With two out of your three demands I have readily undertaken to comply, and have sent to your Godliness what I wrote to the Monks; from which you will be able to learn my own history as well as that of the heresy. But with respect to the other matter, I mean the death, I debated with myself for a long time, fearing lest any one should suppose that I was exulting in the death of that man. But yet, since a disputation which has taken place among you concerning the heresy, has issued in this question, whether Arius died after previously communicating with the Church; I therefore was necessarily desirous of giving an account of his death, as thinking that the question would thus be set at rest, considering also that by making this known I should at the same time silence those who are fond of contention. For I conceive that when the wonderful circumstances connected with his death become known, even those who before questioned it will no longer venture to doubt that the Arianheresy is hateful in the sight of God. – Saint Athanasius’s letter to Serapionon the death of Arius
Today, Mary Ann Kreitzer, the President of the Les Femmes-The Truth website, asked for prayers for Francis saying:
As a seventy-something old lady, I relate to that metaphor since the pendulum on my own clock is moving faster these days…
… How many more years (or days) does he have left on his timeline before he succumbs to the grim reaper and faces his Creator? What will he say about his service to Holy Mother Church?
I cringed recently when I read about the pope’s high praise for Fr. James Martin, S.J. whose scandals cry out to heaven. Fr. Martin has over 300,000 followers on his Twitter account. How many is he dragging to the precipice with his enthusiastic advocacy for sins that cry to heaven for vengeance?
It might be good for all of us and for Francis to read about the “Gruesome Death of Arius” found in the Ecclesiastical History“:
After the Synod of Jerusalem, Arius went to Egypt, but as he could not obtain permission to hold communion with the Church of Alexandria, he returned to Constantinople. As all those who had embraced his sentiments, and those who were attached to Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, had assembled cunningly in that city for the purpose of holding a council, Alexander, who was then ordering the see of Constantinople, used every effort to dissolve the council. But as his endeavors were frustrated, he openly refused all covenant with Arius, affirming that it was neither just nor according to ecclesiastical canons, to make powerless their own vote, and that of those bishops who had been assembled at Nicæa, from nearly every region under the sun. When the partisans of Eusebius perceived that their arguments produced no effect on Alexander, they had recourse to contumely, and threatened that unless he would receive Arius into communion on a stated day, he should be expelled from the church, and that another should be elected in his place who would be willing to hold communion with Arius.
They then separated, the partisans of Eusebius to await the time they had fixed for carrying their menaces into execution, and Alexander to pray that the words of Eusebius might be prevented from being carried into deed. His chief source of fear arose from the fact that the emperor had been persuaded to give way. On the day before the appointed day he prostrated himself before the altar, and continued all the night in prayer to God, that his enemies might be prevented from carrying their schemes into execution against him.
Late in the afternoon, Arius, being seized suddenly with pain in the stomach, was compelled to repair to the public place set apart for emergencies of this nature. As some time passed away without his coming out, some persons, who were waiting for him outside, entered, and found him dead and still sitting upon the seat. When his death became known, all people did not view the occurrence under the same aspect. Some believed that he died at that very hour, seized by a sudden disease of the heart, or suffering weakness from his joy over the fact that his matters were falling out according to his mind; others imagined that this mode of death was inflicted on him in judgment, on account of his impiety. Those who held his sentiments were of opinion that his death was brought about by magical arts.
It will not be out of place to quote what Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, stated on the subject. The following is his narrative:
“Arius, the author of the heresy and the associate of Eusebius, having been summoned before the most blessed Constantine Augustus, at the solicitation of the partisans of Eusebius, was desired to give in writing an exposition of his faith. He drew up this document with great artfulness, and, like the devil, concealed his impious assertions beneath the simple words of Scripture. The most blessed Constantine said to him, ‘If you hold any other doctrines than those which are here set forth, render testimony to the truth. but if you perjure yourself, the Lord will punish you,’ and the wretched man swore that he held no sentiments except those specified in the document.
Soon after he went out, and judgment was visited upon him, for he bent forwards and burst in the middle. With all men life terminates in death. We must not blame a man, even if he be an enemy, merely because he died, for it is uncertain whether we shall live till the evening. But the end of Arius was so singular that it seems worthy of some remark. The partisans of Eusebius threatened to reinstate him in the church, and Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, opposed their intention. Arius placed his confidence in the power and menaces of Eusebius. It was Saturday, and he expected the next day to be re-admitted into the church. The dispute ran high. The partisans of Eusebius were loud in their menaces, while Alexander had recourse to prayer. The Lord was the judge, and declared himself against the unjust. A little before sunset Arius was compelled by a want of nature to enter the place appointed for such emergencies, and here he lost at once both restoration to communion and his life. The most blessed Constantine was amazed when he heard of this occurrence, and regarded it as the punishment of perjury. It then became evident to every one that the menaces of Eusebius were absolutely futile, and that the expectations of Arius were vain and foolish. It also became manifest that the Arian heresy had met with condemnation from the Savior as well as from the pristine church. Is it not then astonishing that some are still found who seek to exculpate him whom the Lord has condemned, and to defend a heresy of which the author was not permitted by our Lord to be rejoined to the church? We have been duly informed that this was the mode of the death of Arius. It is said that for a long period subsequently no one would make use of the seat on which he died. Those who were compelled by necessities of nature to visit the public place, always avoided with horror the precise spot on which the impiety of Arius had been visited with judgment. At a later epoch a certain rich and powerful man, who had embraced the Arian tenets, bought the place of the public, and built a house on the spot, in order that the occurrence might fall into oblivion, and that there might be no perpetual memorial of the death of Arius.” [http://gloriaromanorum.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-death-of-arius.html?m=1]
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He want you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1]
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on READ HERE ABOUT THE GRUESOME DEATH OF THE HERETIC ARIUS, LET ALL LIVING HERETICS BEWARE OF THE LORD’S JUSTICE WHICH DOES NOT ALWAYS WAIT FOR ETERNITY TO BE MANIFESTED
Just when you think pro-abortion advocates can’t get any more barbaric and inhumane, they prove you wrong. Two appalling bills introduced in state legislatures are the latest example. They want to legalize infanticide. The bills are from California and Maryland, two of the most liberal and pro-abortion states in the country. Politicians in both states have been very vocal lately about ensuring that their states will do everything they can to facilitate abortions, in the event that the Supreme Court limits abortion rights in the Dobbs case. These bills go beyond merely legalizing abortion up to the moment of birth — they take the idea of abortion to its next level of cruelty.
It’s All About Definitions
Some of the details of the bills differ, but the essential language and effect is the same. Here’s what the California bill says, with my emphases in bold:
Notwithstanding any other law, a person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty, or otherwise deprived of their rights, based on their actions or omissions with respect to their pregnancy or actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcome, including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, or perinatal death.
The key word is “perinatal”. The words “miscarriage”, “stillbirth”, and “abortion” all have clear and understandable meanings. But what does “perinatal” mean? Here’s where the cruelty is hidden. This bill doesn’t define that term. But elsewhere in California law, you can find a definition. And when you do, it’s shocking in its implications.
“Perinatal” means the period from the establishment of pregnancy to one month following delivery. California Code, Welfare and Institutions Code – WIC § 14134.5(b)
These bills would permit anyone to kill a baby up to one month old, either by act or omission, and completely escape any accountability. The horrific Kermit Gosnell approach of strangling newborns or leaving them to die on a shelf, would be perfectly legal in California and in Maryland. We are back to the barbaric ancient world, where unwanted children were exposed in the woods and left to die. Since the Father of Lies always relies on his favorite tricks, the bills have deliberately and perversely deceptive names. The Maryland bill is called the “Pregnant Person’s Freedom Act of 2022”. Note the trendy redefinition of “woman” into “pregnant person”, and the exclusion of the unborn baby from being a “person”. The California bill is an amendment to the “Reproductive Privacy Act”. Odd, since the purpose of abortion and infanticide is to terminate the results of reproduction, but they certainly would hide murder behind a veil of privacy. As if that weren’t enough to shock the conscience, a look through California and Maryland law reveals all sorts of provisions that are aimed at enhancing perinatal health and reducing infant mortality. So if the baby is wanted, the states will move mountains to help her. If, not, the state will stand by indifferently while she is murdered.
Coming Soon to a State Near You
When it comes to legislation, what begins in the bluest states like California and Maryland will soon come to other states. We can expect similar legislation in other abortion sanctuaries like New York, Illinois, and the New England states. We have known for a long time that the goal of the abortion mentality was to guarantee a dead baby by any means necessary. The mask has once again come off, and the barbarity of that movement can be seen in all its demonic ugliness. Our Lord might as well have been speaking about these bills:
“You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”John 8:44
The answer to all this, of course, is not just legislative advocacy. We constantly need to enhance our efforts to build a Culture of Life, where mothers would find abortion and infanticide unthinkable, and where we would be there to accompany them through any difficulty in their pregnancy or parenthood.
____________________________________
This article was originally printed at Ed Mechmann’s blog Stepping Out of the Boat. Reprinted with permission.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”John 8:44
As I drive down the street, all through town I see plastered across billboards an image of an old dilapidated building, presumably the victim of Russian attacks, with the words: “Democracy is under attack!” Now, as a proud monarchist, this didn’t upset me in the least, since I’ve long been of the opinion that democracy can sit on a tack. But that’s a topic for another day. The obvious meaning implied by the billboard is that Ukraine represents democracy, freedom, and equality, while Russia represents some old-fashioned autocratic conservative ideal that seeks to oppress and enslave.
A simple bit of thoughtful research will show that this can’t possibly be the reality; there must be another factor at stake in this war that the Left will happily disguise as “democracy.”
ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW
Take a look at the constitutions of Russia and Ukraine. Both countries are organized as semi-presidential republics, meaning they have a president as head of state and a prime minister as head of government. For the sake of comparison, France—remember liberty, equality, and fraternity?—is also organized as a semi-presidential republic; for my fellow Canadians, this form of government is kind of like our own but with a more powerful elected president in the place of Her Majesty the Queen. In fact, constitutionally, Russia appears more democratic than Ukraine, given that Russia is a federation with a bicameral parliament, which provides greater allowance for both subsidiarity and federal checks and balances than Ukraine’s unitary state with a unicameral parliament.
Yet, we cannot base democracy on whether a country is founded as a “republic”; after all, China identifies as a republic too. Instead, we might utilize something called the “Democracy Index,” put together by the Economist Intelligence Unit, which rates the democracy of a given country on a scale of 0–10, requiring a score of 6.01 to be identified as even a “flawed democracy.” In the 2021 report, Russia was rated as “authoritarian” with a score of 3.24, while Ukraine was rated as a “hybrid regime” with a score of 5.57; neither was ranked as a democracy. For comparison, the United States scored 7.85 as a “flawed democracy” and Canada 8.87 as a “full democracy.”
We could also look to the “Corruption Perceptions Index,” published by Transparency International, which ranks the “cleanness” of countries on a scale of 0–100. A score of 50 is required to be considered “less corrupt.” Again, in 2021, Russia was given a score of 29 and Ukraine 32, neither of them even close to “less corrupt.” For comparison, Canada scored 74 and the United States 67.
ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW
What does all this tell us? Given that left-leaning groups like Transparency International and The Economist have consistently failed to give Ukraine a passing grade in democracy for the last ten years, it is at least inconsistent to now claim democracy is under attack by Russia’s attack on Ukraine. What we could logically say is that a corrupt constitutional republic is under attack by a slightly more corrupt constitutional republic.
One might easily venture to say that if Russia were to succeed in wresting territory from Ukraine, there would be little noticeable difference in the democracy of that territory. I think it is safe to say that, in the case of Russia’s attack on Ukraine, democracy is not under attack; rather, there must be something other than democracy at stake that the Left does not want to state openly, lest the mask be removed too soon.
Indeed, further scoping reveals that this claimed attack on democracy is not new with the attack on Ukraine. A variety of news articles and blogs since the summer of 2020 speak of American democracy being under attack by the Republican “minority party” and their violent far-right operatives, though a few articles appearing since the 2020 election maintain the attack is by the vote-thieving Democrats and their leftist, rioting thugs. A CNN survey released on September 15, 2021, showed that a majority (56%) of Americans believe their democracy is under attack, though far more Republican supporters (75%) believe this to be the case than Democrat (46%).
ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW
Nevertheless, already in September 2018, Hillary Clinton was warning Canadians that “democracy is under attack everywhere,” as evidenced by Trump’s ability to win the 2016 election. I think it fair to say that Mrs. Clinton understands an attack on democracy differently than CNN’s Republican-supporting survey respondents. Analogously, I think it fair to say that these two parties have differing views on whether Russia is attacking democracy.
What I would suggest is taking place in the case of the pervasive billboards is that age-old rhetorical device by which we convince our audience that they, too, are in fact affected by the matter at hand. The general North American populace values “democracy” (however they may define it). So, by declaring “democracy” to be under attack, the message sent to the general populace is “your values are under attack,” and, so also, “you are under attack.” The average North American is then implicated in the war and moved to actively resist his Russian aggressors by donating to the advertised Ukraine support fund.
Mrs. Clinton and the leftist media are sending the same message: democracy, which means you, is under attack by the Right. We can bicker until the cows come home whether Putin or the Republican party are “on the right,” but the reality is that they represent a worldview that is to the right of the left, and that is a danger to the leftist ideology. What is really at stake here is not democracy but leftist-American democracy, together with its pervasive anarcho-feminist ideology of license, which has been imposed on other nations especially through the imperialist efforts of President Obama.
ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW
Recall Obama’s condemnation of Russia’s democratically supported 2013 “anti-gay law,” together with a variety of other leftist and, oh, pro-democracy groups, including the European Commission for Democracy through Law. The latter’s response clearly conveys the Left’s view of democracy, which, it states, is “characterized by pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness, as well as the fair and proper treatment of minorities” (paragraph 48). On this account, the “promotion of other sexual identities except heterosexual” (48) must be permitted and the freedom “to advocate for positive ideas in relation to homosexuality” (56) maintained. Recall, also, the Left’s aggressive opposition to Trump’s Supreme Court nominees hinging on the danger of overturning Roe v. Wade. Democracy, for the Left, requires one to have the right to murder one’s own child.
I suppose the reality, then, is that democracy is under attack after all, at least if we take democracy to mean what the Left would have it mean, which is exactly what its name denotes: “the rule of the mob.” As Aristotle notes, such democracy is the corrupted form of the republic, and I might further note that socialism is the corrupted form taken to its extreme. The democracy of the Left is one representing not liberty but license; not order but chaos. It is the rule of the disordered, of the vicious, of those with no sense of reality. Ultimately, it is no rule at all; it is a society without a head. It is a society built on principles of Godless self-destruction; a revolt against patriarchy which can do nothing else than decay.
Aaron Debusschere is a husband and father currently living in Quebec, Canada. He holds degrees in philosophy, education, and theology, and is currently a student of ecclesiology. He blogs with his wife at www.theromanticcatholic.wordpress.com.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on A LOT DEPENDS ON WHOSE OX IS BEING GORED
abyssumApr 20Statewide Builders of a Pro-Life TexasGive Now YOU ARE AT:Home»News»Issues»Euthanasia»Tinslee Lewis, Child Given 10 Days to Live, Defeats Odds and is Released from HospitalTinslee Lewis, Child Given 10 Days to Live, Defeats Odds and is Released from Hospital 0Tinslee Lewis, the toddler given 10 days to live under an anti-Life Texas law, was released from the hospital Thursday, April 7, to go home with her family. In November 2019, Tinslee became a victim of the deadly Texas 10-Day Rule, which places a 10-day countdown on patients’ lives after a hospital’s internal committee authorizes the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment against one’s will. Texas Right to Life’s patient advocacy team intervened on the ninth day of the 10-day countdown. Now, over 800 days later, Tinslee is alive, thriving, and growing. A happy and strong toddler, Tinslee’s health has so steadily improved that the hospital released her to go home. Trinity Lewis, Tinslee’s mom, responded: “We are so thankful for everyone who pulled together to help my daughter, including the doctors at Cooks, Texas Right to Life, our attorneys at Daniels & Tredennick law firm, Joe Nixon, Kassi Marks, and Protect Texas Fragile Kids. We have been cherishing and enjoying Tinslee being home, and we appreciate everyone who stepped up to help in any way as well.”Tinslee Lewis’ story gained national attention when the deadly Texas 10-Day Rule was imposed on her at nine months old. Under the 10-Day Rule, hospitals may legally impose a countdown on patients’ lives against their own and their family’s will. So long as the hospital’s own ethics committee approves imposing the countdown, hospitals are legally allowed to end basic life-sustaining care (like a ventilator) to the patient. The sheer inhumanity, injustice, and cruelty of this Texas law was brought to light when the 10-Day Rule threatened the life of an innocent nine-month-old little girl. ’s success story shows that in the absence of an anti-Life countdown, families and hospitals can work together for the benefit of the patient. Tinslee has received excellent care from Cook Children’s Medical Center. It is with their efforts that Tinslee will now transition to home health care. Meanwhile, Texas Right to Life is committed to doubling our efforts in the Capitol and with our full time patient advocacy team to combat and stop the deadly 10-Day Rule from destroying the lives of more vulnerable patients like Tinslee. Thank you for standing with Tinslee, and please continue to pray for the Lewis family and all patients victimized by the 10-Day Rule.
Border security is a paramount issue here in the United States, and for a myriad of reasons. This is not simply about shutting people out, as the Democrats would like you to believe for sentimental reasons. (They are still using heart strings to pull polling levers).
No, a secure southern border accomplishes much more than that.
First and foremost, it directs those seeking the comforts and security of the United States to arrive safely, in through the naturalization process with all the protection that this provides. It cuts into the business of the “coyotes” as well, whose ruthless tactics and predatory behavior has cut many a would-be Americans’ journey short.
But a secure border also keeps other things from entering America, including some of the Cartel’s biggest money makers.
Four times as much fentanyl is flowing across the United States-Mexico border under President Joe Biden compared to two years prior when former President Trump was in office.
During the launch of Reps. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Ken Calvert’s (R-CA) congressional caucus dedicated to the fentanyl crisis, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Mark Dunbar of the Murrieta Station in southern California noted that the level of fentanyl seizures has skyrocketed in the last year.
Just how bad has it gotten under Biden?
“Across sectors, we’re seeing the amount of fentanyl coming across the border almost doubling,” Dunbar said. “What we’re seeing coming across is equal to the amount of Americans who are dying from it in the U.S.”
In Fiscal Year 2019, about 2,800 pounds of fentanyl was seized at the border. The following year, that figure capped out at 4,800 pounds of fentanyl seized. By Fiscal Year 2021, which represents most of Biden’s first year in office, fentanyl seizures skyrocketed to about 11,200 pounds.
Already, in Fiscal Year 2022 that began October 1, 2021, about 5,300 pounds of fentanyl have been seized at the border.
The figures indicate that fentanyl seizures under Biden, last year alone, have quadrupled since Fiscal Year 2019 when Trump was in office.
Funding the cartels through lax border security, unwitting as it may be, is unacceptable, and the Biden administration is going to need to stop sitting on its hands and get to work down south.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on THANK YOU, JOE BIDEN, FOR INCREASING OUR TRADE WITH OUR SOUTHERN NEIGHBOR, MEXICO
Tinslee Lewis, the toddler given 10 days to live under an anti-Life Texas law, was released from the hospital Thursday, April 7, to go home with her family.
In November 2019, Tinslee became a victim of the deadly Texas 10-Day Rule, which places a 10-day countdown on patients’ lives after a hospital’s internal committee authorizes the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment against one’s will. Texas Right to Life’s patient advocacy team intervened on the ninth day of the 10-day countdown. Now, over 800 days later, Tinslee is alive, thriving, and growing. A happy and strong toddler, Tinslee’s health has so steadily improved that the hospital released her to go home.
Trinity Lewis, Tinslee’s mom, responded:
“We are so thankful for everyone who pulled together to help my daughter, including the doctors at Cooks, Texas Right to Life, our attorneys at Daniels & Tredennick law firm, Joe Nixon, Kassi Marks, and Protect Texas Fragile Kids. We have been cherishing and enjoying Tinslee being home, and we appreciate everyone who stepped up to help in any way as well.”
Tinslee Lewis’ story gained national attention when the deadly Texas 10-Day Rule was imposed on her at nine months old. Under the 10-Day Rule, hospitals may legally impose a countdown on patients’ lives against their own and their family’s will. So long as the hospital’s own ethics committee approves imposing the countdown, hospitals are legally allowed to end basic life-sustaining care (like a ventilator) to the patient. The sheer inhumanity, injustice, and cruelty of this Texas law was brought to light when the 10-Day Rule threatened the life of an innocent nine-month-old little girl.
Tinslee’s success story shows that in the absence of an anti-Life countdown, families and hospitals can work together for the benefit of the patient. Tinslee has received excellent care from Cook Children’s Medical Center. It is with their efforts that Tinslee will now transition to home health care. Meanwhile, Texas Right to Life is committed to doubling our efforts in the Capitol and with our full time patient advocacy team to combat and stop the deadly 10-Day Rule from destroying the lives of more vulnerable patients like Tinslee.
Thank you for standing with Tinslee, and please continue to pray for the Lewis family and all patients victimized by the 10-Day Rule.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on WERE YOU PART OF THE SUPPORT GIVEN TO TEXAS RIGHT TO LIFE’S SUCCESSFUL CAMPAIGN TO SAVE THE LIFE OF BABY TINSLEE LEWIS?
Twenty years ago, the writer George Weigel coined the phrase “the Truce of 1968” to describe the aftermath of the public dissent from Humanae Vitae, Paul VI’s encyclical reaffirming the Church’s teaching on contraception. In Weigel’s telling, the Church’s failure to publicly discipline the theologians who rejected Humanae Vitae (the Vatican allowed the priests who had dissented publicly to recant privately), taught Catholics that one could dissent without major repercussions and that the Vatican would not back those bishops who tried to enforce adherence to the encyclical.
One could quibble with the word “truce” in Weigel’s metaphor, as one could say the Vatican’s actions look more like capitulation than a mutual cease fire, but otherwise it is a useful metaphor to describe the state of the Catholic Church as a whole since the 1960s. The warring factions in the Church galvanized over contraception, and this unspoken, or nearly unspoken, agreement not to escalate their disagreements on these issues any further is what has kept the Church from splintering in the intervening years. The operating principle of this unspoken agreement appears to be this: that there would be no crackdown on dissent from Church teaching, as long as one did not openly push for changes in controversial teachings, at least not too openly.
ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW
One part of this unspoken truce was a prohibition on criticism of Vatican II, or the reforms that followed it. You could do pretty much anything you wanted as a theologian after 1968, but you could not openly criticize Vatican II. This is one reason why Marcel Lefebvre found himself ostracized by Church authorities and eventually excommunicated, while Hans Küng merely lost the right to call himself a Catholic theologian but died in good standing with the Church, despite publishing a book denying papal infallibility in principle.
There are several reasons why this became so crucial. One is that many Church leaders saw Vatican II as the Church’s peace treaty with the modern, secular world, and as crucial to its outreach to that world. Any criticism of Vatican II might seem like backsliding to an earlier era of conflict and strife. This concern motivates many “liberal” Catholics; as Cardinal Müller expressed it a few years ago, they believe secularization is irreversible, and so they seek to find a space where the Church can survive in a hostile secular society.
Of course, it was progressives in 1968 who leveraged their allies outside the Church—in the secular media, for example—to make the “truce” happen in the first place. This explains the prohibition on criticism of Vatican II: doing so would signal to the secular world that the Church was going back to a more combative stance, which would upset arrangements with secular society.
ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW
As Weigel pointed out, this truce made it much more difficult for those defending Church teaching on controversial issues, especially bishops. It also gave the impression that Church teaching was up for grabs on just about any topic. However wrong they may be about the permanence of secularization, those liberals were not wrong about the pressures of a hostile secular society.
In 1965, John Rockefeller III requested and received a 45-minute meeting with Paul VI, in which he tried to get the pope to alter Church teaching on contraception. Rockefeller even offered to ghost write the encyclical for him. Institutions such as the Ford Foundation, which was and remains a major promoter of “population control” (along with the Rockefeller Foundation), also pressed him to change the teaching. One can imagine how much greater those pressures are today. No one should have any illusions about what kind of societal forces are arrayed against the Church—they are very real, and very threatening.
For all the progressive complaints about them, neither John Paul II nor Benedict XVI’s meager attempts to discipline theologians like Hans Küng and Leonardo Boff amounted to a breaking of this truce. With the election of Francis, this has changed dramatically. From the beginning of his papacy, with his “who am I to judge” comments about homosexual behavior, Francis signaled his willingness to alter the terms of the truce and perhaps even break it.
ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW
This led progressives to become open with their demands, such that today we have a cardinal, Cardinal Hollerich, clearly a friend of the pope, who feels comfortable openly rejecting the Church’s teaching on homosexuality altogether. The most open challenge to the status quo, of course, is the German Church’s “Synodal Way,” which promises an almost wholesale revision of Church teaching, to say nothing of the mutual cease-fire of 1968.
Whatever the cardinals thought they were doing by electing him, many in the progressive faction clearly want Francis to put an end to the truce once and for all. But, so far, they have not been able to procure this; opponents managed to thwart them at the Synod on the Family in 2014, and such opposition also derailed the effort to dispense with clerical celibacy at the Amazonian Synod in 2019. It also appears that, for the time being, the attempt to suppress the old liturgy in Traditionis Custodes has faltered as well. Moreover, most of Francis’ acts have been personal in nature and could be undone by his successors.
The “Synodal Way” is another matter entirely. It would be a public repudiation of the 1968 compromise too obvious to ignore or paper over. This is why I think it will ultimately fail. One can see this by comparing it with the reaction to Traditionis Custodes. The reason it failed to gain acceptance is not because a great number of bishops and Catholics agree or even sympathize with the concerns of those who embrace the old liturgy. It failed because it was so clearly an attempt to punish the putative “dissent” of traditionalists who allegedly don’t “accept Vatican II.”
ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW
In other words, non-trad Catholics defended them because the progressives wanted to punish dissent, breaking one of the post-’68 taboos. It also demonstrated that Benedict XVI’s attempt to normalize traditionalists was working (has worked?), to the point where enough fellow Catholics now see “the truce” as including them, as they did not in the decades following the council. The memo circulating in Vatican circles, recently published by Vatican journalist Sandro Magister, suggests as much.
The Synodal Way is an even more brazen attempt to cancel this unspoken agreement, but it suffers from the same flaws. One of its (mostly) unspoken assumptions is that Vatican II did not go far enough in a progressive direction. In other words, it implicitly judges Vatican II to be a failure, a cardinal offense against the status quo. The idea that Vatican II is the touchstone for the modern Church has been a staple of clerical formation since the 1960s, and I may be wrong, but I do not believe enough bishops are yet willing to jettison this aspect of their priesthood for the sake of the German zombie Church and its aspirations. The increasingcriticism directed at the Synodal Way from the bishops would seem to confirm this.
Many Catholics of a traditional bent, myself among them, sometimes chafe at the way “mainstream” Catholics have been unwilling to take a more critical look at Vatican II and the reforms that followed the council. Indeed, I have to say I agree with the leaders of the German Synodal Way that Vatican II, at least in a practical sense, has failed, and the Church should not repudiate it so much as cease to treat it as a “super dogma,” as Joseph Ratzinger once put it. But until something else can, in practice, keep the Church from dissolving into schism, such criticism will remain on the fringes of ecclesial life.
This is the main reason why, however much it may gall faithful Catholics, the truce of ’68 still holds. The scandal of Catholic leaders, lay and clerical, denying articles of the Faith is why many faithful Catholics find this truce to be appalling and would like to end it. The people behind the Synodal Way would agree with them on this if nothing else.
And they are correct: the truce cannot last forever. At some point, the Church will either abandon essential aspects of the Faith where they conflict with secular power, which it cannot do, or suffer the consequences of defending them in an increasingly post-Christian Western world. But that day has not come, at least, not yet.
[Image: Pope Paul VI/Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich]
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.