The Department of Homeland Security has created a "Disinformation Governance Board". My! Doesn't that sound dystopian! That's because - it is! Just who the hell gets to decide what constitutes "disinformation"? Moreover, how is that "governed"? Nina Jankowicz, a rather unaccomplished individual, is the ostensible dictator director.
Let's just say right off the bat that this is clearly an egregious affront to the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech or of the press .." I suppose one could make the argument that Congress is not at fault for having been completely bypassed. However, that opens up the "separation of powers" can of worms.
She sings her own compositions, by the way. They are quite revealing. Here she is, singing about her desires to be "rich, famous, and powerful". Such lofty goals! Well, I guess she thinks she got her wish! Seriously, though, is this not a picture of a would-be petty tyrant?
In one of the links above is a video in which Tucker Carlson exposes more details about Madame Spin-Meister. One point he makes and that we should all echo is that we have to stand our ground and refuse to let this dizzy dame and her minions have their way.
Last Sunday, Laetare Sunday, the priest at Mass gave a homily regarding the link between the Eucharist and the priesthood. He recalled to our memories that Our Lord instituted both the Sacraments of the Eucharist and Holy Orders on the first Holy Thursday. The Holy Thursday mass commemorates both those realities. That is why it is an abomination that women have their feet washed along with men during the Novus Ordo version of that Mass, but I digress. Father went on to point out that the Church would cease to exist without these two Sacraments.
Whether or not Father intended to shed some additional light upon the current state of sacramental life in the Churches throughout the world, I don't know, but he did. The shutdowns as inflicted upon the Catholic Churches are an attempt to strangle the Church to death and to choke off a necessary avenue of grace for our world that is obviously in dire straits. I think it could very well be a deliberated goal on the part of some corrupt clergy, but it clearly is of the devils. There are, of course, the clergy who really have no faith in God nor belief in the spiritual realm, so they play right into the hands of the other masterminds.
The immediate dissembling and capitulation of our bishops in the face of immoral and unconstitutional intrusion by civic officials is nothing short of sinful. Indeed, in many cases, the bishops outdid the government in choking off the sacraments, and the graces that would flow from them. Now that some of the local governments are backing off the restrictions, some bishops are moving to retain them. The situation in Texas comes to mind. Governor Abbott has done away with most restrictions, but that state's bishops, with the exception of Bishop Strickland, are keeping the sacraments from their flocks.
We now have a situation in which the world is spiritually and physically dying for lack of Masses being offered and other Sacraments being conferred. It is up to us, the laity, to insist that Sacramental life be restored immediately, with our without the permission of increasingly rogue states. No more can we just suffer this situation in silence. If ever there was a time when "offering up" was simply a sanctimonious excuse for cowardice, now is that time.
For starters, please find below a petition that can be downloaded and mailed to your local bishop. When you send it in, sign your name. If you'd rather not spend the postage, you will be pleased to realize that many of the dioceses are having their annual appeals about now. Many of those campaigns include the distribution of postage-paid envelopes in which you can send donations. Well, use it for something more profitable to your diocese. Put your letter therein and send it. Please send them no money until they open both the Churches and the Sacraments.
As part of my efforts to glean and report on events vital to the Church, I peruse Facebook. On it I encounter all sorts of people from the truly concerned fathful Catholic to clueless and obstinate people. Those people are what we call the "far left" and "far right". For the purpose of this post, I'll focus on the latter, for I think their spewings can cause the most confusion among other faithful Catholics who are trying to sort through the mess made by progressives throughout the years.
Every once in a while these "rad trads" will spew nonsense that hearkens to Catholic-sounding stuff that isn't really Catholic. For instance, they often will rail against free speech, claiming that "error has no rights". From then they will segue into the evils of the United States Constitution, particularly the First Amendment. They claim that the First Amendment is how the United States government gives approval for pornography and religious errors.
Let's look at the First Amendment. I'll quote it here, as it isn't too long.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So where, oh where, is all this express allowance for pornography and the such? I don't see it. The Founding Fathers never insinuated that all speech is moral. They simply stated that it is not the role of Federal Government to decide those matters. The first 10 amendments are collectively known asa the Bill of Rights. Their primary function is to place limits on the powers of the Federal Government. That's it.
This same First Amendment means that these "rad trads" can spew such nonsense against their government, and not fear any reprisal. I'm sure that they take their free speech rights for granted. I'm also sure that this irony escapes them.
Then they'll whine on about the Constitution not being founded on Catholic principles. Well, of course it wasn't because Catholics have always been a minority in this country. Admittedly I would like to see more Catholicism in the Constitution. However, there is a way to fix that, and that is by amendment to the Constitution - a process put in place by those "evil" founding fathers. But that entails getting involved in US political processes, and here again is where "rad trads" engage in massive mental disconnects.
There are a few of them who actually hold to something called the "divine right of kings". Believing that ordinary citizens should have no say, they will rail against the heresy of Americanism. Yes, that actually is a heresy, but not what they think it is. They will cite Pope Leo XIII's letter to Cardinal Gibbons in 1899 titled Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae as their authority. Ok. I linked to it. Let's take a look at it. Leo is cautioning the US bishops against several specific matters:
The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith.
the confounding of license with liberty, the passion for discussing and pouring contempt upon any possible subject, the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases upon any subject and to set them forth in print to the world, have so wrapped minds in darkness that there is now a greater need of the Church’s teaching office than ever before, lest people become unmindful both of conscience and of duty
From this disregard of the – angelical virtues, erroneously styled passive, the step was a short one to a contempt of the religious life which has in some degree taken hold of minds. That such a value is generally held by the upholders of new views, we infer from certain statements concerning the vows which religious orders take. They say vows are alien to the spirit of our times, in that they limit the bounds of human liberty; that they are more suitable to weak than ›o strong minds; that so far from making for human perfection and the good of human organization
Read the letter for yourselves. I see no indication that the pope was condemning our system of government outright (by the way, it is a constitutional republic, not a democracy). In fact he remained totally neutral on it as a system of civil government. He did NOT yap and yammer about the "divine right of kings".
One favorite bone of contention is about elections, and the fact that often very flawed men are running for the same office. In a given election, both candidates may support intrinsic evils, but to widely varying extents. Regardless of these facts, they simply refuse to vote, to participate in that election whatsoever. They claim that they cannot support evil, no matter how much "evil" is involved. They fail - or refuse to - acknowledge that a vote is not always about advocacy but can be simply damage control. I thought that such obstinacy was simply being simplistic, but the ferocity and bombastic stances that they take cause me to suspect that a good deal of virtue-signalling may be occuring. The most recent "case in point" was the 2016 presidential election between Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton. I've written much in the past to illustrate that it was a moral evil to deny Trump one's vote; I needn't rehash it all now as you can go to this collection of my previous posts.
I will now post a video done by Michael Matt of the Remnant TV. He points out that after this Amazon Synod, the masks are coming off the progressives in the Vatican - and that includes the pope. They are attempting to implement the Sustainable Develop goals of the United Nations, a dream of theirs for quite a while. They knew that they had some formidable obstacles that stood in the way of their "one world rule" goal. One of them was the Catholic Church so they worked for years to subvert it. This synod is a clear sign that they have the pope on their side. Another obstacle to them is the United States under the leadership of Donald Trump. They are now working to undermine him, as he is succeeding in his goals of strengthening the USA against its outside adversaries, making it less likely that the USA will swallow the "one world rule" mantra. That is why the progressive USCCB recently lamented Trump's decision to pull the US out of that insidious Paris Agreement. They aim to derail Trump's work.
Obviously they will want to defeat Trump in the 2020 elections. The progresives will pull no stops to do so. The real question is, will these #nevertrump "rad-trads" be able to see past their egotistic virtue-signaling, or will they be willing dupes of the progressives as they seek to remove one of their few obstacles to global dominance? Now the video follows..
It seems that if Archbishop Fisichella has his way, Yours Truly (and others) will be excommunicated for speaking the truth about the grievous errors that are pouring forth from the Vatican on a daily basis, with a goodly portion of that error coming from the pope. In the same breath with which he spoke of this "year of mercy", he said that those who speak out against the pope's errors are guilty of "physical violence" and might require the ministrations of these specially-commissioned "missionaries of mercy". Fortunately, this nonsense from Fisichella appears to be its own collection of many errors; Dr. Ed Peters, canon lawyer, did an analysis that showed Fisichella's claims to be in contradiction to canon law.
While I'm sure that won't stop Fisichella, it does show how hollow are his veiled threats. I suspect that won't stop him or his buddies from attempting to silence us and prevent us from upholding Catholic truth. Similar things were accomplished in the Archdiocese of Washington over three years ago. In my own parish, at the beginning of Lent, Father Marcel Guarnizo denied Holy Communion to a flagrant lesbian, thus upholding Canon 915. When she went pouting to the Washington Post, Bishop Knestout - with the approval, if not direct order, from Cardinal Wuerl - stripped Father Guarnizo of his faculties and apologized to the lesbian for the attempt to prevent her from committing sacrilege. She made no secret that she wanted to destroy Father Guarnizo. Had Father been incardinated in this diocese and not elsewhere, I'm sure that the cowards of the DC chancery would have fallen all over themselves to do her bidding and laicize Father.
On another front, US Attorney General Loretta Lynch (a Minion Most Mindless if ever there was one) threatened to "take action" against "anti-muslim speech". Apparently the Messiah Most Miserable is quite adept at picking officials who neither know nor respect the US Constitution that they are sworn to uphold. Now, after a well-deserved drubbing after her tyrannical remarks, she appears to be back-peddling a bit. Too late, Toots! You're wise if you don't overreach yourself but now we know how your brain ticks (using the word "brain" loosely).
Do you see a pattern here? Progressive lemmings ensconced in high places, be it the Vatican or Washington DC, are lashing out against those who are exposing their chicanery. When the light shines, cockroaches run and they resent those who shine it. Perhaps we prick their consciences when we do, or simply make it harder for them to do their misdeeds under scrutiny. By God's grace, we must be doing something right; their rage and venom is proof. Hopefully they'll learn and be converted to real Christianity.
On Tuesday 5/12/15, Obama spoke at a "Catholic-Evangelical Leadership Summit On Overcoming Poverty". This hot-air exchange occurred at Georgetown University. I'd opine that Georgetown is once again frittering away its credibility as a Catholic institution, but after years of such nonsense, Georgetown has no Catholic credibility left to squander - but I digress!
The Messiah Most Miserable took the opportunity to take swipes at Christianity. The main theme of his nonsense is that we Christians should care less about abortion and more about poverty. Well, I have to hand it to him - he's fulfilling the role as Planned Parenthood lapdog perfectly. He also took jibes at families who send their children to private schools (Note! We wait with bated breath for the announcement that he'll soon withdraw his children from Sidwell!) Why? Well as you see in the link and its embedded video, these children start to develop (gasp!) an "anti-government ideology"! The horror! He continues, "and that, in part, contributes to the fact that there's less opportunity for our kids.." Our poor Dear Leader! He can't seem to make up his little mind! In another excerpt from the same gathering, he blames Fox News for the failed "war on poverty".
Now listen closely to this clip. Notice how he says that regarding poverty, "we'll have to change how the media reports on this issue.." Beg pardon! Leaving aside for the moment that most of the mainstream media is firmly ensconced in the progressive camp, just who is going to do this changing? Since most of the mainstream crowd is the de facto press office for the Dems, who are the others who will be targeted for such "change"? Would those targets include bloggers such as Yours Truly? The First Amendment has become, in the eyes of the Messiah Most Miserable, an inconvenience to be trashed. Political correctness stifles free speech everywhere, small Christian businesses are being ruined for not licking the boots of gay-rights tyrants, so why shouldn't "freedom of the press" be the next facet of the First Amendment to be jettisoned by these thugs?
Now onto another seemingly unrelated matter. There's a reason I put "seemingly" in italics; we'll get to that later. The Daily Caller reports that yesterday some bishops met behind closed doors with some US Senators to discuss the anticipated roll-out of the pope's environmental encyclical. That's odd, don't you think? Why, oh why, would Catholic bishops find it necessary to meet with elected officials to discuss the roll-out of any papal encyclical? Will there be some attempt to utilize the encyclical for envirowhacko legislation? My goodness! The timing of this meeting and the Georgetown gab-fest is so coincidental, don't you think? It's almost as if the bishops scurried to show the Messiah Most Miserable that they are willing to forget baby-murder for a while to and to embrace pet causes of the progressives.
I've noted that in other incidents, it appears that progressives within the Church seem emboldened in their efforts to turn the Church into a religous front for socialism. As you read the report from the envirowhacko meeting two weeks ago, you cannot help but notice the open call for population control, i.e., abortion, contraception and sterilization. I am one of a number of pro-life activists who have been fighting for an end to those aforementioned evils. Many of us have been baffled by the weak and often non-existent support from our Catholic clergy. To be fair, many good priests and bishops have stood with us and led the way; sadly they are the exception and not the rule. Many of us thought these clergy were just timid; and yet we've seen these same clergy pounce on their traditional-minded comrades with all the viciousness and efficiency that would have been the envy of Hitler and Stalin. Therefore I pose this question: Might the lack of clerical assistance and support with which we met over the years have been deliberate attempts to stymie our pro-life efforts? That's a question deserving of an honest answer.
I remember the deliberations over this in 2009 (I blogged on it then). It was unconstitutional and it was clear that the majority of the Montgomery County Council were simply doing the bidding of their sugar-daddies and money bags. This move was literally out of a NARAL playbook (and I have a copy of it, too!).
Comes now the news (from LifeNews) that a federal court today put the final kibosh on it. The ruling notes that the bill was an affront against the First Amendment.
Congratulations and thanks to the Centro Tepeyak Pregnancy Center, along with Alliance Defending Freedom. They were the lead plaintiff in this case and they - and all of us - prevailed. Of course this can only have good ramifications for other localities that are fighting this NARAL-spawned poison.
Senator Durbin is sworn to uphold the Constitution. There goes that oath of office - right down the crapper. What part of the First Amendment does he not understand? It must be the part that says "Congress shall make no law..". It certainly isn't up to Congress to imperiously declare who or what constitutes the "press". Any citizen can report on what he/she sees or thinks. Watch him below. Of course he's targeting bloggers and other users of "new media"; their mouthpieces in the New York Times, NBC, Washington Post etc no longer have monopolies on the flow of information.
By-the-bye.. Dick Durbin is another faux-katholyc who pushes marriage perversion and baby-murder. Therefore his arrogance isn't startling at all.
Ladies and gentlemen, we who offer Christian witness in front of the Planned Parenthood in Silver Spring Maryland have incurred some local displeasure over the exercise of our First Amendment rights. See herefor one such example. Here's another. Often, the police (I should say only "some" for one seems to have an axe to grind) have gotten in on the act, complaining that the signs have violated local ordinance.
How diligent they are, always on the lookout, to remove those nefarious, ordinance-violating signs! Well, not all the time apparently. Watch the video below, taken today.
Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying that "those who surrender essential liberties to obtain temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." Many of the products of progressive education and modern culture have allowed themselves to be rendered "sheeple", for lack of a better word. They are buying the codswallop that surrendering their Second Amendment rights will secure non-violence in society. Of course all that will do is make them even more vulnerable to violence and even tyranny from a government that no longer has constitutional restraints upon it.
The video below that just came to my attention is purportedly of a man telling folks that they should sign away the First Amendment to "get behind the president". I've no reason to assume this is a fake. That said, we see even more sheeple willing to be fleeced and ultimately slaughtered. It's way past time to wake up!
This past Sunday, September 30, I attended the ActsFive29 rally in Lafayette Park. I took a good deal of video, so much so that I have to break this post into two parts. I will intersperse clips with narrative, so..
When "Pope" Pelosi isn't busy monkeying around with Catholic teaching, she delights in showcasing her ignorance of the US Constitution. You may have heard by now that she would like to amend the First Amendment. She thinks that big, evil corporations play too big a role in the political arena of ideas.
She gave a press conference last Thursday during which she said, "We have a clear agenda in this regard: Disclose, reform the system reducing the role of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns. I think one of the presenters [at a Democratic forum on amending the Constitution] yesterday said that the Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that, indeed, is not an exaggeration. Our Founders had an idea. It was called democracy. It said elections are determined by the people, the voice and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. This Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our Founders’ vision and we want to reverse it."
Here it is again, with my comments in red.
"We have a clear agenda in this regard: Disclose, reform the system reducing the role of money in campaigns George Soros, you can relax! Somehow I'll think she'll find a way for you to wiggle your fat wads into progressive coffers! , and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns. Corporations have been in existence for hundreds of years, predating by many years the American Revolution. The Founding Fathers saw no issue with corporations. I think one of the presenters [at a Democratic forum on amending the Constitution] yesterday said that the Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that, indeed, is not an exaggeration. Our Founders had an idea. It was called democracy. Actually, their idea was a constitutional republic. It said elections are determined by the people, the voice and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. How many of you have seen corporations walk into the voting booth? In all my years of voting, I've only seen human beings walk into the polls. Boys and girls, can we say "straw man" - or "straw woman" so that we aren't sexist here! This Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our Founders’ vision and we want to reverse it." What she and her progressive pals want to reverse is the First Amendment. It needs no embellishment from you, Ms Pelosi! What you would like to do is to cripple avenues of free speech - such as the internet - so voices independent of the mainstream media (such as this humble little blog) would be gagged. You're not getting away with this! Naughty, naughty!
To the Montgomery County Council. In December 2009, you passed your version of the Pro-Life Pregnancy Center Strangulation Bill. Although you are undoubtedly playing cool and coy, you have been served notice of what the pro-life lawyers had tried to tell you during the hearings - that the measure is patently unconstitutional, a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
A few days ago, Judge Marvin Garbis threw Baltimore's regulations into the legislative dung heap for that very reason. With the kind permission of Mr. John Naughton, I'm going to reproduce his letter to you below. As the letter and my following commentary are lengthy, I'll put the break now.
Hint! They weren't particularly enthusiastic about the House's vote to repeal the Obama Hell Care bill! C'mon! It shouldn't be that hard to guess (more's the shame upon them)! It's the (drum roll, please!)
Your eminences and your excellencies, that's plain wrong for several reasons. First, what's needed is what we already have - the First Amendment, which guarantees that "Congress shall make no law..abridging the freedom of speech or of the press". We need freedom to express our ideas and beliefs. If the majority of those ideas should fall to one side or another, so be it. Which brings us to the second reason why the USCCB errs in this matter. What on earth is this "net neutrality"? Who determines that? The Feds? Why should any citizen or media outlet submit to their arbitrarily-contrived "standards"? Again, that runs completely afoul of the First Amendment.
So what may be a reason for the USCCB clamoring for this "net neutrality"? Why on earth would they lobby for regulations that could well impede the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which this Church is divinely commissioned to preach? Well, there are reasons - and you're looking at one right now!
If all media was "mainstream" and under the control of the establishment, including Church establishment, the hierarchy would feel no challenge to their doings and sayings - "doings and sayings" that often dissent from the Magisterium. Cochroaches hate the light, as do all nefarious beings. This blog, and thousands more outlets (a fine sampling is on the right side bar) expose their misdeeds and we call for reform. Because we are loud and persistent and not "politically correct", we often are successful in obtaining reform - or at least we succeed in embarrassing those clergy and church personnel who persist in their misbehaviors.
We, of course, need to fight this by lobbying the House of Representatives. This current House seems much more friendly to conservative values. And let's not forget, the House holds the Federal purse strings. This "net neutrality" stuff isn't a threat that just impacts conservative Christians, but all Americans. Shame on the USCCB for jumping onto yet another politically-correct bandwagon of the progressives.
USCCB = Undercover Synod of Communists Concealed by Bishops
Here are some clear reasons why "net neutrality" as proposed by the Feds is a farce. For one thing, who determines "neutrality" - some bureaucrats in DC? Exercises of free speech, particularly those that take issue with the anti-God, anti-life and anti-moral denisons of DC, such as this blog, would be endangered. And make no mistake about it- your First Amendment rights are in the crosshairs, too!
Newsbuster exposes the blatant wish of Al Sharpton to have the FCC go after Rush Limbaugh. Here's the video. (Click here if you can't see embedded video).
Then yesterday, Jay Rockefeller, Senator (D-WV) took time out from a Senate committee meeting to lob shots at both Fox News and MSNBC. He opens this clip be talking about "the system we have for developing television content." Pray tell, who is this "we"? Since when does the Federal government have diddly-squat to do with "developing television content"? Why, oh why, do these progressive busybodies concern themselves with what we watch and how? Read the First Amendment - it's simply none of their damned business. Look at this clip (click here if you can't see embedded video).
Make no mistake. This is all about establishing a progressive monopoly on information and the publishing of opinion. Blogs such as this one will soon be in their crosshairs. Then your freedom to say what you want and read what you want will exist no more. The elections a few weeks ago are only a first step in pushing back this monster. We must be relentless in our vigilance and efforts.
In addition to the post from yesterday regarding the surveillance of the Fairfax 40 Days for Life, there are other incidents of pro-life and pro-family Christians suffering retribution for merely voicing their convictions. I will give the links to the relevant stories on other sites.
On September 27th, a pro-life group called the Survivors were arrested for standing on a public sidewalk as they shared pro-life truth to a high school. They were not on school property, but the sidewalk. Read the Lifenews account.
Yesterday, in Ontario, five pro-life college students were arrested when they attempted to set up a pro-life display at Carleton University. See the Lifesite News article here, along with the youtube clip.
These are just the latest incidents this week. Fellow pro-lifers and Christians, if we don't start using our First Amendment rights to stand for our beliefs, we will find these rights stripped from us with impugnity, as the right to life is brazenly stripped from unborn children.
This is a two-part post. From today's Lifenews we read that on August 25th, the Obama administration brought in Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Federation and the Feminist Majority Foundation to conduct a "training" in Oregon for the FBI and Department of Justice. The topic? Why, "violence against reproductive health centers", of course! By describing our First Amendment speech as violent, they seek to inhibit us from speaking out. I would suspect that is why they allowed prolife advocates to sit in on this training. The advocates who attended obtained a booklet; it is on the Lifenews site and the pdf is downloadable.
The second part of this post pertains to Obama's paranoia regarding Fox News, as reported by Newsmax. You see, unlike those paragons of unbiased reporting such as the New York Times and the Washington Post (stop snickering!), Fox News has the audacity to (Sit down, now! Have the smelling salts handy) a point of view that is (gasp!) DESTRUCTIVE! How so, you might ask? Why, it's because the Messiah Most Miserable disagrees with it! Understand now?
NO! "Freedom of religion" is a God-given right (not government-granted). The First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that the government will do nothing to infringe upon that right. Implicit in such guarantee is government's acknowledgment of its subordination to the individuals who comprise the US citizenry - and their God.
Listen now to Chuck Colson as he exposes progressive attempts to diminish our understanding of our God-given rights. (Click here if you can't see embedded videos)
I am troubled that these two events seem to be coinciding so conveniently. While I truly hope their almost simultaneous occurences are just coincidental, I cannot help but notice a common thread. Too many "leaders" seem to view those of us, be we bloggers or Tea-Party activists, as threats to their cushy little situations.
Here's more information on the DISCLOSE act that passed the House.
